"Why not polygamous marriage?"

[Marduk]

Obviously. Freeedom of association and freedom of contract. Employment is (well, was) mutually consensual. If a businessman employs only gay, vegetarian, left-handed, Chinese Methodists, that is quite literally his business. Not mine. Not yours. Not the State's, in a peaceful society.

well I don't know how that works from where youre from, but in the UK we call that discrimination, unless of course he can prove that the job requires only gay, vegetarian, left-handed, Chinese Methodists,
like if he was he running a homosexual, scripture preaching, vegetarian soup kitchen which only has a left sided kettle ?

 

[RandFan]

Segregation was, for a time, very peaceful. Then the damn uppity liberals had to ruin everything.

 

[crimresearch]

Obviously. Freeedom of association and freedom of contract. Employment is (well, was) mutually consensual. If a businessman employs only gay, vegetarian, left-handed, Chinese Methodists, that is quite literally his business. Not mine. Not yours. Not the State's, in a peaceful society.

And DeNile isn't just a strip club in Cairo.

You listed discrimination as an example of a consensual interaction between the adults involved, in which the government interfered.

The nonsense you posted above no more proves that the victims of discrimination consented, than 'freedom of religion' means that a church bombing is consensual.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And DeNile isn't just a strip club in Cairo.
You listed discrimination as an example of a consensual interaction between the adults involved, in which the government interfered. The nonsense you posted above no more proves that the victims of discrimination consented, than 'freedom of religion' means that a church bombing is consensual.

Why is this "nonsense"? Freedom of association and freedom of contract were the law of the land for most of US history. "Discrimination" means detection of differences. There's a reason we call (b² -4ac)^1/2 the discriminant. I'm not saying that "victims of discrimination consented". In a free market, people engage in contracts on mutually argeeable terms. If someone only dates, or marries, or employs people of __X__ (race, gender) that's between them. It's not "harm" to refuse to employ someone. If it is, then I harmed six billion people today.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Segregation was, for a time, very peaceful. Then the damn uppity liberals had to ruin everything.

Who you calling "liberal"? It was Democrats who supported Jim Crow legislation in the Southern US, and the "progressive" (i.e., "liberal" in current usage) Woodrow Wilson who brought Jim Crow to Federal employment.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Who you calling "liberal"? It was Democrats who supported Jim Crow legislation in the Southern US, and the "progressive" (i.e., "liberal" in current usage) Woodrow Wilson who brought Jim Crow to Federal employment.

You're equivocating here. Liberal doesn't mean democrat. It was really during the 1960's that the US political parties switched positions on the political spectrum, when the Republicans started actively courting disaffected Dixiecrat with Republicans' "states' rights" agenda which was really thinly veiled racist anti-federalism.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You're equivocating here. Liberal doesn't mean democrat. It was really during the 1960's that the US political parties switched positions on the political spectrum, when the Republicans started actively courting disaffected Dixiecrat with Republicans' "states' rights" agenda which was really thinly veiled racist anti-federalism.

Classical liberalism is laissez faire capitalism. The modern (~1950) understanding of "liberal" in the US is the reverse of the classical understanding. In Austria and Japan (the Japanese LDP is the market-oriented party) "Liberal" retains its classical use. When Mussolini excoriated liberals in his essay "What is Fascism", it was classical liberalism he criticized.

Political parties are marketing organizations for candidates, so platforms are of necessity opportunistic. Whether the parties switched sides depends on how you count policy positions. The Republican party originated in opposition to slavery. Equality before the law means no discrimination by government (consider racial set-asides for minority-owned business and preferential admissions to government-operated universities). The 1964 Civil Rights Act passed with stronger Republican support than Democrat support.

Federalism ("State's rights") and markets institutionalize humility on the part of State (government, generally) actors. If a policy dispute involves a disagreement over a matter of taste, numerous local policy regimes and competitive markets allow for the satisfaction of varied tastes while the contest for control over a State-monopoly enterprise must inevitably create unhappy losers (who may comprise the vast majority. Imagine the outcome of a nationwide vote on the one size and style of shoes we all must wear). If a policy dispute involves a matter of fact, where "What works?" is an empirical question, numerous local policy regimes and competitive markets will generate more information than will a State-monopoly provider of goods and services. A State-monopoly enterprise is like an experiment with one treatment and no control: a retarded experimental design.

 

[crimresearch]

Why is this "nonsense"? Freedom of association and freedom of contract were the law of the land for most of US history. "Discrimination" means detection of differences. There's a reason we call (b² -4ac)^1/2 the discriminant. I'm not saying that "victims of discrimination consented". In a free market, people engage in contracts on mutually argeeable terms. If someone only dates, or marries, or employs people of __X__ (race, gender) that's between them. It's not "harm" to refuse to employ someone. If it is, then I harmed six billion people today.

Except that the post to which you replied by citing government anti-discrimination, specifically named mutually consensual acts between people, nothing about freedom of contracts.

So yes, by you putting discrimination in that specific category, you were de facto saying that the parties involved (perpetrator and victim), both consented.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Except that the post to which you replied by citing government anti-discrimination, specifically named mutually consensual acts between people, nothing about freedom of contracts.

So yes, by you putting discrimination in that specific category, you were de facto saying that the parties involved (perpetrator and victim), both consented.

No. I assert that both parties who accept an employment contract consent. Any time a contract is rejected by either party, someone does not consent to the agreement. I do not see this as harm, otherwise, I harmed six billion people today (I employed no one, and I declined to work for $0.01/year).

 

[Tatyana]

Maybe it begins with them. That is, I think, how it went with the War of the Triple Alliance. I forget whether it was Uruguay or Paraguay, but the first thing that happened was that 2/3 the male citizens got killed, and then polygyny became legal for a brief time.

Anyway, as with most of these discussions, it's between difficult to impossible to tell whether the arguments are real or alibis.

Mononormativity, heteronormativity, and all that "normal" stuff produces heinous amounts of suffering, but nobody invested in the assumptions of goodness of those things is ever going to criticize them. I could as easily say "if people are naturally monogamous and heterosexual and it works for them, then more power to them, but it just ends in things like Lorena Babbit's cutting off her husband's penis or women stabbing their boyfriends 32 times for playing a video game."

That would be unfair of me but no less unfair than picking out bits from polygamous societies and collecting them together in a folder labeled "What's Wrong with Polygamy." It might even be a bit more fair, as many of the so-called problems with polygamy can be solved by having about equal amounts of polygyny and polyandry, whereas nobody has ever figured out how to make monogamy always peaceful. (Nor is it obvious that people want it to be peaceful; go to a karaoke bar and look at how gleefully they sing those Carrie Underwood songs.)

Valid points.

I think some people are monagamous, some are polyamourous and I think that biology is demonstrating evidence that there is a wide array of human pair-bonding and/or mating strategies (or non-bonding, non-sexual and non-mating strategies to be inclusive).

I still wonder how a designated culture would deal with the imbalance in the availability of partners if it was polygamous/polyandry unless there was a serendipitous culture next door that practiced polygamy/polygyny as well.

I don't think that the asexual component of any population is great enough to absorb the imbalance.

 

[crimresearch]

No. I assert that both parties who accept an employment contract consent. Any time a contract is rejected by either party, someone does not consent to the agreement. I do not see this as harm, otherwise, I harmed six billion people today (I employed no one, and I declined to work for $0.01/year).

So when 'someone does not consent to the agreement', that falls into the category of 'what adults get up to is their business as long as it is consensual....'?

Do you have some butter for that pretzel?

 

[Segnosaur]

Person A is married to Person B. Person B wants to marry Person C as well. B and C have to sign the Marriage Certificate as is now, and A would have to sign saying that they agree to the union. If it is found out that the B/C marriage happened without the signature of A, that marriage would be invalid and B would be in legal trouble like they would now. It could also be possible for A/B to both marry A, so long as they all sign the certificate.

The original marriage is only part of the problem.

What about divorce? What if A and B start to hate each other and want to break up... does C have to agree to the divorce (which would mean they could force them to stay together)?

And what about things like handling death benefits? Child support?

As for insurance, if we go to a universal healthcare system, it wouldn't really matter how it's done.

Please define "universal health care". Do you mean something like a taxpayer funded system (like in Canada)? If so, remember that not all health care expenses are covered. Things like eye glasses or dental care require private insurance or user-pay.

As it is now, insurance companies already charge based on number of dependents. If person B has the best insurance policy of the family he/she could add A and B as spouses (as well as all children within the family), and the premium would go up accordingly. A policy holder could only add those with whom they were in a marriage with (A couldn't add C onto their policy if they weren't directly married).

As I pointed out before, even if an insurance company does charge "by the dependent" there's no guarantee that its the insured person paying the extra premiums.

I have health care at work to cover dental and eye care. My employer pays for it. It would not cost me anything extra whether I were a single person or had a family with dozen children.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So when 'someone does not consent to the agreement', that falls into the category of 'what adults get up to is their business as long as it is consensual....'?...

Right. Where do you disagree? This is the non-violent form of social interaction. What anyone does with his/her own body is his/her business, so long as no non-consenting party is harmed. What two or more consenting adults agree to do with, by, for, or to each other in the privacy of their own home, office, factory, or the great outdoors is their business, so long as no non-consenting parties are harmed. The definition of "harm" determines the level of State intrusion. I do not see that a refusal to employ someone qualifies as "harm", since that would imply that I harmed six billion people yesterday.

 

[crimresearch]

Right. Where do you disagree? This is the non-violent form of social interaction. What anyone does with his/her own body is his/her business, so long as no non-consenting party is harmed. What two or more consenting adults agree to do with, by, for, or to each other in the privacy of their own home, office, factory, or the great outdoors is their business, so long as no non-consenting parties are harmed. The definition of "harm" determines the level of State intrusion. I do not see that a refusal to employ someone qualifies as "harm", since that would imply that I harmed six billion people yesterday.

When someone is denied employment, or housing, or medical care as a result of illegal discrimination, they have definitely been harmed. Likewise if they are lynched, etc.

Your attempt to ignore that and paint all discrimination as simply a matter of choosing to deal with whomever you want, fails by ignoring the obvious.

And your assertion that government laws against discrimination interfere with consenting adults choices, is a classic fallacy.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I couldn't agree more.

If a man wants to have sex with a woman, then preventing him from that is harming him. She has no right to discriminate.

 

[RandFan]

What about divorce? What if A and B start to hate each other and want to break up... does C have to agree to the divorce (which would mean they could force them to stay together)?

So, 3 people are living together and all are in a committed relationship with each other. What if A and B start to hate each other and want to break up? Does C have to agree to a separation?

And what about things like handling death benefits? Child support?

How are the children of a non-married polyandrous group taken care of?

If it can be done without marriage it can be done with marriage. Difficult for sure. But by no means impossible. If children can have relationships with both divorced parents then a third party could have relationships and marriage with two divorced spouses.

ETA: I'm leaning against the idea that polyandrous marriage isn't in the cards anytime soon. Lots and lots of problems for the state and to what end?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

When someone is denied employment, or housing, or medical care as a result of illegal discrimination, they have definitely been harmed. Likewise if they are lynched, etc.¹ Your attempt to ignore that and paint all discrimination as simply a matter of choosing to deal with whomever you want, fails by ignoring the obvious.² And your assertion that government laws against discrimination interfere with consenting adults choices, is a classic fallacy.³

1. "Illegal" presumes the conclusion. Do you contend that employment discrimination caused no harm until it was made illegal, and that legislators could eliminate that harm by repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The comparison to lynching is absurd. I employed none of Earth's six billion+ humans yesterday. How many of them did I harm by doing so?
2. What obvious factor have I ignored? Does someone who prefers to date redheads harm blonds?
3. Obviously laws against private-sector employment discrimination interfere with consenting adult choices. That's their purpose. Fallacies might preoccupy you less if you got out more.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Polyandry is here and tolerated by law. They do not arrest you for living in groups of three and breeding as a group. What is illegal is A+B and A+C marriage applications simultaneously or collectively A+B+C.

It's rare sure, but in hundreds of millions of people, there are some doing it and working out for themselves how they answer all these questions. In my wife's region of Mindanao the Muslims have centuries of culturally/ legally recognized polygamy. Probably ten thousand years of it in Alaska with the natives. Five wives was not uncommon for whaling captains when the Anthropologists first started publishing stuff on them in their Journals in the late 1800's.

I saw many tribes in the remote tributaries of the Amazon that had polygamy on expeditions I did there. You see a woman in bare feet walking up the path towards you. She's got a mountain of firewood on her head/shoulders, a baby under an arm, and carrying platanos in the other. Then you see the husband. The only thing he's carrying is a machete.

I was standing around with a bunch of the guys after a soccer game they played against my expedition team for three shotgun shells. Even the tiniest, most remote jungle villages clear a central area for soccer. The chief had five wives in that village. From about 14 to maybe 50. The standard in that village was every woman in a red top and black skirt. Immensely obese women. Fat by age 8, which was their idea of beauty. I asked them what the other men do. They didn't have an answer for me.

 

[bookitty]

I couldn't agree more.

If a man wants to have sex with a woman, then preventing him from that is harming him. She has no right to discriminate.

Oh? How would the man be harmed by being prevented from having sex?

 

[crimresearch]

1. "Illegal" presumes the conclusion. Do you contend that employment discrimination caused no harm until it was made illegal, and that legislators could eliminate that harm by repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The comparison to lynching is absurd. I employed none of Earth's six billion+ humans yesterday. How many of them did I harm by doing so?
2. What obvious factor have I ignored? Does someone who prefers to date redheads harm blonds?
3. Obviously laws against private-sector employment discrimination interfere with consenting adult choices. That's their purpose. Fallacies might preoccupy you less if you got out more.

Speaking of getting out in the real world, care to produce some real world proof for your assertions? Something to fill in that excluded middle fallacy you keep parroting?

You know, a real court that has accepted your 'freedom of association' defense for the crime of discrimination in firing, housing, or assaulting someone because of their race, religion, gender, et al?

And don't waste my time with some StormFront 'freeman/sovereign citizen' CT fantasy.