No Such Thing As Marital Rape

[Mister Mister]

Isn't marriage a statist institution to begin with?

No, whatever gave you that idea?  Are contracts a statist institution?

[thecurrentyear]

Personal boundaries don't cease to exist, just because you married someone.

 

Good thing that's not what I said then.

[inquirius]

No, whatever gave you that idea?  Are contracts a statist institution?

 

Not sure if you're being facetious or not.  I'll be assuming you aren't.

 

Yes, marriage (which is a contract) and contracts are, in fact, statist institutions, because they fundamentally require both parties to acknowledge the enforcement authority of a sufficiently legitimate third party to have any meaning.  You could argue that the third party in question need not necessarily be a state, but for contracts that really matter, I don't think anyone would be willing to settle for anything less than an entity which has the greatest possible violent force and the greatest possible history of legitimacy.  

 

This leads into my next point, which is that marriage is currently never a good idea for a man, because the male end of the bargain is violently compelled, the female end is not, and the female has nearly all authority.  For much of English common law, under the legal doctrine of coverture, this was not the case; consent was implied via the marriage contract, as it should be.  Marriage was openly acknowledged as a contract for the trade of a lifetime of sex for a lifetime of resources, and that was reflected in law.  Additionally, the male retained most authority because that trade still favors the female.  

 

So, is there a such thing as marital rape? I don't think so.  Community property dictates that a female owns the male's body via his labor, so I see no reason why a man is not then entitled to use the body of the female.                           

[dsayers]

Yes, marriage (which is a contract) and contracts are, in fact, statist institutions, because they fundamentally require both parties to acknowledge the enforcement authority of a sufficiently legitimate third party to have any meaning.

Where to begin? Statism is institutionalized coercion; The belief that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. Contracts are voluntary. These ideas are incompatible.

 

When two people enter into a contract, if they voluntarily designate a 3rd party arbiter, this is not coercive.

 

If somebody breaks their contract, then others will be less likely to trade with them due to reputation. This is natural, voluntary "enforcement."

 

Finally, because contracts are voluntary, they should be constructed with early termination clauses. That way even once in a contract, people are free to leave.

 

Just because you can make use of the State to forcibly punish people for breaking contracts does not mean contracts are a statist construct.

[inquirius]

1. Where to begin? Statism is institutionalized coercion; The belief that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories. Contracts are voluntary. These ideas are incompatible.

 

2. When two people enter into a contract, if they voluntarily designate a 3rd party arbiter, this is not coercive.

 

3. If somebody breaks their contract, then others will be less likely to trade with them due to reputation. This is natural, voluntary "enforcement."

 

4. Finally, because contracts are voluntary, they should be constructed with early termination clauses. That way even once in a contract, people are free to leave.

 

5. Just because you can make use of the State to forcibly punish people for breaking contracts does not mean contracts are a statist construct.

 

1. You're going to have to talk in plainer language for me to address this point.

 

2. Contracts are generally voluntary, yes, however, there are types of contracts in which this is not the case such as those created by operation of law (operation of law = contract automatically created by the state regardless of intent of parties).  A benign example would be intestate succession (a.k.a., death without a will).  A less benign example would be adverse possession (title of land passes to unopposed aggressive occupant after a period of time).

 

3. Even assuming that loss of reputation is somehow an acceptable punishment, the threat of loss of reputation is coercion, because threats are coercion.  Terms like "less likely" are not acceptable parts of a contract, because one of the elements of a viable contract is the mutual understanding of the intent of all parts of a contract.  Lack of clarity would certainly be grounds for voiding a contract.

 

Not to mention common sense dictates that you would frankly have to be pretty stupid to agree to a contract someone might be held responsible for breaching.  Imagine you're a settlor for a trust and the trustee embezzles the funds; under your threat of "maybe" punishment, do you really think the trustee cares?  Do you think people who would do future business with that trustee particularly care if that money is stolen?  If marriage is any indicator of the integrity of humanity when it comes to contracts, the answer is a resounding, "no."

 

4. Yes, early termination clauses, such as those accompanying tenancy contracts, are in general a good idea, provided they make sense within a given type of contract.  We agree, but I'm not sure what your point is.                   

 

5. Contracts are a statist construct because the legal fiction, history, and logic we use to understand and implement them are statist constructs.  The fundamental legal fiction that makes a contract what it is today is the belief that we can give the enforcement authority, which should belong to the parties making the contract, to another party, and be subserviant to that party.

 

Being contractually subserviant to a party's enforcement authority sounds a hell of a lot like government to me, whether that government is one person or many people.    

[dsayers]

1. The rest of your post tells me this likely isn't so. Either way, without specifying what parts are problematic, I can't make them "plainer"?

 

2. "Love making is generally voluntary, yes, however, there are types of love making in which this is not the case such as rape." Which by definition would mean it's not love making. Just like if it's not voluntary, it's not a contract.

 

3. "the threat of loss of reputation is coercion" You poison the well with the word threat.

a) Thinking less of somebody is not a behavior.

b) When somebody engages in a voluntary behavior, they are voluntarily accepting the consequences of that behavior.

c) By extension, when somebody initiates the use of force (which breaking a contract with no early termination clause is), they are voluntarily creating a debt and cannot claim the collection of that debt is coercive.

d) In the cause and effect relationship, effect is not the threat of the cause. It would be like saying that using a ladder is coercive because losing your footing comes with the "threat" of falling to the Earth. This is just reality.

 

5. False. When you came to these forums, you were given user level access in exchange for your agreement to abide by the forum TOS. This is a contract, is completely voluntary, and has nothing to do with a "statist construct." What even is a statist construct for that matter?

 

I think maybe you don't know what contract means. It's just an agreement between two people predicated on the other person's involvement. I will provide X in exchange for Y is a contract.

[inquirius]

1. Your statement, "Statism is institutionalized coercion; The belief that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories." definitely needs some unpacking.  I understand the part before the semicolon, but I do not understand the esoteric part after the semicolon.

 

2. Sex is a great example which perfectly illustrates my point, actually.  The cases I pointed out deal with contracts in which consent is implied via certain factors such as the actions of the concerned individuals, just as in sex.  The equivalent would not be rape, as you attempt to argue; it would be how sex often occurs without express consent.  Adverse possession is like courting a female for a long, long time and then having sex with her when you go back to her place; you don't need her to say, "Hear ye, hear ye, this man-beast and I may now engage in copious copulation," if she says as much with her actions.

 

3. You appear to be fogging me here, as Stefan often says, so I'll just reiterate that my point stands that contracts rely on being legally enforceable to mean anything.  Subserviance to a party of higher authority which has the means of enforcing that authority is a fundamental part of a contract.  

 

Furthermore, damages caused via loss of reputation are very real and people do go to court to remedy libel and slander.  Maybe the disconnect here is that you say,  "thinking less of someone is not a behavior," but that's very obviously incorrect because thinking is itself a behavior.  In fact, if you look up the definition of behavior, which is "the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others," how one thinks about someone else is certainly included in that definition.

 

5. No, actually, my ability to post on these forums is a privilege, not a contract, because I was granted that ability by a party which has such an authority grant such an ability.  If the admins on this site decide to revoke my ability to post here, I do not have any legal right to remedy that situation.  If I did, then it would be a contract. 

 

What that has to do with my #5 point, I have no idea.  If you'd like to actually address my fifth point, you might want to do a better job that saying "false" and derailing the argument.               

[dsayers]

1. For you and me, it is immoral to steal, assault, rape, and murder. However, (according to statism) for the ruling and enforcer class, these things are not only not considered to be immoral, but are considered righteous. Thus, statism is the belief that humans are capable of occupying different, opposing moral categories simultaneously.

 

2. Consent cannot be implied. With regards to the mating ritual, it is given even if not verbally. Which wasn't the point. The point was that for you to claim that contracts are voluntary except when they're not exceeds the definition of contract. It is a first principle that something cannot be itself and the opposite of itself simultaneously. Such as love making and rape, or contract and coercively imposed interaction.

 

3. You are projecting as you go on to do the fogging when you bring up libel and slander. That is not what's being discussed. What's being discussed is the repercussions of violating one's contract, which is tantamount to voluntarily taking on a reputation of being unreliable in the context of satisfying one's contractual obligations. In order for your assertion that contracts require "legally enforceable" to be true, they would not be able to exist outside of state oversight. However, we know that they do. We also know that the only thing that you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence is violence itself. Which is the opposite of contracts. Which are the embodiment of cooperation.

 

5. ALL contracts involve investments that the parties are"has such an authority [to] grant." Bring up this characteristic as if it refutes contracts is nonsensical. That ability was not granted willy nilly. There are requisites one must agree to in advance and adhere to. Yes, they can withdraw it at any time, because it is their property. Just as if I let you borrow my car, the nature of your use of my car is temporary by design, thus withdrawal of my consent is a feature of our contract.

 

What that has to do with my #5 point, I have no idea.  If you'd like to actually address my fifth point, you might want to do a better job that saying "false" and derailing the argument.               

6. This is also false. In the examination of whether or not contracts are a statist construct, your initial point 5 was "Contracts are a statist construct because the legal fiction, history, and logic we use to understand and implement them are statist constructs." This is begging the question. You go on to claim requiring a 3rd party, but that claim had already been challenged and as of yet, has yet to be established.

 

Thank you for the exchange. I miss the days when this is what FDR looked like.

[Caley McKibbin]

Anonymous snipers don't fly with me.  I challenge the negger to crawl out of the hole.  Otherwise you have no business being here of all places.