What does the Libertarian model for marriage look like?

[P3ter_Griffin]

Oh my lord. The two things, if I remember correctly, were defense is a '*something* good', and then something about a vacuum of power. How in the hell does adoption have anything to do with either of those? Maybe you could expand on why the state needs to be involved in regulating adoption.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Oh my lord. The two things, if I remember correctly, were defense is a '*something* good', and then something about a vacuum of power. How in the hell does adoption have anything to do with either of those? Maybe you could expand on why the state needs to be involved in regulating adoption.

There must be uniform rules governing adoption. Unlike marriage, adoption is not a matter of contract between consenting adults; the terms of adoption cannot be "whatever the contracting parties agreed to." Suppose both parents of a child are killed in a car accident. Who can adopt the child? What happens if multiple people want to adopt the child? Adoption law is about resolving such disputes: i.e. disputes between different potential adults over custody of the child. Since these disputants never had any prior contractual agreement as to who may adopt the child, the dispute cannot be settled by reference to "whatever the contract said," but rather in reference to some general principles: uniform rules for all cases.

That was my point, distinguishing between disputes resolved by universal principles, and disputes resolved by reference to contracts.

Anarchy v. Minarchy has nothing to do with it. I'm a minarchist, so naturally I said that it is the state which must create the adoption law (as it creates all law). But if you're an anarchist, you can say that it is the competing private security firms that will create the adoption law (as they would create all law in anarchy).

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

There must be uniform rules governing adoption. Unlike marriage, adoption is not a matter of contract between consenting adults; the terms of adoption cannot be "whatever the contracting parties agreed to." Suppose both parents of a child are killed in a car accident. Who can adopt the child? What happens if multiple people want to adopt the child? Adoption law is about resolving such disputes: i.e. disputes between different potential adults over custody of the child. Since these disputants never had any prior contractual agreement as to who may adopt the child, the dispute cannot be settled by reference to "whatever the contract said," but rather in reference to some general principles: uniform rules for all cases.

That was my point, distinguishing between disputes resolved by universal principles, and disputes resolved by reference to contracts.

Anarchy v. Minarchy has nothing to do with it. I'm a minarchist, so naturally I said that it is the state which must create the adoption law (as it creates all law). But if you're an anarchist, you can say that it is the competing private security firms that will create the adoption law (as they would create all law in anarchy).

I do not see why there is a need to involve the state or a private security firm. If they do not have preconsidered 'God parents', family should decide who raises the child, and if they have no family then adoption agencies in one of their forms would generally find suitable parents for the child. Or maybe a neighbor, or coworker, so forth and so on. The child itself, even if it isn't old enough to be thought worthy of their signature on a contract, may know best through it's life experience who other than their parents was loving and nurturing and fit to fill the role. I think that your faith that uniformity, exerted by coercive authorities, will provide the best situation for the child is misplaced, if that is your goal.

I really question the notion that private security firms in a free society would attempt to regulate adoption. I could see, for instance, if an adoption agency was found to be selling children into slavery that individuals would hire a private security firm to 'deal' with them, so law in that sense. But I do not see a group of individuals exerting force in the regulation of adoption, for such characteristics as sexual orientation, having long lasting success in a free society. And this goes both ways, I also do not see those in favor of gay adoption having long term success in forcing churches or any adoption agency that chooses to not adopt to homosexuals to do so in a free society.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

I am (tangentially) convinced that gay people (married or not) should not be able to adopt.

I would amend that to say "same-sex couples" shouldn't adopt, i.e., that a child should have no more than one father and one mother. To say that no "gay people" at all should adopt is too broad. For instance, if a child is orphaned, the gay uncle should have dibs over a stranger.

 

[presence]

It's hard to respond to the points in the graphic because they aren't copy and paste-able.

..

1) Sponsor spouse for immigration

2) file income tax joint

3) joint parenting; access to children's records

4) next of kin emergency medical

5) family visitation in hospital

6) custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, alimony

7) qualify for domestic violence intervention

8) spousal funeral and bereavement leave

9) inherit property

10) officer killed spousal benefit

11) spousal SS payments

12) immunity from testifying against spouse

13) apply for housing assistance as family

14) copyright renewal for deceased spouse

15) Mt Arlington spousal burial

 

[presence]

1) Sponsor spouse for immigration

I-864
http://www.immihelp.com/affidavit-of-support/sponsor-responsibilities-obligations.html

2) file income tax joint

Flat Tax with no loopholes for anyone.
Better no income tax.

3) joint parenting; access to children's records

Free sample custody agreement for shared, joint or primary custody situations.
http://www.mrcustodycoach.com/blog/resources/free-sample-custody-agreement

4) next of kin emergency medical

Legal contract, next of kin; medical release of records

5) family visitation in hospital

Same as #4

6) (a)custodial rights to children, (b)shared property, (c)child support, (d)alimony

a) Child custody contracts
b) Buyout bids with shared proceeds
c&d) Legally mandated "child support" and "alimony" are a moral hazard and should be outlawed.


7) qualify for domestic violence intervention

Is not a role for government; this should be delegated to churches and NGO's.

8) spousal funeral and bereavement leave

Should between employer and employee and not involve the government

9) inherit property

Final Will and Testament

10) officer killed spousal benefit

Shouldn't be available to anyone.

11) spousal SS payments

Shouldn't be available to anyone.

12) immunity from testifying against spouse

Civil Union contract

13) apply for housing assistance as family

Yet another feign neediness loophole that should be closed all together

14) copyright renewal for deceased spouse

Patents and Copyrights should be outlawed.

15) Mt Arlington spousal burial

Mt Arlington should be closed for new burials. Its a jingoist propaganda program; idolatrous shrine of the war machine.

 

[Carlybee]

Does it matter? The Collectivists outnumber us. The libertarian model for marriage should be that there is no model for marriage, however that will never happen because we are forced to acquiesce to authority and mob rule on every level of our lives now.

 

[erowe1]

Voluntary in the sense that an individual has a choice to participate in it or not.

I don't understand your position. Fisharmor outlined a set of changes to government voluntarizing things that are obligatory in the status quo. You then asked if such a government should be obligatory, which is the same thing as asking if not stealing should be obligatory. Of course it's not stealing if it's voluntary. That's the whole point of everything fisharmor said. The only thing that would be forced on anybody is the disallowing of them to force their will on others with violence.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I do not see why there is a need to involve the state or a private security firm. If they do not have preconsidered 'God parents', family should decide who raises the child, and if they have no family then adoption agencies in one of their forms would generally find suitable parents for the child. Or maybe a neighbor, or coworker, so forth and so on. The child itself, even if it isn't old enough to be thought worthy of their signature on a contract, may know best through it's life experience who other than their parents was loving and nurturing and fit to fill the role.

Which family (do we include 3rd cousins)? How? By unanimous consent? By majority vote? What if they disagree?

Answers to these questions constitute uniform rules for adoption.

I think that your faith that uniformity, exerted by coercive authorities, will provide the best situation for the child is misplaced, if that is your goal.

I think you haven't thought this through.

I really question the notion that private security firms in a free society would attempt to regulate adoption. I could see, for instance, if an adoption agency was found to be selling children into slavery that individuals would hire a private security firm to 'deal' with them, so law in that sense. But I do not see a group of individuals exerting force in the regulation of adoption, for such characteristics as sexual orientation, having long lasting success in a free society. And this goes both ways, I also do not see those in favor of gay adoption having long term success in forcing churches or any adoption agency that chooses to not adopt to homosexuals to do so in a free society.

Unlike most anarchists, you seem to think that anarchy means the absence of any fixed norms or laws.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

I don't understand your position. Fisharmor outlined a set of changes to government voluntarizing things that are obligatory in the status quo. You then asked if such a government should be obligatory, which is the same thing as asking if not stealing should be obligatory. Of course it's not stealing if it's voluntary. That's the whole point of everything fisharmor said. The only thing that would be forced on anybody is the disallowing of them to force their will on others with violence.

I do not think it is safe to assume that a liberty minded individual's view on 'what ought government be' always results in one which is voluntary, or inclusive (in the sense that no force is used to prevent the establishment of) of other voluntary governments. For example, I have many times heard that tariffs could be used to pay for 'necessary government functions', and maybe it would be modified to rectify this, but I doubt it excludes imported merchandise destined for individuals or businesses who would not wish to participate with the government created by this liberty minded individual.

But maybe fisharmor was talking about a completely voluntary society where individuals could choose to form and participate in voluntary governments which had such programs as SS and prisons and so on. And I don't doubt it, I hoped we would come to that agreement. But then lets look at the logic as to what this presents as the path forward:

We (you guys, fisharmor himself, whomever) need to put in the work to disembowel this government. And those who wish for a voluntary government that resembles this one must put in the work to rebuild one. That resembles a broken window fallacy to me. Why not save the work for both parties and allow those who wish for a big socially and economically intrusive (to those that voluntarily participate) government to retain this one, and then create your own? I see only one 'benefit', to whomever controls this government last will control the assets, but if its benefits that are sought after than I have no sympathy. But I will pass no judgment on whether individuals choose to fight to retain control of this government and make it the size of their liking, or to start a new one, it is a subjective one but starting a new one just strikes me as the logical decision. What is important is making participation with this current government voluntary, priority numero uno, and then those that wish to stay to retain control of this government and shrink its size; eliminate marriage and SS and prisons and so forth, or those that wish to form governments anew, or anything in between, are free to do so. If we are to wait till complete disembowelment of this government to recapture our freedoms I think very few if any of us will live to see the day. Essentially the inability to not participate in this government is what creates the problems, the decisions as to whether there should be licensing, whether individuals should go to prison for smoking pot, if blacks should be able to sit at the front of the bus, etc, are all subjective. Our quest may be guiding us closer to what is 'right' under a coercive government with no ability to refuse participation, but I think it may be leading to us 'spinning our tires' whereas we should be going for the jugular, and making sure participation is voluntary.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

Which family (do we include 3rd cousins)? How? By unanimous consent? By majority vote? What if they disagree?

Answers to these questions constitute uniform rules for adoption.

I will save us the possibility of an infinite loop and I will just say I do not seek to answer these questions. I think, by way of my faith that most individuals are good, that most children who need adoption will have a better outcome if not done by the state. Maybe I am wrong, and in a free society orphans or the like will have it terrible, it does not change my position.

I think you haven't thought this through.

Please provoke the thoughts you think I need.

Unlike most anarchists, you seem to think that anarchy means the absence of any fixed norms or laws.

I gave you an example of a law, if an adoption agency is selling children into slavery individuals will be proactive and stop it, because it is wrong. That is not the only one I think would prevail, but it is an example of one.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I will save us the possibility of an infinite loop and I will just say I do not seek to answer these questions. I think, by way of my faith that most individuals are good, that most children who need adoption will have a better outcome if not done by the state. Maybe I am wrong, and in a free society orphans or the like will have it terrible, it does not change my position.

You're not understanding what I'm saying..

The issue is not whether the state is necessary to handle adoption.

The issue is whether there must be rules governing adoption.

I am saying there must be rules. How else are adoption disputes to be resolved?

When there's an adoption dispute, I want the judge (whether a state judge or an ancap judge) to make his decision on the basis of certain principles.

Not just willy nilly however he feels like it that day.

That is what I mean by "uniform rules for adoption."

And the distinction I was making between contract disputes and adoption disputes is this; in the former, the rule is that the judge should make his decision in reference to the contract; in the latter, there is no contract, so we need rules for how the judge is to make his decision (unless you don't care and think any decision will do).

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

You're not understanding what I'm saying..

The issue is not whether the state is necessary to handle adoption.

The issue is whether there must be rules governing adoption.

I am saying there must be rules. How else are adoption disputes to be resolved?

When there's an adoption dispute, I want the judge (whether a state judge or an ancap judge) to make his decision on the basis of certain principles.

Not just willy nilly however he feels like it that day.

That is what I mean by "uniform rules for adoption."

And the distinction I was making between contract disputes and adoption disputes is this; in the former, the rule is that the judge should make his decision in reference to the contract; in the latter, there is no contract, so we need rules for how the judge is to make his decision (unless you don't care and think any decision will do).

I'm saying that there need not be rules governing adoption. And that adoption disputes will be handled however the interested parties end up handling the matter. The judge I envision may be words, may be money, may be a little fisticuffs, or maybe a gun. So to may another decide themselves judge based on others actions though.

It is not that I do not care about other peoples decisions, it is just that I do not need another judge to tell me if they are wrong or not.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

@P3ter_Griffin

Before we continue discussing adoption, I need to know how you think the legal system should work in general.

...because what you're describing does not sound like standard anarcho-capitalism (which has competing private judges but a uniform legal code).

...what you're describing sounds more like anarchy in the pejorative sense (chaos, nihilism, no law, anything goes).

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

@P3ter_Griffin

Before we continue discussing adoption, I need to know how you think the legal system should work in general.

...because what you're describing does not sound like standard anarcho-capitalism (which has competing private judges but a uniform legal code).

...what you're describing sounds more like anarchy in the pejorative sense (chaos, nihilism, no law, anything goes).

How can you say anything goes where if you sell children into slavery your liable to get shot in the head?

The uniform code would be a culmination of individuals' 'pressure points' whereby another individual provokes a response. Individuals with 'to soft' of pressure points will obviously provoke pressure points of others, until such a time that liberty is respected.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

How can you say anything goes where if you sell children into slavery your liable to get shot in the head?

The uniform code would be a culmination of individuals' 'pressure points' whereby another individual provokes a response. Individuals with 'to soft' of pressure points will obviously provoke pressure points of others, until such a time that liberty is respected.

As I said, chaos, nihilism.

You want law to emerge spontaneously, but apparently don't care what the end result is.

The "che sara sara" theory of law.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

As I said, chaos, nihilism.

You want law to emerge spontaneously, but apparently don't care what the end result is.

The "che sara sara" theory of law.

Do you think Darwinist would be appropriate? I quite like the term.

As I have referenced throughout in this thread, I think many people would want to participate in a voluntary government. For how these would handle your scenarios, check their laws or constitution. I have briefly outlined how I perceive a free society would handle justice. I do not accept an emote as an explanation as to why something is bad.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

I have briefly outlined how I perceive a free society would handle justice.

The view you've expressed is that any law code which emerges spontaneously is good.

If that's your position, well okay, but I want to make it clear that that is not libertarianism.

For a libertarian, only libertarian law is good (duh), not just any law which happens to emerge spontaneously.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

The view you've expressed is that any law code which emerges spontaneously is good.

If that's your position, well okay, but I want to make it clear that that is not libertarianism.

For a libertarian, only libertarian law is good (duh), not just any law which happens to emerge spontaneously.

I do not know if 'spontaneous' is the right word. Is the economy as its whole spontaneous? I would rather think of it as a body of informed consumers and producers.

ETA:

As I also mentioned, things could be bad in a free society, the ill informed may have more resources than the well informed managed to gather on some matter. Allowing this competition I think will generally result in the 'good side' prevailing though.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

As I also mentioned, things could be bad in a free society, the ill informed may have more resources than the well informed managed to gather on some matter. Allowing this competition I think will generally result in the 'good side' prevailing though.

Then, going back to the beginning of our discussion, you must indeed believe that there should be one particular law code.

Otherwise, how could you distinguish between good and bad sides in this market competition?

What does the law look like if the good side wins? Answer that question, and that is the law code that you believe in.

Note the difference between saying:
(a) whatever law code emerges from the market is good,
and (b) there is one good law code and that is probably what will emerge from the market.