It seems to me the problem here is that the private contracts would be enforced in the hypothetical model. Libertarians seem to propose that the legal benefits of marriage as opposed to the arbitrary spiritual components are the aspect of marriage to be agreed upon. I disagree.
I think that people should be allowed to create private contracts for any issue, but only if those contracts are not enforced. Both parties must remain willing participants throughout the process. Also, if the state deems any contracts unacceptably offensive, or contrary to public interest, it obviously has the power to nullify them. “Contracts” without the intervention of force, would be nothing more than symbols that a consensus for agreement has been reached. Of course, I imagine that this will be unstable in the long run as people will gradually seek government assistance in getting their way, and the state will become more and more involved as time goes on, and the system will get slower and more complicated with each new contract.
It is my opinion, if I may get just a tad bit political, that the state, having little to no interest in the more harmless dynamics of an individual’s love life, should ignore any agreements on how a person conducts their marriage as long as none of the rights the state formally exists to secure are infringed beyond what the public will tolerate. The legal status of a married couple, being relevant because the lives of two people living as a partnership have different financial qualities than the life of a person living independently, should apply to any arrangement with the same configuration of economic impact as a married couple. I think this is the optimal system, but seeing as how most people appeal to libertarian ideals only to support there own fundamentalist political tribe, it may or may not actually arise.
I think that people should be allowed to create private contracts for any issue, but only if those contracts are not enforced. Both parties must remain willing participants throughout the process.
You realize that you can’t quite call something a contract if it is not enforceable? The point of contracts is precommitment. What good would the kind of “contract” you describe bring?
Freedom to make any sort of arrangement as long as all parties are willing. A “contract” would be a formal agreement. If you bring force into the mixture you’ll end up with more problems than if you don’t. You can’t have everyone and their grandmother making arbitrary agreements and then using state power to coerce others into following through, so let them make arbitrary agreements and sort it out amongst themselves. Otherwise you get as much injustice as if you’d just allowed the government to dictate your affairs on a whim.
It seems to me the problem here is that the private contracts would be enforced in the hypothetical model. Libertarians seem to propose that the legal benefits of marriage as opposed to the arbitrary spiritual components are the aspect of marriage to be agreed upon. I disagree.
I think that people should be allowed to create private contracts for any issue, but only if those contracts are not enforced. Both parties must remain willing participants throughout the process. Also, if the state deems any contracts unacceptably offensive, or contrary to public interest, it obviously has the power to nullify them. “Contracts” without the intervention of force, would be nothing more than symbols that a consensus for agreement has been reached. Of course, I imagine that this will be unstable in the long run as people will gradually seek government assistance in getting their way, and the state will become more and more involved as time goes on, and the system will get slower and more complicated with each new contract.
It is my opinion, if I may get just a tad bit political, that the state, having little to no interest in the more harmless dynamics of an individual’s love life, should ignore any agreements on how a person conducts their marriage as long as none of the rights the state formally exists to secure are infringed beyond what the public will tolerate. The legal status of a married couple, being relevant because the lives of two people living as a partnership have different financial qualities than the life of a person living independently, should apply to any arrangement with the same configuration of economic impact as a married couple. I think this is the optimal system, but seeing as how most people appeal to libertarian ideals only to support there own fundamentalist political tribe, it may or may not actually arise.
You realize that you can’t quite call something a contract if it is not enforceable? The point of contracts is precommitment. What good would the kind of “contract” you describe bring?
Freedom to make any sort of arrangement as long as all parties are willing. A “contract” would be a formal agreement. If you bring force into the mixture you’ll end up with more problems than if you don’t. You can’t have everyone and their grandmother making arbitrary agreements and then using state power to coerce others into following through, so let them make arbitrary agreements and sort it out amongst themselves. Otherwise you get as much injustice as if you’d just allowed the government to dictate your affairs on a whim.