How does an atheist get married in a Libertarian society? Being an atheist, I refuse to get married in a church. But, being a Libertarian, I'm not exactly for asking the government to approve of my marriage through a marriage license.
So, would a marriage in a Libertarian society consist of a contract between the couple and a mediator, such as a lawyer?
A lawyer wouldn't be necessary, but you could have one if you wanted. You could do it however you wanted as long as you didn't violate anyone's rights. Although personally, I find a classic marriage contract abhorrant. Try polyamory instead. ;)
Simple, join a Humanistic society. Irreligious humanists are all over the place. The British Humanist Association for example offers irreligious marriages, baby naming ceremonies, and funerals. I imagine other Humanistic associations do the same.
Go here http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/
All you really need is a witness.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Does "miscegenation" mean having sex with someone other than one's own mother, sister and first-cousin? :-)
For what it's worth, it's 2 million years too late to enforce "racial purity" as that was when humanity moved out of Africa. As some population groups moved out of the scorching Africa sun into more northern regions, the balance between skin cancer vs. Vitamin-D/Calcium absorption (hence healthy bone structure) started to shift to a strategy of lower melanin content, both in the skin and in the hair. "Race" is simply the result of sexual selection. The same phenomenom has replayed itself out in a time span as short as a few hundred years in this country under the selective pressure of social advantages: a significant portion of "whites" in North America are actually descents of "mixed blood" ancenstry that subsequently went through a few generations of sexual selection before "passing" into "whitehood."
The term "miscegenation" was invented in the 1860's, whereas laws forbidding inter-racial marriage in the colonies started in the late 17th century after a couple severe pre-slavery servant rebellions as a device to divide and conquer indentured servants (of both races but mostly whites at that time) . . . so that the two racial groups could fight each other instead of plotting rebellions together. That was before indentured servitude gave way to institutionalized slavery. In other words, it was one of the earliest social engineering experiments.
In some states, common law marriage is not recognized as marriage for legal considerations (such as tax, inheritance without will, child custody in case one party passes away, etc., etc.) So it will be up to you and your partner to decide how important a piece of paper from the government is. All of these items are of course government's way of screwing with our private lives. There should be a income tax difference between married-joint vs. two singles becaue there shouldn't be income tax to begin with; there should be a difference for inheritance tax because there should be inheritance tax to begin with. However, given that tax treatment is highly dependent on the piece of paper, it's something that you and your partner have to decide together.
oops, a few typo's in my previous post. . . .missing a few instances of the word "not":
All of these items are of course government's way of screwing with our private lives. There should NOT be a income tax difference between married-joint vs. two singles becaue there shouldn't be income tax to begin with; there should NOT be a difference for inheritance tax because there should NOT be inheritance tax to begin with.
Dear Readers/ Contributors,
I'd like to quote the initial subject of the present thread:
"So, would a marriage in a Libertarian society consist of a contract between the couple and a mediator, such as a lawyer?"
It seems to me that the recent posts regarding miscigenation, ancient laws and other issues are a bit "off-topic", thus I'd suggest to try to return to the original intent of Mr. SMacaskill and contribute with practical ideas on how to deal with his real-life situation.
My personal viewpoint:
In a Libertarian society, specific rules could be created and agreed upon within each organized community to deal with marital status, and each individual could, at own discretion, choose to adhere to these rules, in case this procedure could bring any benefit to him/ her, for instance making easier to obtain credit for buying a house or opening a new business in association with the "legal-status" spouse.
Otherwise, no legal obligation would be imposed to display a guvmint' issued piece of paper to attest marital status. In addition, If people would wish to marry according to the laws of the Catholic Church or Moses' laws or Koranic law, it would be a private, voluntary decision of the marrying couple.
The "women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab" were all members of the semitic race, so there wasn't "miscegenation" to speak of even if you want to commit anachronism in using the term. Ancient tribes routinely engaged in inbreeding and outbreeding, for various political purposes, and biological necessity when prolonged inbreeding led to amplification of genetic diseases. King Solomon's Sheba for example was not Jewish, and probably not even semitic. Even the patriarch Abraham's wife Hagar was not born Jewish; Issac's wife Rebekah wasn't either; Essau and Judith took Hittite and Ishmaelite for wives . . . etc. Do I need to go on?
The social engineering element was in artificially seperating the domestic population into codified definition of races to achieve divide-and-conquer . . . in other words, apartheid in a domestic context. The example you cited was about policies regarding marrying tribes beyond the domestic government; in other words international marriages.
I still think some participants on this thread are actually discussing a different subject, namely some speculations on the historical/ political and/ or sociological aspects of discrimination applied to racial "purity" (whatever it may be), marriage between or within tribes, some even suggesting that marrying to someone of one's own tribe or group is a form of apartheid etc. etc., *but* even though I respect these opinions - while disagreeing from most of them - this is also irrelevant regarding the topic and does not help respond the original query.
Further ideas on how to properly define marriage and deal with it within a libertarian society are welcome.
TRUE polyamory would provide that the spouses of these rich men could have other men as spouses (with the agreement of their other partners of course) and they would be having their children as well. In fact these women could have as many other male spouses as they choose and their primary partner would not mind. So the corrupt rich men would not necessarily pass on their genes. He would only throw his hat into the ring of other potential sperm donors. Don't forget that under polyamory women could have other male spouses as well - as many as they wanted - and would be giving birth to these other spouses children if they so chose. Therefore the type of society statist or pure anarcho-capitalist doesn't make a difference.
aajjsister: TRUE polyamory would provide that the spouses of these rich men could have other men as spouses
TRUE polyamory would provide that the spouses of these rich men could have other men as spouses
aajjsister: In fact these women could have as many other male spouses as they choose and their primary partner would not mind. So the corrupt rich men would not necessarily pass on their genes.
aajjsister:Don't forget that under polyamory women could have other male spouses as well
Halevy:some even suggesting that marrying to someone of one's own tribe or group is a form of apartheid
Nobody suggested that. Voluntarily choosing to marry one's own tribe or group is a personal choice, whereas laws requiring individuals to only marry their own races/groups is the very definition of apartheid (the word itself means "separate, being apart"). This actually cuts to the fundamentals of libertarianism vs. collectivism: should the government/tribal leader have the right to control not only your property but also your private lives. The difference is just like voluntary charity vs. government enforced "charity donation" to the treasury department, only more severe and more personal. Just like the question on whether your neighbors own your property (socialists believe they do), do your neighbors own your sperms/eggs? Advocates of anti-miscegenation laws do.
So, what's the definition of "corruptness"? does it go something like, if you are richer than I am, you are corrupt; if you are not as rich as I am, you are incompetent . . . therefore I encourage myself to have as many wives as possible . . . :-) I suppose that does make some kind of nihilistic logical sense.
Earth to Mars: most women can enjoy sex. They just may not enjoy sex with some low quality specimen of man (hence rape is not welcome). Likewise, most men can enjoy sex, but I'm not so desperate as to think that all men enjoy sex with just about any random woman. There are ugly women, just like there are ugly men . . . ugly in many different ways. Also, STD's take the indiscrimnate ones out of the gene pool.
Sperm quality, does that mean the swimming ability of the little guys or the chemical solvent power at the tip? From the view of the sperm itself, all the men with big penises, big muscles, big brains or big wallets are all "corrupt" . . . the only thing matters is the sperm itself. Let's all worship the almighty sperm. Jokes aside, what constitute reproductive success potential is different under different envrionmental factors. Take something as simple as near-sightedness (myopia); it's a deadly genetic defect in the age of hunter-gatherers, but in an age of contact lenses and laser eye surgery, it's a non-factor.
The whole point of wealth is to acquire chips that can at some point get you ahead of the line when something is pursued by other people at the same time. It's bad enough that we have politicians over the eons telling us how such chips are corrupt and we lay people should follow their prescribed template of virtue, and the give the choiciest lamb to the politicians instead. I'd hate to see the government get in the business of mating too . . . it inevitably leads to The Great Leaders getting all the pretty girls :-)