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?

[Friz]

Yeah, I'd reckon it is.

[minionofmidas]

Absolutely.
Why I should I be banned from letting my extended family search for a match for me?
That would be the answer to the question in the thread title.

As to the question in the post, ah, that's a tougher one. Yes, I would agree that a state-enforced marriage age is not really consistent with the ancap vision. I would also agree that it's a necessity (though the age it should be at is, of course, subject to debate).

[Hash]

No its not. It's called common sense.

[Lief 🗽]

No its not. It's called common sense.

[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.

[minionofmidas]

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.

Ah, but this refers to the question in the thread title, not the post. The thread title makes no mention of the marrying off of children. Arranged marriage is the norm among all dispersed minority groups all over the world, especially so when also faced with restrictive immigration laws with marriage exemptions.

(As to the "ancap" bit, that was just because I don't like to abuse the term "libertarian" by applying to the the set of ideologies commonly described as such in English. Viva el Comunismo Libertario! )

[John Dibble]

I'd say it's a grey area, but I lean yes. So long as the family can't actually force the marriage, meaning the couple has a choice in the matter and can divorce later if they do choose to go through with it, then arranged marriages should be allowed. In that case I'd say it is authoritarian to ban it, though not facist or anything of that extreme - as I said, it's a grey area and could be construed as being done to protect the rights of the couple.
 
However, the parents should not be able to force their kids to marry someone they don't want to. Banning that kind of arranged marriage is truly for the protection of the rights of the concerned couple.

[afleitch]

If arranged marriages are part of a culture then fine. As long as their are legal routes out of an arranged marriage in the same way their are routes out of any other marriage. The only marriages that should be banned are forced marriages, arranged or otherwise.

[StateBoiler]

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.

[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)?

[StateBoiler]

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)?

A person who is five or thirteen does not have capacity.

The essence of libertarianism is that the individual is responsible for himself or herself and his or her own actions. However, that does not give you the right to commit a crime against another because you are taking away that person's own rights as a human being. Obviously, a child does not have the capacity to make the decision about marriage. And anyone that attempts to force said person into such an arrangement is doing little better than kidnapping, which goes back to taking away the youngster's rights as a human being.

[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.

[StateBoiler]

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.

If you are a mature adult, you know what capacity is. You do not let a child drive in a Ferrari. You do not sign contracts with children that have any legal bearing. And you do not have sex with children. A child cannot do any of these cause they do not have the capacity to determine right and wrong with their actions yet.

For your example, Utah and Arizona, which practice big government, especially Utah which has a very authoritarian strain and are about as anti-libertarian as you can get in this country, were incapable from stopping a Mormon polygamist from doing said things for a number of years due to public backlash. Yeah, that worked.

[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.

[StateBoiler]

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.

Of course it's in reference to Jeffs, what else could it be? My comment had nothing to deal with polygamy and had to deal with his forced marriage of kids. The state attorney generals did nothing for years.

I love your line of reasoning though. It goes something like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thanks. I know how to treat your posts from now on. I originally liked you cause you were Irish and due to the Dr. Strangelove picture.

[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.