I ask that because a few weeks ago, you applauded a news report showing that a couple of con artists were marsquerading as homeless, the implication being that you should NOT give money to anyone, because they MIGHT be con-artists who make their money by lying on the sidewalk looking sick all day.

When the possibility was mentioned of reading the Times Neediest Cases articles, which describe why someone needs help and fell through the cracks, not one of your commenters responded - making it clear that perhaps libertarians enjoy trying to actually PREVENT us from using our freedom to help others, by making it seem as though the evidence is stacked in favor of us being conned.

a day late and a dollar short here, but worth saying: i can’t believe that you, of all bloggers, would fall prey to the ridiculous feminist lie that philandering men are the biggest threat to the institution of marriage.

modern marriage is a bad joke that serves to transfer money, wholesale, from men to women. over 70% of all divorces are initiated by women, who then proceed to collect checks so that they can ‘maintain the standard of living established during the marriage’.

the example you SHOULD be putting forward is that of a contract that tells the wife that, should she begin to feel ‘bored’ or ‘unfulfilled’ and want a quick escape valve, she can leave with nought but the things with which she entered the marriage and/or earned herself.

obviously, such examples are included under the umbrella you’ve put forth, but your implication that men are largely responsible for the decline of marriage is, in a word, sickening.

What non-libertarian solution is there to this immense and vague problem with which you’ve somehow tarred libertarianism specifically, a solution not available to libertarians? This seems to me another one of those cases where libertarians are getting blamed for a problem no one can fully solve, like when libertarians are called callous for, say, not thinking there should be a law against rudeness (supposedly making us _pro_-rudeness), even though _no_ political faction proposes plausible anti-rudeness laws (per se).

One response: The tighter laws and customs than simple contract are there…to call a halt to families that are morbidly dysfunctional and a destructive force in the lives of children. It isn’t a perfect solution…but it does cut back on the worst of this social nightmare. A good example of the result of simple contract enforcement in marriage is that extreme community in Arizona where the women and young girls have become no more than trophies among the men…”the one with the most in the end wins”. Since they have been left to become the nightmare they are now by vertue of people thinking,”Well they aren’t HURTING anyone…”, they have IN FACT HURT THE CHILDREN THEY RAISED…

The purpose of family is to raise well balanced kids to adulthood, who can then function in the larger world. Everything else is frills and adult compensation. To allow adult whims to impose upon the core purpose of the family is to EXPAND the human despair we all ready have. The mess the came out of the 60s experimental families should inform everyone that family is not the place to preform experiments. Russia learned that lesson during the early Socialist years, when they attempted to wipe the family out in favor of the Collective…and the Israeli Kibbutz have found that they can not keep children separated from their parents to foster a community-family. It INCREASES, rather than decreases, the soap-opera of communal communities.

As much as general concepts appear to have logical results on paper….when they fail to take into account the TOTALITY of human nature they are more hurtful than helpful. This is why most people reject the Libertarian Concept…it fails to take the totality of human nature into account. They may not be able to articulate their reasons for doing so…but that is the root of it. Where ever the Libertarian Solution is applied, the harshest of human emotions is played upon and accentuated, because people are left to their own devices. The best of human nature is not supported or accentuated by wider community norms found to be the most functional for humans to live by over the large tracks of time…Not a place most folks would want to live.

The harsh worlds of the Simplistic Solution given to us by the Communist-State-Nanny or the Libertarian-Every-Human-For-Themselves are not Utopias….they are the opposite. Even in a Dictatorship compassion and freedom would be better served in daily life.

Plus: We DO have Contract Law Primary in the US….that’s what all the lawyers are running around doing…they are part of the enforcement of that SECTION of our society. I think everyone else is of the opinion they are doing MORE than enough NOW.

Lee

If the market wants lawyers, though, let there be lawyers.

And at the risk of scaring people or simply making myself look like I’m far craftier than you even begin to suspect, I put the word “unsuspecting” in front of “little old lady” in the original entry above precisely to allow for the contractual, preplanned throwing of little old ladies, which I would consider legally legitimate, though not necessarily a good idea, obviously — much that is a bad idea should be legal, as with romance.

And, yes, Brain, I am trying to remove official government endorsement from marriage, whether straight or gay, since it should be a private contractual matter, orientation notwithstanding — let society bicker over the merits of various sexual positions or cohabitation arrangements, but don’t give the state with its taxes and jails the final word for individuals who may disagree with it.

and, incidentally, the urge to replace the *criminal* law with tort law is what prompts the murderous-Buffet stories in the first place– it seems to lead to the consequence that the great wrong of a rights-violation can and should be compensated with a check made out to the survivors and heirs.

(NB: I have some sympathy with both of those replacements, though less than I used to.)

Todd, you’re the first libertarian I’ve ever heard of whose solution to government inefficiency is More Lawyers. Instead of one Elliot Spitzer, 100 million Elliot Spitzers for each and every client of each investment house out there.

Todd, would you support a system which allowed an old lady to sign a contract that if she cheated on her husband, he’d be able to throw her off a building? Cause, the title of your post suggests yes.