You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is Fraud--and by Extension, Marital Infidelity--a Violation of the NAP?
As a voluntaryist, how do you define marriage as something distinct from a couple choosing to cohabitate? In other words, who "validates" the marriage in a voluntaryist society? Obviously, the state grants a marriage licence today, but if we were to be so fortunate as to someday remove government from marriage, or even remove government from everything, what do you see a marriage "contract" looking like?
It isn't the license that matters. It is the mutual contract entered into by the contracting parties. In Oregon marriage licenses are not a prerequisite to having a valid marriage. Frankly, why should anyone have authority to grant permission to marry? Oregon recognizes that marriage is an agreement between the parties thereto that no outside entity has any authority over, and, although you can get a marriage license, you do not need one to have a marriage recognized by the State of Oregon.
When people vow to one another sexual monogamy, that is a contractual obligation, whether it is called a marriage or not. Violating agreements is at issue here, not whether the state or the church authorizes such an agreement.
That's an excellent question, and some people might not even want to have an "official" recognition. I'd still say it would be a form of fraud though, to "cheat," even in the absence of said official recognition, if both parties to the relationship had agreed on monogamy. How does one go about litigating these sort of things? I think communities and private defense and insurance agencies could handle it.
Thinking out loud... It seems impossible to hold the offending person accountable for fraud without an "official" recognition of marriage. In other words, the agreement on monogamy would be made official (and therefore be considered marriage) if they were to involve the community and invite accountability and justice from private defense and insurance.
Without voluntarily inviting that accountability, there can be no such thing as an agreement on monogamy. So perhaps marriage would be defined by whether or not a couple invites that accountability and the subsequent consequence for violating the agreement. If they have not invited the accountability then they are simply cohabitating, and neither couple can truly expect sexual fidelity.
Do you need an official recognition by the state of any other kind of agreement in order for fraud to be potential? Is there a State approval bureaucracy of mortgages or automobile sales?
No. Whether or not any other entity is even aware of agreements, fraud is potential to agreements. Secret agreements may not be enforceable in court, but fraud exists whether it is proved in court or not, and agreements do not depend on some outside authority to be able to be entered into.
Good points. To clarify, I agree that an outside authority is not needed to enter into an agreement. And yes fraud can still be committed even when an agreement is made in secret. The issue is not whether an agreement exists but whether justice can be administered if the agreement is violated.
In your examples, the state determines what qualifies as a legitimate and enforceable contract. And the state exists to enforce the contract if violated. The biggest problem to solve for voluntaryists is how to enforce such contracts and administer justice when the contract is violated. If it can only come from the private sector than it seems to me the couple in the marriage example must agree to submit themselves to accountability and consequences from the community. Until they do, I can't see how they are in fact "married."
I see this issue of how to enforce contracts as the primary reason that many libertarians believe government will always be necessary, although obviously a lot smaller.
Thanks for clarifying for me! I can now better appreciate your earlier comment, regarding enforcement, and why you referenced the state.
I am not particularly schooled regarding voluntarism, but several mechanisms suggest themselves as equal to the task of enforcement, for example, juries. Perhaps the most important democratic mechanism, at least in America, is the jury of peers, who are empowered to decide matters at law. While most people think Judges have that job, it is rather the job of the Judge to be a specialist in the letter of the law, and to direct the technical and administrative matters relevant to a given case, so that juries, which are not expected to have legal backgrounds, can decide the merits of the case.
Just as juries in the USA are drawn from pools of eligible voters, and compensated (a little bit, anyway) for their time, it seems to me that in a stateless society eligible persons could apply to serve on juries. I have read exegeses on how courts might be entirely privately owned affairs in Libertarian states.
As it is hard to actually find examples in the USA of private prisons, for example, that aren't hopelessly intertwined with the state, and corruption, it is difficult to consider how such entities might remain uninfluenceable by those with matters before courts. Of course, courts aren't beyond influence now, so it may be that courts, particularly criminal courts, might ever be beyond influence.
Arbitration is also a mechanism potential to resolving contractual disputes, that presently is at least largely conducted by private parties. In both these examples the mechanism for resolving disputes could easily be specified in the contract itself, rather than imposed afterwards by some authoritative body, and even include buggy whips at 50 paces, if so desired by the parties thereto.
Excellent points, man. I think I get what you are saying now.
There can still be an agreement and a breach, it would just potentially be harder to receive recompense for being defrauded in regard to litigation services. It might even be next to impossible. I agree with you there. However, there can still be a valid agreement and contract (verbal or otherwise) even in the absence of any and all third parties.