It isn't all about property...

[inibo]

(Well, actually it is, but we won't go there.)

On a previous thread I was said to be an exemplar of the libertarian obsession with property rights, my property rights in particular. Maybe, maybe not, but let's pretend it's not all about property for a bit. I'd like to quote one of my favorite bloggers, Will Grigg. This particular piece is about

Comments

[redsparkle]

I think there are a lot of progressives that are appalled by such a thing. Dare I say, the majority of them. I have very little faith that any kind of restriction on reproduction like that would ever happen.

It's not really "is parenthood a right or a privilege" as much as it is "is your body yours and yours alone, or can the government take control over it?"

[inibo]

I think there are a lot of progressives that are appalled by such a thing

Well, the same way progressives only hear libertarians talk about property and guns, I only hear progressives talk about hate speech and gay marriage as though a government license to marry were something to be coveted rather than detested.

[squidb0i]

And who, praytell, would enforce the rights of the social contract that is marriage if not government?

[gunslnger]

If it's a social contract then it's not in the government's purview, otherwise it would be a legal contract.

[squidb0i]

What part of enforcement didn't you understand?

[gunslnger]

What part of social don't you understand?

To answer your stupid question, society enforces social contracts, police enforce legal contracts.

Society? Who is that?

[squidb0i]

And by what mechanism do they do so?
How are suspects determined, detained, guilt proven?

Oh, wait, we fucking have that already.
It's called law enforcement and the justice system.

Unless you imagine bands of noble citizens unerringly rounding up bad guys and stringing them up from the nearest grizzled mesquite?

Re: Society? Who is that?

[gunslnger]

Are you really this clueless?

So you're admitting that you have no answer.

[squidb0i]

I thought as much.

Re: Society? Who is that?

[jerseycajun]

He's not talking about rounding up criminals. This thread was kicked off with the subject of marriage and whether or not the state should be involved in it.

This may be a difficult concept to grasp, but many social institutions do and often should exist outside and apart from the state and they have their own modes of enforcement involving shared social norms of that particular community.

A broken marriage contract within a particular community might be met with community disapproval and ostracization, for example.

However, if someone in the community decides to murder the offending party, then the state is involved because a basic human right has been violated.

Oh, so there's a state now?

[squidb0i]

Involved in enforcing laws and rules?
Look at that.

Re: Oh, so there's a state now?

[gunslnger]

The state does not enforce social norms. Moron.

Contracts are not social norms.

[squidb0i]

They are legal documents, with penalties for breaching them.

I'm still waiting for your explanation of how your fantasy world would work.

Re: Contracts are not social norms.

[gunslnger]

A social contract is not a legal contract.

How is this so difficult for you?

[squidb0i]

Marriage is a legal contract.
Credit and property are merged.
Power of attorney is merged.

Yes, why is this so difficult for you?

[gunslnger]

It is also a social contract and was before the legal stuff was created. The legal powers can be removed and it would go back to being solely a social contract. And let's go back to your original question, who, praytell, would enforce the rights of the social contract that is marriage if not government? Not the legal contract, the social contract. The government does not enforce social contracts, it only enforces legal contracts.