Is banning arranged marriages an example of Authoritian goverment?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This is mainly for the *ahem* "libertarians".

To take the *ahem* "libertarian" arguement to it's extreme: these *ahem* "libertarians" see the state as the only dominant authority, not cultural and social impluses, not big business, not anything else.. according to them all power in society is dominated by the state (rather than the state being an agent of society) and should the state reduce it's power it will somehow mean greater freedom (whatever that is) for everyone.

So here's a question using this logic, if two parents decided to marry off their 8 year old offspring in exchange for a dowry (as is common in East Asian culture) and that they should marry only when they become older than the age of consent would it be an example of over-extending to ban such practices?

After all, Rothbard seems to view children as property of their parents until they assert their "property rights" (whatever that is). So I suppose the answer is no and that arranged marriages should be legal. No?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No its not. It's called common sense.

Yes but this thread is about *ahem* "libertarianism".

(of course here is where I should quote Einstein.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Clearly this what Mr and Mrs Trondheim were thinking about when you were five. Going to trade you off to the Daughter of the Mistress of Mr. Trondheim's boss in exchange for five rupees, when you turned 12. Iirc it was the rage at the time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not just ancap (who here is only Bono) but some of the more *ahem* "libertarian" members of the board. Like the one who thinks the federal goverment should hold mandatory searches of all mosques.

Also if you really want to stretch the *ahem* "libertarian" arguement than the answer is obviously yes; as Children are the private property of the parents if they cannot fend for themselves in the free market. And to take the Noo-liberal arguement; then yes is also the answer as to do otherwise serves the hegemonic culture.

But all this shows is how much ideologies; especially fringe ideologies like Ancapism are really just cultural products. And are somewhat difficult to implement universally.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This is mainly for the *ahem* "libertarians".

To take the *ahem* "libertarian" arguement to it's extreme: these *ahem* "libertarians" see the state as the only dominant authority, not cultural and social impluses, not big business, not anything else.. according to them all power in society is dominated by the state (rather than the state being an agent of society) and should the state reduce it's power it will somehow mean greater freedom (whatever that is) for everyone.

So here's a question using this logic, if two parents decided to marry off their 8 year old offspring in exchange for a dowry (as is common in East Asian culture) and that they should marry only when they become older than the age of consent would it be an example of over-extending to ban such practices?

After all, Rothbard seems to view children as property of their parents until they assert their "property rights" (whatever that is). So I suppose the answer is no and that arranged marriages should be legal. No?

If the person for whom the marriage is being arranged agrees with it, than it is okay.

If the person for whom the marriage is being arranged does not agree with it, than the parents or other authoritative party are infringing on that person's rights. And that would be wrong cause it would be infringing on that person's freedom as an individual to make his or her own choices. In the prior case (agreeing to the arranged marriage), the person is free to reject but instead decides to accept.

What if the person who agrees is five?

What if the person who agrees is thirteen but has lived on an subsistance farm all his life and has never had any access to any ideas outside of his cultural boundaries (like Education)?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who do you define "capacity"? Is that some arbitary age?

What I just described isn't totally uncommon in certain parts of the world. And Goverment attempts (whether actual or hypothetical) have been\will be little more than failures.

Proving once more that the fight against "big goverment" is just a red herring.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you have to wait to see yourself as a "mature adult" and then you become one? Do you how many 13 year olds like to think their mature?

I'm not sure what the Arizona\Utah thing is a reference to (Jeffs??) but here I'd like to point out that the mormons only turned against polygamy due to a decision in their church; which was seen as an ultimate arbirater in their society. The fact that the reason for that decision was the admission to statehood is pretty irrelevant, as shown by the levels of acceptance (or not) of Polygamous marriage in Utah and Idaho.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

WTF!!??? That's the exact opposite of what I was saying. The purpose of this thread is to satirize the very attitude which just accused me of (reread my opening post again).

My purpose in debating with you was that you did not define "capacity". And no I don't approve of marriage for five years old (But many in East Asia do). Actually I despise American Libertarianism.

As I said the fight against "Big goverment" is a red herring. If society judges marriage between five years old to be perfectly legitmate it will continue regardless of whatever "Big goverment" does. My point is that these so-called "social issues" are based on positions ingrained in certain cultural niches.

Also I wanted to show how "American" libertarianism is. Ie. The believe that the state is the only thing which interferes with whatever they call freedom.

EDIT: I reread your post, it was a bit confusing at first but now I understand (but I'm not editing the above just in case anyone else is confused). No I don't believe US libertarians are for forced marriage (I was just pointing out a flaw in the libertarian arguement); but as I said this is, at it's core, not a goverment issue. It only looks like one. Goverments are as big or small (and effective) as the people allow it. It's actually my own libertarianism which belives that the roots of these issues are inside individual cultures, which create the state and allow it to exist. If all "the ordinary people of America" (whoever they are) tommorow stopped feelings like Americans - became consumers of world culture, rather than exporters - than the United States wouldn't even exist, size of goverment regardless.