Libertarianism, property rights, contracts etc.

[joel]

This thread was split from this (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2166981) one. Please note that the original thread is in a "Christian only" area.



I agree that the government should have nothing to do with marriage. Marriage is an institution of the church, and the government has no business interfering.

As for property rights, marital obligations/rights, etc. Individuals should be able to make whatever contracts they wish between themselves.

As for children, the government's proper role is to enforce the parents' (both of them) obligations to their offspring, regardless whether the parents are married.

As for adoption, again it is the parents' obligation to support (or find others to agree to take over the obligation to support) their offspring. If the parents refuse to transfer the obligation to a particular person or persons, that is their right.

As far as all the stuff about "public wealfare", we are talking about government action. Government action is only done by means of force (either direct force, the threat of it, or indirectly through taxation). Force can be just only when it is used for enforcing obligations (e.g., enforcing the parents' obligation to their children, and enforcing contracts among individuals). So as far as I can see, government marriage licensure is unjust. Therefore public wealfare is irrelevant. No benefits or costs (to public or individual wealfare) can justify injustice.

Therefore there is no proper role of government in marriage other than to enforce obligations that arise apart from the government.

[Teallaura]

:lolo: Allowing your definition of governmental power you just defined all of governing - God's included - as unjust.

Ya might wanna be a bit more specific there in Step 3... :twitch:

[joel]

:lolo: Allowing your definition of governmental power you just defined all of governing - God's included - as unjust.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was speaking only of civil government--that is, a society's ordering of the use of force among men.

Nothing I said implies that all civil government is unjust. I only said that enforcing obligations is the only just use of force, and thus is the just role of civil government. That is--it is theoretically possible to have just government, and we should strive toward that goal.


Ya might wanna be a bit more specific there in Step 3... :twitch:
What's "Step 3"? Or did I answer it above?

[Teallaura]

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was speaking only of civil government--that is, a society's ordering of the use of force among men.

Nothing I said implies that all civil government is unjust. I only said that enforcing obligations is the only just use of force, and thus is the just role of civil government. That is--it is theoretically possible to have just government, and we should strive toward that goal.You need to define how the heck licensure is force in this regard - there are no penalties, criminal or otherwise. No force as you define it (and I'm extremely dubious of your definition - by your logic there should be no regulation of anything outside the penal code or contract law and maybe real estate. Unregulated traffic strikes me as unwise to say the least) exists - so how again is this unjust?

You've lost sight of the fact that government has the right to impose obligations just as it does when it requires everyone to drive on the right side of the road. Government can and does impose then enforce obligations - this would be true of all laws. The appeal to obligation simply does not render licensure unjust since the government has the right to impose obligations. You need another basis because you've only defined all laws as unjust if you deny government's right to impose obligations (a citizen is obliged to obey the laws so any imposition of law/regulation will come under the 'obligation' banner).

You've got to either concede that government has the right to impose obligations in which case your objection that licensure is unjust fails or you have to deny that right in which case all civil government is unjust.

What's "Step 3"? Or did I answer it above?It's a reference to an old cartoon. Two scientists are standing in front of a blackboard with a complex mathematical problem written on it. On the third line, instead of more computations, the words 'then the miracle occurs' appear and then the calculations continue below. One scientist says to the other 'you need to be more specific in step 3'.

[micah4]

You need to define how the heck licensure is force in this regard - there are no penalties, criminal or otherwise.


Government Agent: Hello mr. smith, we're here to collect $12.45 in taxes to pay for the bureau of vital statistics budget to issue marriage licenses and employ a justice of the peace to perform weddings.

Mr. Smith: I'm not going to pay for that, marriage is the Church's responsibility, not the state's.

Government Agent: Very well then, if you don't want to pay your taxes, please accompany me to the nearest jail.

Mr. Smith: No thank you, my schedule is a little bit busy.

Government Agent: Hello, central office? Please send me some billy clubs, tear gas, an armored car and a squadron of jack-booted thugs immediately. We have an apparent Iranian terrorist here who has been hiding income, possibly from child pornography, and is resisting arrest. Yes, you can freeze all his bank accounts and confiscate any other financial assets effective immediately. We'll let them sort the truth out when he gets to the waterboarding rooms in Guantanamo.

[Teallaura]

:rofl: There's no legal requirement to apply for a marriage license merely to live together; the requirement only occurs when you wish to marry. Just like you don't have a legal obligation to get a driver's license you have no obligation to get a marriage license - you simply do not enjoy the privileges if you don't. You are only required to obtain a license if you wish to gain the legal privileges associated with marriage - or driving. Again, no criminal penalties exist - you either pay for the license or you don't get it. No asset seizure, no garnishment, no liens - nothing. You don't want to pay, fine - you just walk out without the license.

[joel]

You need to define how the heck licensure is force in this regard - there are no penalties, criminal or otherwise. No force as you define it exists - so how again is this unjust?
No force? Then let's take a closer look. If there is no use of force, then anyone could do it. I could form a company that issues marriage certificates. If no force is involved then my certificates should be just as useful as, say, the State of Wyoming's certificates. Explain to me the difference between my certificates and Wyoming's.


by your logic there should be no regulation of anything outside the penal code or contract lawAmen!


Unregulated traffic strikes me as unwise to say the leastWe each have a universal obligation not to be reckless or neglegent with other people's lives. Thus you might be able to convince me that some government regulation of traffic is warranted. But I would say the regulation should be done by the private owners of the road--not allowing people to drive on their road if they don't abide by the rules. They can bring criminal negligence to the attention of the civil authorities as the situation warrants.


You've lost sight of the fact that government has the right to impose obligations just as it does when it requires everyone to drive on the right side of the road.As I understand it, it became customary for people to pass by each other on the right. It became a reckless, neglegent thing dangerous to other people's lives to do otherwise. Again, the private owners of the road should set the rules, though.


Government can and does impose then enforce obligations- this would be true of all laws.I still can't think of a case where government (e.g., a number of individuals, or majority vote) can justly impose a not-previously-existing-obligation on another individual.


You need another basis because you've only defined all laws as unjust if you deny government's right to impose obligations (a citizen is obliged to obey the laws so any imposition of law/regulation will come under the 'obligation' banner).No, the government cannot justly impose obligations. But it can justly enforce obligations. For example, you have the pre-existing obligation not to murder me. A just government's law against murder is not a creation of this obligation, but a recognizing and enforcing of it.
You are getting dangerously close to a relativistic or might-makes-right view of justice. Is the majority (or whoever else is in power) being just if they decide to pass laws to enslave the rest of their fellow man?


You've got to either concede that government has the right to impose obligations in which case your objection that licensure is unjust fails or you have to deny that right in which case all civil government is unjust.No, again, just government recognizes and enforces obligations, but does not create them. (In other terminology, the government does not justly grant privledges, but recognizes rights.)

[MrTulip]

The participants in a marriage usually seek social recognition for their relationship, and many societies require official approval of a religious or civil body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

It is this requirement for official approval that marriages are licensed. As far as a biblical justification for it ... you will not find it as a specifically mandated biblical practice. However, it is the law of the land in most of the world.

[joel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

It is this requirement for official approval that marriages are licensed. As far as a biblical justification for it ... you will not find it as a specifically mandated biblical practice. However, it is the law of the land in most of the world.
There are other ways (hint: the Church!) for social approval than government action (which entails the use of force).

[Teallaura]

No force? Then let's take a closer look. If there is no use of force, then anyone could do it. I could form a company that issues marriage certificates. If no force is involved then my certificates should be just as useful as, say, the State of Wyoming's certificates. Explain to me the difference between my certificates and Wyoming's.Wyoming's bestows marriage benefits; yours only takes up wall space. There's still no penalty - they won't arrest you for that. Only if you use your made up license to try to gain benefits by claiming it's a Wyoming license do you get penalized - for fraud.

Amen!:lolo:

We each have a universal obligation not to be reckless or neglegent with other people's lives.Nice sentiment - who enforces it or is it okay with you when I run you off the road 'cause I like driving on the left?

Thus you might be able to convince me that some government regulation of traffic is warranted. But I would say the regulation should be done by the private owners of the road--not allowing people to drive on their road if they don't abide by the rules. They can bring criminal negligence to the attention of the civil authorities as the situation warrants.Self-contradictory - it can be government or private owners but it can't be both. In reality, it must necessarily be government unless you are advocating anarchy. Government would provide the authority even in your 'lots less than well thought out' private regulation scheme.

As I understand it, it became customary for people to pass by each other on the right. It became a reckless, neglegent thing dangerous to other people's lives to do otherwise. Again, the private owners of the road should set the rules, though.Do you have something against people being able to travel? Seriously, this is probably the most backward policy idea I've ever seen. If all roads are toll road say good-bye to reasonable prices for anything - Bob owns one mile; Susie two; Marty a half mile and they are all charging whatever they want to to use their roads since you have no regulations to prohibit price gouging. Getting to anything market is going to be expensive as all get out. Do you like hate farmers or something?

Oh, and it gets better - Bob says drive on the right but Susy likes the left and Marty set a 10 mph speed limit. Between the inconsistent traffic laws, the law abiding drivers will be lucky if they can figure out for any given stretch what they are supposed to be doing. And when the drivers who don't obey the laws show up who's gonna stop them? No regulation via government, no enforcement - ya need taxes to do that. Not to mention people get really ill about having no say in what laws are passed - we have legislatures for a reason.

I still can't think of a case where government (e.g., a number of individuals, or majority vote) can justly impose a not-previously-existing-obligation on another individual.You conceded this point when you acknowleged penal and contract law. Both are impositions and both can create not previously existing obligations. That you hate regulation doesn't make it unjust - especially when you are perfectly willing to put regulatory powers in the hands of individual property owners! When Bob sets his speed limit he is exercising regulatory power and creating a not previously existing obligation. I'd rather have a majority vote than individuals arbitrarily exercising regulatory powers.

The reason that customs get converted into laws is that only government can enforce via law. Customs work fine until people ignore them - or are unaware of them - or when they thing involved impacts too many people in too many different ways for 'custom' to equitably settle matters.

No, the government cannot justly impose obligations. But it can justly enforce obligations. So individuals in your world can justly impost obligations but representative government can't? :lolo: How ya gonna justly enforce something arbitrarily created and which people cannot reasonably be expected to know all the rules for - e.g. your individually imposed traffic regulations.

You're trapped the instant you say that 'owners can get together and decide' - that's government right there - legitimacy being highly questionable, but government nonetheless.

For example, you have the pre-existing obligation not to murder me. A just government's law against murder is not a creation of this obligation, but a recognizing and enforcing of it.I do? Says who? You need an authority there, dude. I'm perfectly willing to accept Scripture as that authority but ya may have a bit of trouble convincing the resident atheists on that one. I'm unwilling to accept 'custom' as a dictator of obligation so what works for the Christian won't work for the atheist and vice versa. Government fills that void - nothing else can legitimately let alone justly.


You are getting dangerously close to a relativistic or might-makes-right view of justice. Is the majority (or whoever else is in power) being just if they decide to pass laws to enslave the rest of their fellow man?And you are dangerously (and I'd say past the point) close to pure anarchy - is an individual any more just in enslaving his neighbor? You assume too much - you have no authority for the supposed 'obligations' you set forth. If there is no representative government to sort out who really has what obligations then anyone may impose - or ignore - whatever 'obligation' rightfully as that obligation was not created legitimately nor justly. They're just things you personally say we should and should not do - but who put you in authority? Who made you governor?

No, again, just government recognizes and enforces obligations, but does not create them. (In other terminology, the government does not justly grant privledges, but recognizes rights.)This is patently false. Government does justly and legitimately create obligations, regulations and privileges. How government arrives at its conclusions may or may not be just - I never argued all laws were just - but it does rightfully possess the power to do so and as such there is no intrinsic injustice in governmental regulation.

[Pilgrim]

Here's a thought I had. Since it is licensed by the state I think the marriage certificate and the vows that go with it should be viewed as a legal contract and if one partner breaks that contract the other side should have no further obligation.

I've got a few folks coming to me now who were divorced by their spouses for no good reason other than that they wanted to play the field again. now those spouses feel entitled to support. And the thing is, the court grants them that. I say if you leave for no cause other than your own you should not be able to get any support and you should be penalized for breech of contract.

[Teallaura]

Um, it is treated much like a contract - but breech of contract doesn't always automatically end all obligation on the part of the other party.

[Pilgrim]

I get that but in some ways its really not. For instance: a woman divorces her husband for no fault. He doesn't want it. She's just decided she wants something different now. She takes the kids, the house and the court tells him he owes support now. How in the world is that fair? In any other contractual situation such a resolution would not be considered.

[Teallaura]

Depends on the support. alimony and I agree with you; child support is a very different matter - the kids didn't divorce Dad and dont deserve to pay the consequences (well, anymore than is unavoidable) of Mom's selfishness.

[Pilgrim]

How about when mom actually makes more than dad? I've seen dads totally crushed by a system that totally favors the mothers in almost every circumstance. But that's probably out of the scope of this thread.

[Teallaura]

Yup, now we're into divorce law. I'm all for major revisions of same - a lot of what we have now is pure crap. I'm just saying looking at it strictly as breech of contract won't do what you want it to.

[micah4]

You conceded this point when you acknowleged penal and contract law. Both are impositions and both can create not previously existing obligations.


Sorry to butt in, but, how so? Not murdering me is a pre-existing obligation, not stealing what is established as my property is a pre-existing obligation. These aren't obligations that didn't exist until the government created them, these are obligations that exist by natural necessity. All enforcement of contract law would be enforcement of pre-existing obligations because, well, that's what a contract is, it's a voluntary agreement to fulfill some obligation, and obviously it has to exist before somebody enforces it, otherwise there would be nothing to enforce, thus it's a pre-existing obligation. ???


I'm perfectly willing to accept Scripture as that authority but ya may have a bit of trouble convincing the resident atheists on that one.


An atheists refusal to acknowledge an obligation doesn't alter the fact that such an obligation objectively exists. And honestly, if the atheist doesn't seem to feel that I'm under any obligation to allow him to continue to breath, then we could simply prevent him from drawing breath, and we'd be free of any dissenters. But I'm willing to bet any mentally competent atheist would probably be pretty adamant about his right to not be murdered.


Government does justly and legitimately create obligations, regulations and privileges.


Could you give an example?

[Teallaura]

Sorry to butt in, but, how so? Not murdering me is a pre-existing obligation, not stealing what is established as my property is a pre-existing obligation. These aren't obligations that didn't exist until the government created them, these are obligations that exist by natural necessity. All enforcement of contract law would be enforcement of pre-existing obligations because, well, that's what a contract is, it's a voluntary agreement to fulfill some obligation, and obviously it has to exist before somebody enforces it, otherwise there would be nothing to enforce, thus it's a pre-existing obligation. ???Prove 'natural necessity'. Not to be argumentative but you're making an unwarranted assumption that any legal obligation pre-exists law. Those are legal obligations that you're trying to make a moral argument for. Fine, but by what authority? Who has the right to impose those obligations?

Penal law goes well beyond murder and theft - once you accept the legitimacy of penal law you can't argue that all penal law is related to 'pre-existing obligations' even if I accepted your assumption. It's simply not true - not unless you think 'identity theft' is somehow not a new field of law? And no, it's not 'theft' in the literal sense so that argument won't work.

An atheists refusal to acknowledge an obligation doesn't alter the fact that such an obligation objectively exists.Granted - but the issue is under what authority? If there is no God then there is no obligation via Scripture. You're down to 'natural law' which is subjective as heck and rejected by Christians - now what authority do you have to create your alleged 'pre-existing obligations'.

Obligations don't exist without a source.

And honestly, if the atheist doesn't seem to feel that I'm under any obligation to allow him to continue to breath, then we could simply prevent him from drawing breath, and we'd be free of any dissenters. But I'm willing to bet any mentally competent atheist would probably be pretty adamant about his right to not be murdered.Which is irrelevant - the issue is the source for the 'pre-existing obligation'. Where did it come from?


Could you give an example?You're appealing to natural law, dude - you should have zero problem with social contract which would be the obvious source of legitimacy there. But if we prefer Scripture (which I do) then government is placed in authority by God. The source of its legitimacy is ultimately God and Scripture doesn't give any partitions of power - Scripture takes issue with misuse of power, not partitioning thereof. Scripture doesn't remove regulatory power from government so it is legitimate under both social contract and Scripture.

Now, can you show how regulatory power is actually unjust or illegitimate? If not, this argument fails.

By the way, guys, regulatory power is in the Constitution - are you gonna argue its unjust?

[joel]

No force? Then let's take a closer look. If there is no use of force, then anyone could do it. I could form a company that issues marriage certificates. If no force is involved then my certificates should be just as useful as, say, the State of Wyoming's certificates. Explain to me the difference between my certificates and Wyoming's.
Wyoming's bestows marriage benefits; yours only takes up wall space. There's still no penalty - they won't arrest you for that. Only if you use your made up license to try to gain benefits by claiming it's a Wyoming license do you get penalized - for fraud.
Okay, what benefits? paid for by whom? Why are the benefits such that only the government may provide them, and not my private company?


And then on to the sort-of-off-topic responses:

Nice sentiment - who enforces it or is it okay with you when I run you off the road 'cause I like driving on the left?The government enforces it (the universal obligation not to be reckless or neglegent with other people's lives). That is part of the proper role of government.


Self-contradictory - it can be government or private owners but it can't be both.?? For example, a skating rink likely has its own safety rules. When someone is recklessly endangering others (violating the private owner's rules) they can ask them to leave or call the police to have him arrested. If there are out-of-control people there often, then they may ask for police to be there every night to keep order. The same would also work for private roads. I don't see where the contradiction arises.


Do you have something against people being able to travel? Seriously, this is probably the most backward policy idea I've ever seen. If all roads are toll road say good-bye to reasonable prices for anything - Bob owns one mile; Susie two; Marty a half mile and they are all charging whatever they want to to use their roads since you have no regulations to prohibit price gouging.Define "price gouging".
Price will not increase without limit. Price will be pushed to the level that balances supply and demand--i.e., where it should be.


Oh, and it gets better - Bob says drive on the right but Susy likes the left and Marty set a 10 mph speed limit.This sounds pretty far-fetched. Why would they do that? It would be in their own interest to agree on standards.


And when the drivers who don't obey the laws show up who's gonna stop them? No regulation via government, no enforcement - ya need taxes to do that. Not to mention people get really ill about having no say in what laws are passed - we have legislatures for a reason. I believe I addressed this above.


You conceded this point when you acknowleged penal and contract law. Both are impositions and both can create not previously existing obligations.Not true. The individuals who sign the contract voluntarily take the obligation upon themselves. The individual who steals from another takes upon himself the obligation to pay restitution. These obligations are pre-legal. The government's role is not in creating them, but to recognize them and enforce them.


That you hate regulation doesn't make it unjust - especially when you are perfectly willing to put regulatory powers in the hands of individual property owners! When Bob sets his speed limit he is exercising regulatory power and creating a not previously existing obligation. I'd rather have a majority vote than individuals arbitrarily exercising regulatory powers."Regulation" per se is not unjust. The initiation of the use of force is what is unjust. The "regulatory powers" that we have been talking about in the hands of individual property owners is property rights. The property owners have the right to do what they want with their own property, and to forbid trespassers. I'd rather have the right to property than a majority vote backed by a gun deciding how to use my property.


The reason that customs get converted into laws is that only government can enforce via law. Customs work fine until people ignore them - or are unaware of them - or when they thing involved impacts too many people in too many different ways for 'custom' to equitably settle matters.Like I said, force should not be used to coerce people to follow customs--unless not following it entails criminal endangerment (but it would be the endangerment that is the crime, not failure to follow custom.)


So individuals in your world can justly impost obligations but representative government can't? :lolo:No, individuals cannot justly impose obligations either. Individuals can only impose obligations on themselves (other than the universal obligation not to initiate force or fraud against others).


How ya gonna justly enforce something arbitrarily created and which people cannot reasonably be expected to know all the rules for - e.g. your individually imposed traffic regulations.Again, I would have the drivers sign a contract saying they will abide by my rules if they drive on my road. If they break the rules, then I can impose the mutually-agreed-upon consequences, and the government can execute penalties for breach of contract. If a non-customer drives on my road, I can have him charged for trespassing.


You're trapped the instant you say that 'owners can get together and decide' - that's government right there - legitimacy being highly questionable, but government nonetheless.Legitimacy being questionable? How? It's simply mutually consensual contracts (as opposed to non-consensual regulation). It's not government either, because only the government (not the individual property owner) may use force to enforce obligations--that is the distinction.


I do? Says who? You need an authority there, dude. I'm perfectly willing to accept Scripture as that authority but ya may have a bit of trouble convincing the resident atheists on that one. I'm unwilling to accept 'custom' as a dictator of obligation so what works for the Christian won't work for the atheist and vice versa. Government fills that void - nothing else can legitimately let alone justly. Every civilization has recognized the obligation not to murder. It exists according to Scripture and according to reason. It is not up for debate.


And you are dangerously (and I'd say past the point) close to pure anarchy
Not at all. Anarchy occurs only if the government does not protect individual rights (i.e., enforce the corresponding obligations). I reject anarchy.


is an individual any more just in enslaving his neighbor?Absolutely not! Slavery is unjust.


You assume too much - you have no authority for the supposed 'obligations' you set forth. If there is no representative government to sort out who really has what obligations then anyone may impose - or ignore - whatever 'obligation' rightfully as that obligation was not created legitimately nor justly. They're just things you personally say we should and should not do - but who put you in authority? Who made you governor?
Reason (as well as Scripture) concludes that we have an obligation not to initiate force against others. Other, particular obligations arise from mutual agreement and for doing something like causing someone else to be in a dangerous situation. These are all matters of justice and stand to reason. Yes, the government's job is to sort out (i.e., recognize) these obligations--I'm not advocating mob rule.


This is patently false. Government does justly and legitimately create obligations, regulations and privileges.Give me one example of how the government (or anyone, for that matter) may justly create an obligation upon someone else.


How government arrives at its conclusions may or may not be just - I never argued all laws were just - but it does rightfully possess the power to do so and as such there is no intrinsic injustice in governmental regulation.My point is that there is no intrinsic justice either. The question is whether it is just. The fact that the government uses force in a particular way does not make it just.


not unless you think 'identity theft' is somehow not a new field of law?Laws against identity theft are simply an application of the pre-legal obligation not to commit fraud. It is a new application of a pre-existing principle.


the issue is the source for the 'pre-existing obligation'. Where did it come from?
God. It is objective. God has the final authority. That is final.
So, what is your question...how to convince atheists of the pre-existing obligation? Even atheists recognize it, because it is reasonable. The notable atheist Ayn Rand wrote (in Atlas Shrugged):

The source of man's rights is...the law of identity. A is A--and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgement, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.



Now, can you show how regulatory power is actually unjust or illegitimate?
What do you want? An example? Minimum wage is an unjust regulation. Justice is always logically consistent, but minimum wage is not. In order to be consistent, minimum wage would apply to all wages less than the minimum, including the wage of zero that you are currently paying me for this discussion. It is illogical to say that your paying me zero dollars per hour is just while at the same time saying that your paying me $1 per hour is unjust because it is too low.
Justice is giving to each what is due. If a regulation denies something due to an individual, then it is unjust. Again, give an example of a just, government-created obligation.

[Teallaura]

Okay, what benefits? paid for by whom? Why are the benefits such that only the government may provide them, and not my private company?That's it - if you're gonna talk like a lunatic get out of my thread.

The topic is marriage licensure not your lunatic anarchist theory.


And then on to the sort-of-off-topic responses:
The government enforces it (the universal obligation not to be reckless or neglegent with other people's lives). That is part of the proper role of government.Not in your system, it's not. No taxation without representation, dude. Your system is non-representative - and therefore illegitimate in my view and flat out unjust in any logical view.

?? For example, a skating rink likely has its own safety rules. When someone is recklessly endangering others (violating the private owner's rules) they can ask them to leave or call the police to have him arrested. If there are out-of-control people there often, then they may ask for police to be there every night to keep order. The same would also work for private roads. I don't see where the contradiction arises.There's no violation of law, dude - you shackled that when you took regulatory power from government to the individual. Trespass laws won't suffice to protect motorists - and will destroy commerce inter or intra state.

Define "price gouging".
Price will not increase without limit. Price will be pushed to the level that balances supply and demand--i.e., where it should be.Dude, are you really this dense? Very few can afford to build roads so competition is limited inherently in your system - when supply is extremely limited on a necessity the costs rise astronomically. The system will crash itself literally done your way.

This sounds pretty far-fetched. Why would they do that? It would be in their own interest to agree on standards.People do not always act in their own best interest - and if Bob and Marty hate each others guts they will gleefully try to destroy one another's business regardless of who gets hurt. Or if Marty is just stupid and wants a really quiet road... Or Susie wants to maximize her profits... Not far fetched at all. The advantage to government regulation is that it can be standardized - something individual regulation cannot be.

I believe I addressed this above.Nope, an unwarranted assumption that requires additional legislation to even consider does not constitute addressing the point.

Not true. The individuals who sign the contract voluntarily take the obligation upon themselves. The individual who steals from another takes upon himself the obligation to pay restitution. These obligations are pre-legal. The government's role is not in creating them, but to recognize them and enforce them.Says you - now prove this. It's your assumption but you've offered nothing but assertions. Prove there is a 'pre-legal' obligation. Frankly, that's the stupidest thing you've said thus far. Even using Scripture these aren't 'pre-legal' - they are God's laws - emphasis on 'laws'.

"Regulation" per se is not unjust. The initiation of the use of force is what is unjust. Could you shift your position a little more? I'm not getting dizzy enough.

You were the one that said only penal and contract law were just - if you allow regulation as just your entire idiotic argument falls to pieces.

The "regulatory powers" that we have been talking about in the hands of individual property owners is property rights. The property owners have the right to do what they want with their own property, and to forbid trespassers. I'd rather have the right to property than a majority vote backed by a gun deciding how to use my property.So you do hate travel. No problem - we will just give up having an economy.

:lolo: Property rights in your system become the regulators of everyone else's rights. Economies cannot function like that - unless you make government itself a property owner there's no uniform way to regulate traffic - or to allow travel with or without vehicles. Travel is now restricted to those who can afford to pay multiple tolls over even short distances - you do realize that public property goes bye-bye with this plan, right? Eminent domain is neither contract nor penal law.


Like I said, force should not be used to coerce people to follow customs--unless not following it entails criminal endangerment (but it would be the endangerment that is the crime, not failure to follow custom.):lolo: Dude, your traffic system is a 'customary' system - as is your 'obligatory' system. You've no source for your 'obligations' other than your own say so - evidently you personally get to set all the laws.

No, individuals cannot justly impose obligations either. Individuals can only impose obligations on themselves (other than the universal obligation not to initiate force or fraud against others).:lolo: But in your system individuals do impose obligations! Your traffic regulations proceed from property rights hence travel rights are at the sufferance of the property owner. The property owner according to you sets the regulations for traversing the property. Since travel is essential to commerce that's an incredible amount of regulatory power - a power sans representation and very definitely creating obligations on anyone who needs to hold down a job.

Again, I would have the drivers sign a contract saying they will abide by my rules if they drive on my road. If they break the rules, then I can impose the mutually-agreed-upon consequences, and the government can execute penalties for breach of contract. If a non-customer drives on my road, I can have him charged for trespassing.:lmbo: Let me get this straight - you expect every driver to stop, sign your contract and then proceed? You've got people stopping constantly to review traffic regulations, contract for the traverse and then doing it again on the next owners section of road. That traffic jam is gonna be huge!

And if they don't stop then what? You have them arrested for trespassing when by the time you get the cops they're halfway across your property? Great plan - now taxes will be through the roof trying to pay for all the cops necessary to arrest traffic violators.

Legitimacy being questionable? How? It's simply mutually consensual contracts (as opposed to non-consensual regulation). It's not government either, because only the government (not the individual property owner) may use force to enforce obligations--that is the distinction.:lmbo: You were the one calling the cops! That's enforcement, last I looked!

It's non-representative government - plutocracy to be exact. How the heck are normal drivers supposed to have an equal say in said contracts? Not likely - the driver is forced into the position of having to sign a contract or be denied an essential need - to be able to get to work. That's blackmail, dude.

Your's is a system of plutocrats - and I find the legitimacy of such a system to be non-existent.

Every civilization has recognized the obligation not to murder. It exists according to Scripture and according to reason. It is not up for debate.Sure - I should just take your word for it. Not hardly. This is my thread dude - you made a bunch of idiotic assertions now back them up. Civilizations have laws and legal systems - your contention here does nothing to forward your case. What's the source of that obligation?

Not at all. Anarchy occurs only if the government does not protect individual rights (i.e., enforce the corresponding obligations). I reject anarchy.Your government is incapable of those protections - you really don't get how ridiculous your traffic position is, do you? There are some functions only government can provide - but your system hamstrings government to the point where it will eith4er be astronomically expensive or will simply fail.

Absolutely not! Slavery is unjust.And plutocracy isn't? You've effectively made non-property owners the slaves of those who do own property. No contract, no travel; no travel, no job. This is your idea of fair?

Reason (as well as Scripture) concludes that we have an obligation not to initiate force against others.Really? I should let the guy keep raping some girl 'cause it's unjust to initiate force?

Other, particular obligations arise from mutual agreement and for doing something like causing someone else to be in a dangerous situation. These are all matters of justice and stand to reason. Yes, the government's job is to sort out (i.e., recognize) these obligations--I'm not advocating mob rule.But you are trying to prevent government from using its powers to do so - only penal and contract law, remember? Using property rights as you advocate necessarily leads to plutocracy.

Where's this government derive its authority from? Representative government inherently has legitimate claim to regulatory power - its authority derives from the people it represents. Your system has no legitimate regulatory powers - it can't be representative (which you denied the legitimacy of sometime back anyway).

Give me one example of how the government (or anyone, for that matter) may justly create an obligation upon someone else.As soon as you show me the just manner in which your property owners are regulating commerce. Bob can set any price he wants and Jerry can either find a way to pay it or not be able to hold down his job because he has no other means to get to that job but traverse Bob's property. Bob has effectively made Jerry his slave - this is just how, exactly?

My point is that there is no intrinsic justice either. The question is whether it is just. The fact that the government uses force in a particular way does not make it just.:lolo: Great - so you wasted my time with this drivel why? If there is no 'intrinsic justice' there can be no 'pre-legal obligations'.

You were defining all regulatory power as unjust - would you please make up your mind? If the power proper is not unjust your argument collapses.

Laws against identity theft are simply an application of the pre-legal obligation not to commit fraud. It is a new application of a pre-existing principle.There's no such thing - your last appeal to civilization is laughable.

God. It is objective. God has the final authority. That is final.God makes laws - there goes 'pre-legal'.

Until the Lord returns, however, true theocracy is impossible.

So, what is your question...how to convince atheists of the pre-existing obligation? Even atheists recognize it, because it is reasonable. The notable atheist Ayn Rand wrote (in Atlas Shrugged):

The source of man's rights is...the law of identity. A is A--and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgement, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

Are you really that dense? Did you not notice that Rand's source is different? When Rand's government decides infanticide is okay on what basis would you oppose it?

Rand's logic leaves something to be desired as well but I'm not interested in going over the problems of rationalism.

What do you want? An example? Minimum wage is an unjust regulation. Justice is always logically consistent, but minimum wage is not. In order to be consistent, minimum wage would apply to all wages less than the minimum, including the wage of zero that you are currently paying me for this discussion. Get out of my thread. Now, beat it.

Anyone this stupid isn't worth discussing anything with.

It is illogical to say that your paying me zero dollars per hour is just while at the same time saying that your paying me $1 per hour is unjust because it is too low.
Justice is giving to each what is due. If a regulation denies something due to an individual, then it is unjust. Again, give an example of a just, government-created obligation.

:lmbo: Dude, employment is covered under contract law! This is the most insanely stupid argument I've ever seen. I have no obligation to you either under actual, US law or your idiotic contract based system since I did not contract with you to enter my thread. You're now trespassing - get out.

Tweb does recognize some limited proprietary rights to threads - under your system I have every right to kick you out of my thread since I have a proprietary claim on it. Them's the breaks - you aren't allowed to post in this thread anymore because I say so. It's not just, not particularly fair and not reasonable - but it's my right and I'm exercising it purely to demonstrate the major league flaw in your system.

Mods, kindly escort Mr. Joel to the door if he posts in this thread again.

[micah4]

First, I would like to point out a few things.

1. Since joel addressed some of your responses to me, I'll address some of your responses to him in light of your having asked him to take leave- which he might reasonably do given your rhetoric.
2. :lmbo:, :rofl:,:lolo:, and :duh: are a fallacious form of argument, even and especially if used in overabundance. Repeated appeals to emoticons are a strong sign of a weak position.


There's no violation of law, dude - you shackled that when you took regulatory power from government to the individual. Trespass laws won't suffice to protect motorists - and will destroy commerce inter or intra state.


I doubt it, since those operating roads only stand to profit when commerce thrives. Profit is a highly motivating factor for seeing to it that commerce thrives.


Dude, are you really this dense? Very few can afford to build roads so competition is limited inherently in your system - when supply is extremely limited on a necessity the costs rise astronomically. The system will crash itself literally done your way.


Allegations of denseness may be subject to the cup and measure principle layed out in matthew 7:2; your argument doesn't hold water. Have you checked the market caps of any major construction corporation? There are more than a few organizations who can afford to build roads, and even a poorly financed individual can build a small stretch of road with little effort. If the argument is that the fewer entities that are able to build roads, the higher the cost, then limiting the number of entities to one, the government, virtually ensures that costs rise astronomically. There is no basis to believe that a government can construct roads at a lower cost than private entities, excepting an unjust application of eniment domain provisions.


The advantage to government regulation is that it can be standardized - something individual regulation cannot be.


And yet remarkably, you're able to post a message on this website with no difficulty, even though there is no government regulation to standardize internet traffic. In fact, internet traffic has been one of the most rapidly innovative and progressive areas of growth- all based on individual regulation and standards which are voluntarily adopted. The benefit to the community of voluntary adoption of standards is conclusively demonstrated by web standards, email standards, and many other such areas of free exchange which haven't been encumbered by unneccessary government regulation. The free market has met these needs and adopted uniform standards because it is in the best interest of the parties engaging in communication.



Not true. The individuals who sign the contract voluntarily take the obligation upon themselves. The individual who steals from another takes upon himself the obligation to pay restitution. These obligations are pre-legal. The government's role is not in creating them, but to recognize them and enforce them.

Says you - now prove this.


Are you actually disputing that an individual signing a contract is voluntarily obligating themselves??


So you do hate travel. No problem - we will just give up having an economy.


There is a deep tradition surrounding the common law right to travel, going back to B.C. times, the Magna Carta and even UN declarations of human rights- see e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement. If anything, government intervention repeatadly obstructs our right to travel through enforced requirements for licenses, social security numbers, fingerprints and other intrusive measures which are irrelevant to the safety and stability of free movement.


Travel is now restricted to those who can afford to pay multiple tolls over even short distances


People pay those tolls under a government system anyway, through taxes of one form or another. There are good reasons to believe that costs would be lower under a private system than under a system monopolized by government.


:lolo: But in your system individuals do impose obligations! Your traffic regulations proceed from property rights hence travel rights are at the sufferance of the property owner. The property owner according to you sets the regulations for traversing the property. Since travel is essential to commerce that's an incredible amount of regulatory power - a power sans representation and very definitely creating obligations on anyone who needs to hold down a job.


What you miss is that there is a balancing of the obligations of the traveling party to respect the property of the owner against the obligation of the property owner to recognize the traveling parties freedom of movement. This is something that processes of adjudication decide through courts, a proper role of the government; it is neither decided solely by the property owner nor by the the traveler.


:lmbo: Let me get this straight - you expect every driver to stop, sign your contract and then proceed? You've got people stopping constantly to review traffic regulations, contract for the traverse and then doing it again on the next owners section of road. That traffic jam is gonna be huge!


That sort of argument my have been relevant 100 years ago, but it's entirely irrelevant today. We already have methods of electronically registering vehicles passing through toll points and such; paying for usage of roads would be no different than paying for your cell phone bill; you sign a contract with a provider, you're billed by the miles used. Today's technology already makes that an perfectly practical reality.

This should be pretty obvious, it doesn't seem to me that you're making much effort to give fair consideration to the viewpoint being proposed; you're simply flinging objections wantonly whether they have any substantial basis or not.


And if they don't stop then what? You have them arrested for trespassing when by the time you get the cops they're halfway across your property? Great plan - now taxes will be through the roof trying to pay for all the cops necessary to arrest traffic violators.


That's funny, because in my town cops citing traffic violators appears to be a means of generating revenue, not a drain on revenue.


There are some functions only government can provide - but your system hamstrings government to the point where it will either be astronomically expensive or will simply fail.


If there are functions that can only be provided by forcing right acting individuals to act contrary to their own best interests, then I wonder what they would be and suspect they are probably functions that we have no need for.


Really? I should let the guy keep raping some girl 'cause it's unjust to initiate force?


You might want to take 5 deep breaths here, pause, and reflect on your willingness to actually understand the position you're responding to. Preventing rape is not initiating force, it is responding to prevent force which has already been initiated by the rapist. It is the rapist initiating the force, not the state intervening to stop the use of force.


As soon as you show me the just manner in which your property owners are regulating commerce. Bob can set any price he wants and Jerry can either find a way to pay it or not be able to hold down his job because he has no other means to get to that job but traverse Bob's property. Bob has effectively made Jerry his slave - this is just how, exactly?


I cant rightly speak for Joel here, but as I said there is a long standing tradition of a common law right to travel; if private property owners (Bob) have Jerry boxed in and refuse to allow him passage across their property, their is a dispute of obligations which the government has a legitimate role in sorting out as Joel stated.



Laws against identity theft are simply an application of the pre-legal obligation not to commit fraud. It is a new application of a pre-existing principle.

There's no such thing - your last appeal to civilization is laughable.


No such thing as what, an obligation to not defraud others? I think we agree at least that God is the source and authority who establishes our obligations to one another. Do you disagree that God enjoins us to not defraud others?


God makes laws - there goes 'pre-legal'.


God's nature and the nature of his creation engender that certain activities are moral and others are not. The morality of an act arises from it's nature and the nature of it's consequences. Men are obligated to act morally. Written (or revealed) laws are an expression of that, but imperfect if taken in isolation, which I mean in accordance with the scripture which says the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. The laws arise from the spirit behind the actions, so do the obligations under consideration. At any rate, the point is not that the obligations are 'pre-god's-laws', but rather that they are 'pre-man's-laws'. Moral obligations exist regardless of and despite any laws of men which might claim that they either do or do not exist.


Anyone this stupid isn't worth discussing anything with.


If the person you're discussing with is really so stupid, then you should be able to easily demonstrate that by actually adressing their poor arguments without having to resort to name-calling.


:lmbo: Dude, employment is covered under contract law! This is the most insanely stupid argument I've ever seen. I have no obligation to you either under actual, US law or your idiotic contract based system since I did not contract with you to enter my thread.


For all your allegations of denseness. The point is that it is arbitrary to allow me to offer my services for free, but declare it a crime to pay me less than $X an hour for my services. There is no just basis for a third party denying me the freedom to contract with an employer for a wage that we both agree is acceptable.

[Teallaura]

First, I would like to point out a few things.

1. Since joel addressed some of your responses to me, I'll address some of your responses to him in light of your having asked him to take leave- which he might reasonably do given your rhetoric.
2. :lmbo:, :rofl:,:lolo:, and :duh: are a fallacious form of argument, even and especially if used in overabundance. Repeated appeals to emoticons are a strong sign of a weak position.


...

Since you are insisting on being just as obnoxious you shouldn't be trying the self righteous act. This is off topic - has been for a while - and I have been very patient about it. I simply lack any patience with anarchists. Despite his claims here, he's not defending libertarianism but anarchy. I have zero respect for the latter and little respect for those who insist on using the threads of others to further their own pet topics. If you want to discuss libertarianism, fine - open your own thread. But quit dragging mine off topic.

I will say this for Joel - he had the decency to live up to his beliefs and declined to post here further based on my proprietary rights here. I respect his integrity if not the position he espouses. That is also the answer for point one. Further, to his credit, he took up part of this issue with me in private. He has my respect for that as well.

2) Mistaking emphasis for argument is the surest sign of an inability to use rhetoric - and the inability to argue rationally.

Now, I'm going to ask the mods to split off the derailing threads and you can argue yourself sick somewhere else. Unless it directly pertains to the topic of the OP - which is the rationale behind marriage licensure for those of you having difficulty keeping up - do not post in this thread again.

[micah4]

Now, I'm going to ask the mods to split off the derailing threads and you can argue yourself sick somewhere else. Unless it directly pertains to the topic of the OP - which is the rationale behind marriage licensure for those of you having difficulty keeping up - do not post in this thread again.

Well, very cute. You followed the discussion in that direction to a point, but and when your argument is exposed as being hollow, you decline to respond and simply ask the posters to go away. The solidity of your argument is undoubtedly verified by that approach.

[Teallaura]

Reading comprehension a problem for ya, huh? Not surprising - you used the Internet as an example of free market success without governmental regulation :ahem:. The Internet relies on 3 regulated infrastructures to work - at least two of which will be essential to any given user at any given time. Heck, two of those would be extremely limited were it not for governmental interdiction and the third would have highly questionable reliability. The Internet wouldn't exist sans government regulation because little of its infrastructure would exist! Lovely server - pity you don't have power, phone lines or reliable transmission frequencies to connect it to anything else with.

The stupid thread is being split - I'll make mincemeat out of the rest of your pathetic excuse for an argument in the new thread. Now, stay out of this one or I'll ask that you be modded for disruption.

[micah4]

Per your request, I'll return to the original topic, though I think it's inconsiderate and cowardly to insist that all discussion on a particular topic (which you initiated, btw) is closed- and then proceed to present new argument on that same topic after having refused anybody the chance to respond.


In my view, it's a false assertion that private relationships have no public consequences - my entire career makes an absolute mockery of that premise. Infertility, increased health care costs,


Increased "public" health care costs wouldn't be an issue if individuals weren't being forced to pay for the health care of everybody else.


increased drug resistance (necessitating increased research costs) and death are all consequences of sexual relationships in which an STD is involved. HIV alone strains health care in every nation on earth - ours included (provision of expensive AIDS drugs for the poor wipes out county jail medical budgets all the time


I'm not sure I see the relationship between marriage licensing and jail HIV treatment budgets. How does licensing marriage reduce HIV in prisons?


Marriage does have an impact on STD (I do see some married couples, but the vast majority of my patients are single) - cohabitation doesn't appear to have much, if any, impact. But here the issue appears to be commitment - were cohabiting couples as committed as their married counterparts we should see similar effects - but we don't.


The consequences of state licensed marriaged and the accompanying legal entanglements are a significant factor in declining marriage rates. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_strike . Many men do not want to marry because the legal contract they must enter into with the state is extremely unfavorable towards them pertaining to child custody and financial matters. If lowering STD's through marriage is a goal, then we should encourage marriage- state contracts and family law discourage marriage in many cases and actually increase pressure to cohabitate rather than marry. State marriage contracts offer no-fault divorce as a minimal cost way out of marriage which the other party often as no recourse against. A marriage based on the principles of scripture and where accountability is to the church rather than the state is a much more solid foundation than a marriage based on a legal contract and accountability to the state IMO.


There just isn't a logical reason to assume that marriage will do what cohabitation will not in this instance.


Do you think there might be if grounds for divorce were still reasonably limited to things like adultery and physical abuse? With no-fault divorces now constituting 90% of all divorce cases, there's very little difference between state-contract marriage and cohabitation.


But marriage has much more far reaching impacts than that. It is the basis of our whole society. Big claim, but consider: children of intact, nuclear families do better in virtually every demographic category you can name. They have the lowest substance abuse rate, lowest drop out rate, highest college attendance rate - et al. Instead of becoming a burden on society, they become its backbone.

Coming in a close second are single parent widowed families. Children deal far better with the death of a parent than with abandonment of a parent through divorce. Sure, there are exceptions to every rule - but the stats for kids of divorced families are abysmal, unlike the stats for widowed families.


I hope we all agree that preserving marriage and avoiding divorce are desirable goals. So I think the proper question to ask is, which mechanism achieves these goals better? State endorsed legal contract secular marriages, or marriages which are under the authority of God and the Church?


Marital rights go a lot farther than tax breaks and medical decision capacity (which can be done by a DMPA for anyone). They include adoption rights, inheritance rights, property rights, et al. We already have plenty of evidence of the societal costs of divorce in terms of economics (both parents actually do worse economically in the long run than their non-divorced counterparts) just in terms of litigation alone (the criminal courts aren't the only ones swamped - and we have to pay for all those judges!).


Again I would wonder how this would be affected by eliminating no-fault divorce, and recognizing marriage by the church as being on even par with state/legal marriage.

To my mind, before you can discuss who should or should not have marital rights, we should look at why we place such high value on marriage that we go so far as to institute it in both secular and sectarian circles. Then we can discuss the costs associated with yet another experiment in social engineering - a field with an abysmal failure rate going back more than a hundred years, and which began to fail so horribly when it divorced itself from its origins - in the Great Awakening and the church herself.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that state marriage is a failed experiment in social engineering?

[Teallaura]

:brood: The stupid thread hasn't been split yet. I made the request but per Tweb policy I can't split it myself since I'm in it.

I wouldn't bellyache about rudeness when I had just posted an off topic reply after being asked to stay on topic - the Internet nonsense was entirely your own.

We'll continue this argument here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=2187365#post2187365)

[Teallaura]

Okay, it finally got split. Rant away, guys.

[joel]

Okay, it finally got split. Rant away, guys.
Yay, I can post again. :smile:

I think Micah adequately answered your objections to my last post.

As far as marriage, I still see no good reason for government marriage licensure. All the government-provided benefits/responsibilities to/of the married couple mentioned (except for taxes) could be covered by the Church, private contracts, and the parental obligations to their children.

As far as taxes, the system is currently inconsistent, giving a marriage penalty to about half of married couples and a marriage-tax-relief to about half of married couples. So I can't see a defense made for marriage licensure based on the current income tax code.

[Teallaura]

It's in the State's best interest to promote marriage hence the carrot of marital benefits. And no, the church cannot provide all the same benefits and private contracts defeat the purpose (not to mention increase costs astronomically - the costs of litigation for breech of contract alone will be hideous and custody battles become proprietary rights). In my opinion attempting to substitute private sources of marital benefits for public ones will substantially increase both the cost to and the size of government just to handle the resultant litigation.

I didn't defend it on that basis - in fact you have never addressed my argument at all that I recall. You got off on the 'smaller government' and a really incomprehensible and highly inconsistent argument re: justice, absolutely none of which addressed my thesis in the least.

If you want to continue this libertarian argument that's fine but please don't claim to have addressed my argument when you have not - or did so only incidentally (I really don't think you ever did but I'll give the benefit of the doubt). That was part of why I wanted this split - you and Micah were completely derailing my thread.

This one is okay to pursue whatever angle you like.

[joel]

It's in the State's best interest to promote marriage hence the carrot of marital benefits.
What do you mean by "State's interest"? Do you mean the interest of individuals? Or the interest of the concept of "State". If you mean that it is in the interest of the individuals in the state to promote marriage, then they should do so--but non-coercively.


And no, the church cannot provide all the same benefitsIf you are referring to coercive promotion of marriage, like forcing employers to provide specific benefits to spouses, then, no, the church cannot do such things, but, then again, no one should do such things.


and private contracts defeat the purposeHow?


(not to mention increase costs astronomically - the costs of litigation for breech of contract alone will be hideousBut civilly, it seems that marriage already is a contract agreement (regarding property rights, etc.) And some people do extend that agreement with contracts of their own (e.g., prenuptials). And I see no reason why there couldn't be some kind of standard, default marriage agreement. In short, I don't see the litigation aspect being much different than it is now.


and custody battles become proprietary rights)
What does this have to do with marriage licensure? The obligations of the parents to their children is the same, regardless of whether the parents are married. As far as rights--since both parents have the obligation to provide support, they both have the right to be involved in the providing of that support. I would be in favor joint custody except in the case where a parent is violating the rights of the child (or other parent). --and all of this, regardless of the marital status of the parents.


I didn't defend it on that basis - in fact you have never addressed my argument at all that I recall. You got off on the 'smaller government' and a really incomprehensible and highly inconsistent argument re: justice, absolutely none of which addressed my thesis in the least.
Then I don't know what your thesis is. I've read your OP several times, and I can't figure it out. Can you put your thesis in one statement? Are you suggesting that government licensure itself reduces divorce rates? Or that a government license gives meaning to the married couple's marriage? Or that it makes people better spouses?



Now, if all we were talking about is the government issuing certificates, paid for by the recipients, then I have no problem. Anybody could do that. What I do have a problem with is coercive promotion of marriage, and limiting what agreements people can make (i.e., if a couple wants to enter into a non-"no-fault", lifetime vow, then they should be allowed to do so--in fact, if they are married by the Church, I think the Church should insist on it).

[nomad]

What do you mean by "State's interest"? Do you mean the interest of individuals? Or the interest of the concept of "State". If you mean that it is in the interest of the individuals in the state to promote marriage, then they should do so--but non-coercively.


Isn't that the way it is done now? Where is the coercion? If I don't want to get a marriage license today, I don't have to. I just can't claim any government benefits based on being married. If offering benefits for accepting government licensure counts as coercion, where there is no negative consequences for refusing, only positive consequences for accepting, what is this 'non-coercive' method you propose?

Then I don't know what your thesis is. I've read your OP several times, and I can't figure it out. Can you put your thesis in one statement? Are you suggesting that government licensure itself reduces divorce rates? Or that a government license gives meaning to the married couple's marriage? Or that it makes people better spouses?


I think that marriage streamlines several property transfers, including death and divorce, especially when such transfer is under dispute.

Government licensure guarantees that such transfers go more smoothly than they would otherwise. Why? Simply because the license enables determining the facts in the case to be an easier process. A woman and a man live together; the woman or man moves out. There is a dispute over ownership of some items. Having a marriage license is automatically a kind of joint ownership contract. Could a third party grant such a license instead? Perhaps, but then the government has to deal with all kinds of other issues - Mary and George split up, Mary claims a divorce based on the terms of Marriage Contracts Inc, George pulls out another contract from Marriages-R-Us with Tiffany, unbeknownst to Mary, which he claims was pre-existing and invalidates the contract with Mary. George and Mary agree on the contract, but bring wildly differing versions to the government, and the company doesn't know which is correct, since they didn't keep an original copy (part of why it was cheap). Etc. The government has a vested interest in preventing fraud and being a single source.

Could the government regulate the marriage license industry? Sure, it could, but at that point, how much different is it from offering the licenses themselves?

Disputes are going to end up in the government's court system anyways, so whatever they can do to minimize the impact of those disputes seems like a good idea to me.

The advantages go much farther than that - when you're in the hospital, marriage licenses are a public record of who should be making decisions about your care, and perhaps help to distinguish between a spouse and an ex with an axe to grind. Marriage licenses are used by corporations to extend family benefits while preventing fraud. In short, a government marriage license also operates as a _standard_. Like TCP/IP or the dollar bill. It's trusted because it comes from the government, and because it's standard, everyone can use it.

That's the main advantage of government licensing over third party licensing. And that's available today, in a sense - you don't have to get a government license to be married today. You won't be guaranteed to get any benefits of course. You can also put any kinds of stipulations on your marriage contract that you want to, separately from the 'official' marriage contract, afaik. The government does place limitations on what you can agree to, but that's just part of standard contract law - a contract that is too one-sided or that has ridiculous provisions (i.e. if you sign a car purchase contract and later learn you promised a kidney) is generally struck down or reduced in the courts rather than upheld. The courts typically attempt to protect people against predation by contract, and that continues into marriage law as well.



PS - Side note: I think it's hilarious you used the Internet as an example. If anything, the Internet is example of an anarchic society slowly eating itself as it can't deal with its own 'criminal elements' - spam is reported to be as much as 90% of email flowing on global networks, phishing scams are on the rise, all kinds of fraud in the various DNS registration firms, denial-of-service blackmail schemes, etc. If anything, it shows not that anarchic societies are inherently superior, but that government legal intervention simply isn't enough if it can't govern everything. Technology isn't completely keeping up either. The internet is a glowing, but not untarnished, success.

[joel]

Isn't that the way it is done now? Where is the coercion? If I don't want to get a marriage license today, I don't have to. I just can't claim any government benefits based on being married. If offering benefits for accepting government licensure counts as coercion, where there is no negative consequences for refusing, only positive consequences for accepting, what is this 'non-coercive' method you propose?
I was referring to coercive promotion of marriage. It is those benefits (i.e., the ones that only the government is capable of providing) that entail coercion. Yes, saying, "If you get this marriage certificate, then I'll force your employer to do X for you spouse," is not coercive towards the ones getting the certificate, but giving them that benefit entails coercion.


I think that marriage streamlines several property transfers, including death and divorce, especially when such transfer is under dispute.

Government licensure guarantees that such transfers go more smoothly than they would otherwise. Why? Simply because the license enables determining the facts in the case to be an easier process. A woman and a man live together; the woman or man moves out. There is a dispute over ownership of some items. Having a marriage license is automatically a kind of joint ownership contract.As I said, I see no problem with offering a default or suggested marriage agreement, which most people would use.


Could a third party grant such a license instead? Perhaps, but then the government has to deal with all kinds of other issues - Mary and George split up, Mary claims a divorce based on the terms of Marriage Contracts Inc, George pulls out another contract from Marriages-R-Us with Tiffany, unbeknownst to Mary, which he claims was pre-existing and invalidates the contract with Mary. Wouldn't that be fraud?


George and Mary agree on the contract, but bring wildly differing versions to the government, and the company doesn't know which is correct, since they didn't keep an original copy (part of why it was cheap). Etc. The government has a vested interest in preventing fraud and being a single source.That could be used as an argument against all private contracts.


The advantages go much farther than that - when you're in the hospital, marriage licenses are a public record of who should be making decisions about your care, and perhaps help to distinguish between a spouse and an ex with an axe to grind. Marriage licenses are used by corporations to extend family benefits while preventing fraud.I also have no problem with public records.


In short, a government marriage license also operates as a _standard_. Like TCP/IP or the dollar bill. It's trusted because it comes from the government,TCP/IP is not trusted because "it comes from the government" but because it is an objectively useful, reliable transport protocol stack. There are a variety of versions of the TCP protocol. It's standards are debated via a free market of ideas via the Network Working Group of the Internet Engineering Task Force of the Internet Society, which is a non-profit private organization. Anyone can submit a "request for comments" (RFC) to propose a new protocol or modification of a protocol, in the same way that TCP was originally proposed.
And the dollar bill is not used because the government gives it approval (indeed, it is ink on paper or bits in computers), but because of legal tender laws.


You can also put any kinds of stipulations on your marriage contract that you want to, separately from the 'official' marriage contract, afaik. The government does place limitations on what you can agree to, but that's just part of standard contract law - a contract that is too one-sided or that has ridiculous provisions (i.e. if you sign a car purchase contract and later learn you promised a kidney) is generally struck down or reduced in the courts rather than upheld. The courts typically attempt to protect people against predation by contract, and that continues into marriage law as well.That's fine, as long as it's reasonable and just (e.g., not forcing a "no-fault" agreement). If that is the case, then the only thing I have a problem with is any coercive promotion.


PS - Side note: I think it's hilarious you used the Internet as an example.
I didn't. Someone else did.


If anything, the Internet is example of an anarchic society slowly eating itself as it can't deal with its own 'criminal elements' - spam is reported to be as much as 90% of email flowing on global networks, phishing scams are on the rise, all kinds of fraud in the various DNS registration firms, denial-of-service blackmail schemes, etc. If anything, it shows not that anarchic societies are inherently superior, but that government legal intervention simply isn't enough if it can't govern everything. Technology isn't completely keeping up either. The internet is a glowing, but not untarnished, success.What are you saying? that, in general, additional regulations (beyond those called for by justice) are needed to help prevent people from doing something that could potentially lead to an injustice? what happens when those regulations prove to be not great? make more regulations to prevent people from breaking the first regulations?

I'm not going to debate a blanket statement that "all government regulation is good/bad." I'm only willing to discuss specific existing or proposed laws. But I suggest that the critical question in each case is, "Is it a just law?" The reason I tend to shudder when I hear the word "regulation" is that most of the time it means that people do not have justice in mind--i.e., people don't use the word "regulation" when talking about laws against things like violence, theft, fraud, or breach of contract.

[micah4]

Which only proves that the analogy is a false one. The original example is of property owners setting traffic regulations - the property owners are providing the infrastructure in this example unlike the Internet which has government providing the service for it. Your example frees the 'owners' of infrastructure costs, maintenance et al - and it also reduces considerably actual influence of each owner (totally unlike the physical example).


An analogy isn't "false" just because it's different, that's the whole point of an analogy. And the point of this one is that uniform standards are adopted freely because it's in the best interests of the users of the infrastructure to adopt uniform standards, and it's in the best interest of the providers of infrastructure and services to support those freely adopted standards to maximize their traffic and profit.


Truth is, few server owners have any say in the standards created - they're pretty much stuck with what is already in place.


Any server owner can choose to support or not support any standard they want; they have complete say over which protocols and what types of traffic they'll choose to route, provide, or accept. They aren't "stuck" with what's in place, they choose voluntarily to support the standards that are in place because that's a service people will pay for. If I built a private road, but decided to make all the lanes 6 inches shorter than the standard width of a car that would be pretty stupid since nobody (except maybe motorcycles) could use my road. If I want to be paid for providing a service, my service has to be useful. Even so, your statement is mixed up because you talk about "having a say in standards created", but then talk about "what's already in place" as though considering a single thing. A standard that's being created and a standard that's already in place are by nature two different things. That's like saying, "I have no say in creating memories, I'm pretty much stuck with whatever happened in the past". And the providers of network backbone capacity, and hardware, and network services do have a great deal of say in what new standards will look like as they are being created, and which standards will be adopted. A company with a vested interest in a particular standard will usually have members sitting on the standards steering committees.



Sheepy pointed out that the DoD has veto power over the body in question.


Do you know of any instance where a DoD veto has been essential to the adoption of any internet protocol? Of any instance where they've actually veto'ed anything? I don't know how this "veto power" is asserted to exist, other than the fact that the U.S. DoD pretty much has veto power over any body in question because they control more guns than anybody else. But I don't think the DoD is going to try to "veto" a new protocol being used by web services providers in China anytime soon, because they really don't have any such power.


From what I can see all that has happened is governmental bureaucracy has been replaced with quasi-governmental bureaucracy -


Umm no, there was no governmental beauracracy to be replaced. The functions of adopting uniform technological standards, which you believe requires a government beauracracy, have been performed by independent, private organizations such as the world wide web consortium (http://www.w3.org/), or the motion pictures experts group (http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/), etc.


As for needing governmental regulation for some infrastructure, you should look up 'Rural Electrification' - the Internet has the same precise access issues. Even today Cable TV and High Speed Internet are both limited in less urban areas where the markets are not as attractive to private providers, and the more rural it is the worse it gets. My little dial up connection is government regulated and frankly wouldn't exist at all without government regulation. The fact that such infrastructures rarely if ever successfully built without government regulation of some sort is a pretty good indication that they cannot do so efficiently - at the very least.


I think Mercury was right on about this. Why should I be forced to subsidize your electricity or internet because you choose to live in an area where these services inherently cost more to provide? Should you be forced to subsidize my housing because I choose to live in the city, where real estate is more expensive? I see no justification for the claim that a private provider is incapable of providing any such infrastructure as efficiently or more efficiently than the government- I think what you're really getting at is that they can't provide it as cheaply as you would like for them to. This simply amounts to a claim that government should use force to make other people subsidize your services with their money because those services have a natural, inherent cost which is more than you're willing to pay.