Socialist marital regulation?

[FollowingHim]

While socialism, in the form of leftist marxism is toxic, the same in rightist Christian communities wasn't.

I see BOTH socialism and capitalism as fundamental truths and not in any way opposed to each other. Each has a place, and within their place they are beneficial, and complement each other well, but outside their place they are harmful.

Socialism is how we interact with family (including church family) and close friends. If I ask to borrow my brother's car, I expect him to say "yes" - he could say no, but I'd be surprised if he did. Same goes if he asks to borrow my stuff. That's fundamentally socialism - free sharing of goods to those who have need of them. But it's private, voluntary socialism. Either of us can choose to say "no" if we find through experience that we can't trust the other one.

Capitalism is how we interact with people outside our immediate family / tribe. If I ask to borrow a rental company's car, I expect to have to pay a lease on it. And if they asked to borrow mine, same deal. That's capitalism.

Marriage is in the realm of socialism - within the tribe. But government is outside the tribe, mediating between multiple tribes (criminal law, trade regulations etc), and is therefore in the realm of capitalism. So government should be capitalist, but should welcome and even encourage private voluntary socialism to provide the needs of individuals.

Socialism is only a problem when it is moved outside the realm of the family / tribe, and the government tries to impose it en-masse to an entire population. The fundamental error of marxism etc is that it might be well-meaning but simply doesn't work on that scale. And capitalism is only a problem when it is moved into the family / tribe, e.g. if children are taught they deserve payment for every job they do around the house and don't learn everyone simply has duties within the tribe.

And since marriage is an in-tribe socialist thing, while government's role is outside the tribe as a capitalist mediator, it's really not within the jurisdiction of government except for bare-minimum laws to prevent inter-personal harm. Government-imposed marriage laws will always fail simply because they're unnatural.

 

[mystic]

Divorce should not be illegal. That's an intrusion of government into private affairs just as much as other regulation around marriage.

And if I'm not mistaken, it has wreaked havoc when tried (I'm thinking of Romania in 1966).

society could probably survive free and easy divorce if it weren't for the hammers wielded by that industry against men and their families.

The hammering on men is indeed the real problem.

 

[rockfox]

Hadn't thought of it that way, but I agree. Ideally, people would be free to define their own agreements, and then civil courts would simply be in the agreement-enforcing business, as with commercial contracts. The no-fault divorce isn't the problem isn't the problem as much as the anti-male bias ('tender years' doctrine). Level the playing field, and I'll bet we'd see a lot less quick-trigger divorces, even if no-fault were still the basic posture.

Don't get me wrong; I still think no-fault divorce is a huge problem; a potentially civilization ending one. There is a reason the OT didn't allow female initiated divorce.

But on its own it lacks the teeth and financial incentives for whole sale familial destruction that the current system has. But as you say, if the state simply enforced contracts then we could create our own marriage contracts with Biblical provisions to eliminate many of the causes of divorce.

However there is a catch here. It is not clear that we can reasonably expect that outcome. It could well be that a system like what we have now is the inevitable result of the incentives created by no-fault divorce. And there is good reason to think that because there likely could never be a level playing field, even if the law is ostensibly neutral. This is because the courts have been proven time and time again in many different areas to be biased in favor of females; despite the law. Its just human nature to try and protect women.

 

[andrew]

Don't get me wrong; I still think no-fault divorce is a huge problem....

I'm not, and I agree it's a problem. I was just agreeing with you that the bigger problem is the anti-male bias, which as you say may be inherent in human nature.

Optimum legal solution is to put the burden on the parties to determine the nature of their relationship and remedies for various forms of breach. People would think much more clearly about what they're getting into and who they're getting into it with....

 

[rockfox]

Capitalism is how we interact with people outside our immediate family / tribe. If I ask to borrow a rental company's car, I expect to have to pay a lease on it. And if they asked to borrow mine, same deal. That's capitalism.

Marriage is in the realm of socialism - within the tribe. But government is outside the tribe, mediating between multiple tribes (criminal law, trade regulations etc), and is therefore in the realm of capitalism. So government should be capitalist, but should welcome and even encourage private voluntary socialism to provide the needs of individuals.

You're on to something Samuel but it doesn't quite fit. On the question of marriage, you are right; it is the realm of family/tribe and not the government of commerce. But strictly capitalist governments have significant problems because they treat humans as individual economic units with no concern for the greater social good.

 

[Shibboleth]

That divorce is legal at all is horrible but our society could probably survive free and easy divorce if it weren't for the hammers wielded by that industry against men and their families.

The no-fault divorce isn't the problem isn't the problem as much as the anti-male bias ('tender years' doctrine). Level the playing field, and I'll bet we'd see a lot less quick-trigger divorces, even if no-fault were still the basic posture.

However there is a catch here. It is not clear that we can reasonably expect that outcome. It could well be that a system like what we have now is the inevitable result of the incentives created by no-fault divorce. And there is good reason to think that because there likely could never be a level playing field, even if the law is ostensibly neutral. This is because the courts have been proven time and time again in many different areas to be biased in favor of females; despite the law. Its just human nature to try and protect women.

I was just agreeing with you that the bigger problem is the anti-male bias, which as you say may be inherent in human nature.

The last two quotes above basically make the point I was going to make upon reading the first two quotes above. I think by and large, men are wired to want to protect women, which makes any hope of fair treatment extremely difficult at best.

Extreme example of case in point: A female UK Army recruit was recently reduced to tears by her instructor's shouting during a training exercise, and the video went viral: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/you-f-weak-shocking-viral-12490017

Having never been in the armed forces, I can only assume that he's treating her more or less equally to male recruits (that's the goal, right? equality!). Presumeably, the goal is to test and strengthen your calm, resolve, and level-headedness in a hostile and distracting situation, which the instructor is providing. But if a male recruit broke down like that, and if he couldn't toughen up, I imagine he'd probably get booted, and rightly so. But in this case, because she's female, it's the instructor that faces possible court marshal for inappropriate behavior.

As a result, this lady, and anyone on her combat squad would be in serious danger if she were in an actual combat situation.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Another is that Marxism is totalitarian at pushing outward conformance to build an earthly utopia (gods now) whereas Christian communal life is voluntary, inward conformance to reach paradise in the next life (gods later).

Gods later? Come again?

 

[Mojo]

You're really really close Jacob, its a good observation. But let me drill it one level deeper: it's a Utopian mindset.

• Some men just won't be fit to reproduce. A fundamental characteristic of male biology is an increase of genetic variability compared to women (for good and ill). This means there will always be more men than woman who are reproductively unfit and so some men will need to take two wives to ensure all reproductively fit women have a mate. This is all the more the case after a war, pestilence, or MGTOW movement.
• It is disgenic. The health of all animal species depends on survival of the fittest. Something any good animal breeder will tell you is that saving every animal for breeding is one of the quickest ways to destroy the genetic fitness of the herd/breed/species. Monogamy is unhealthy for us genetically; many genes SHOULDN'T be propagated. That is harsh, but it is the biological truth. That is how God designed creation to work and there are many other polygamous species. And biologists will tell you that the human's level of sexual dimorphism indicates we are a mildly polygamous species.
• You'll never stop the apex males from sleeping around. By enforcing monogamy you force them into disfunctional relationships (one night stands, secret affairs, adultery, single motherhood, etc). But by allowing them to marry multiple women, you channel that energy into functional civilization building marriage and family.
• Hypergamy (women mating up) means the bottom tier men will always go without mates, monogamy or not. But monogamy means the top tier women are more likely to go without as well, rather than doubling up with men in polygamy, thereby increasing total matelessness. But it is worse than that. In a vain effort to increase the spread of your least valuable, most disfunctional genes (bottom tier men) you sacrifice your most valuable genes (top tier women). Again, disgenic.

I'm a little late to this party, but had a few things to say. I agree with most of what you say @rockfox. Much of this could be racked up and posted on the "best of" in terms of the diagnosis of what's wrong with our society as a whole and the church as a microcosm.

I'm just a little uncomfortable with breaking things down to pure genetics, disgenics and breeding terms. Those who know the history of our modern abortion factories know that eugenics was the excuse for "family planning".

The nation of Israel sought out a prototypical apex male in the form of Saul, but God looks not on the outside. It didn't turn out so well without spiritual muscle. Small and ruddy David was the model God was looking for in his leader. That is the difference from us and the animals.

There are traits and qualities aside from pure physical means that will advance society and our churches. Besides, ingenuity is the great equalizer of men. Firearms prove this.

 

[Mojo]

I see BOTH socialism and capitalism as fundamental truths and not in any way opposed to each other. Each has a place, and within their place they are beneficial, and complement each other well, but outside their place they are harmful.

Socialism is how we interact with family (including church family) and close friends. If I ask to borrow my brother's car, I expect him to say "yes" - he could say no, but I'd be surprised if he did. Same goes if he asks to borrow my stuff. That's fundamentally socialism - free sharing of goods to those who have need of them. But it's private, voluntary socialism. Either of us can choose to say "no" if we find through experience that we can't trust the other one.

Capitalism is how we interact with people outside our immediate family / tribe. If I ask to borrow a rental company's car, I expect to have to pay a lease on it. And if they asked to borrow mine, same deal. That's capitalism.

Marriage is in the realm of socialism - within the tribe. But government is outside the tribe, mediating between multiple tribes (criminal law, trade regulations etc), and is therefore in the realm of capitalism. So government should be capitalist, but should welcome and even encourage private voluntary socialism to provide the needs of individuals.

Socialism is only a problem when it is moved outside the realm of the family / tribe, and the government tries to impose it en-masse to an entire population. The fundamental error of marxism etc is that it might be well-meaning but simply doesn't work on that scale. And capitalism is only a problem when it is moved into the family / tribe, e.g. if children are taught they deserve payment for every job they do around the house and don't learn everyone simply has duties within the tribe.

And since marriage is an in-tribe socialist thing, while government's role is outside the tribe as a capitalist mediator, it's really not within the jurisdiction of government except for bare-minimum laws to prevent inter-personal harm. Government-imposed marriage laws will always fail simply because they're unnatural.

The early Church seems to read like a socialist primer...but it was voluntary and insular.

 

[rockfox]

Gods later? Come again?

John 10:

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father isin Me, and I in Him.”

Romans 8:

14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

Rather than submit to God in the hope of reward in the next life and be adopted as a son, the servants of Satan seek god like power today in this life as they attempt to create heaven on earth. But since they have not God it looks an awful lot like hell.

 

[Shibboleth]

Could a mod split out my comment above, and @Paulsen's immediately preceding it, into a separate thread? I think there's a good potential conversation there, and this thread is already going in enough different directions without adding another.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

John 10:



Romans 8:



Rather than submit to God in the hope of reward in the next life and be adopted as a son, the servants of Satan seek god like power today in this life as they attempt to create heaven on earth. But since they have not God it looks an awful lot like hell.

I will not argue with The Son of G-d

I have read that before but I guess it just never sunk in... but there it is, plain as day.

 

[FollowingHim]

Could a mod split out my comment above, and @Paulsen's immediately preceding it, into a separate thread? I think there's a good potential conversation there, and this thread is already going in enough different directions without adding another.

Done: http://www.biblicalfamilies.org/forum/threads/private-marriage-contracts.14005/

 

[rockfox]

The problem with socialist systems is they are unsustainable and unstable. They inevitably fail. I wonder if we see the same thing with monogamy. Could the free love movement been the inevitable crackup that is the result of trying to achieve hard monogamy? Could this be why marriage is failing?

 

[steve]

The free love movement was pretty much rebellion against rules.
There are rules in polygyny that they probably would have rebelled against also.

 

[frederick]

The free love movement was pretty much rebellion against rules.
There are rules in polygyny that they probably would have rebelled against also.

I agree the free love movement was a rebellion against marriage but whether it's one wife (monogamy) or more (polygyny), it's still marriage. The SSM movement is a rebellion against biblical marriage just as polyamory is rebellion against biblical marriage. It is my conviction that the monogamy-only movement is just as much a rebellion against biblical marriage because the proponents of this movement have set it, in the same way as those other movements, as the standard for everyone to abide by.

 

[rockfox]

It is my conviction that the monogamy-only movement is just as much a rebellion against biblical marriage because the proponents of this movement have set it, in the same way as those other movements, as the standard for everyone to abide by.

Exactly. Rebellion against God's order like that can't be without consequences.