DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
WebWar
HTML https://webwar.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Ιστορία κ&#...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 16608--------------------------------------------------
Γάμος και
Κράτος
DIR By: Pinochet88
Date: September 8, 2015, 2:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Άρθρο που
δημοσιεύτηκε
σήμερα στο Mises
καταδεικνύει
τη
διαστροφή,
τον
παραλογισμό
και τους
κινδύνους
για την
ανθρωπότητα
που επέφερε
η κατάληψη
του Θεσμού
του Γάμου
από τον
βίαιο
μηχανισμό
του Κράτους
και
διαφωτίζει
τους
ανιστόρητους
κρατικιστές
για το πως ο
Γάμος
αποτελεί
θεμέλιο
λίθο του
Ανθρώπινου
Πολιτισμού
που
δημιουργήθηκε
εκτός και
εναντίον
του Κράτους.
Ύστατη
προδοσία
απέναντι σε
κάθε έννοια
γνήσιας
Ελευθερίας
η συνέχιση
της
κρατικής
μονοπώλησης
του
κοινωνικού
Θεσμού του
Γάμου.
HTML https://mises.org/library/unhappy-union-marriage-and-state
An Unhappy Union: Marriage and the State
Mises Daily September 8 2015
SEPTEMBER 8, 2015Andrew Syrios
TAGS Legal SystemU.S. HistoryPolitical Theory
The Supreme Court’s ruling to legalize gay marriage in the case
of Obergefell v. Hodges has brought with it both celebration and
outrage. What seems to be missing from this discussion, however,
are the dire straits that has befallen the institution of
marriage in the United States and the West in general.
Some, such as Rand Paul, have recommended getting the government
“out of the marriage business altogether.” Indeed, what business
does the government have defining marriage be they straight or
gay? But this leaves aside the bigger problem that the
government has done its best to wreck the institution with
perverse incentives and punitive laws. Getting the government
“out of the marriage business altogether” may be the only way to
save it. But doing so will require a lot more than simply
privatizing wedding ceremonies.
How Government Got Involved in Marriage
The institution of marriage has been a bedrock of civilization,
but that had nothing to do with government. In fact, it’s
important to note that governments didn’t become involved in the
institution until relatively recently. And once involved, their
role has been far from benevolent. Stephanie Coontz describes
the history as follows:
For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a
marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people
claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the
haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly
married.
Not until the 16th century did European states begin to require
that marriages be performed under legal auspices. In part, this
was an attempt to prevent unions between young adults whose
parents opposed their match.
In the American colonies, marriages were required to be
registered, but that was about it. Then came a combination of
Jim Crow and the Eugenics movement and wise bureaucrats decided
they needed to direct the decisions of their benighted
citizenry.
By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks,
“mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays’”
or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license
if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.”
Government’s War on Marriage
It shouldn’t be hard to see that the government has been
disincentivizing marriage for a long time with welfare and other
such programs. In the early days of welfare, it was so blatant
as to simply not pay if a man was in the home. Today, it’s eased
up on that requirement. Still, marriage is declining rapidly in
the United States in every demographic. In 1960, 72 percent of
people aged eighteen and over were married; in 2010 it was 51
percent and a record number have never married at all.
Welfare has reduced the incentives to maintain families and form
them in the first place by substituting the government for the
economic benefits that come with a live-in spouse. One
particularly good example of this is the Seattle-Denver Income
Maintenance Experiment. As John C. Goodman notes “Divorce
increased 36% more among whites and 42% more among blacks. (In a
New Jersey experiment, the divorce rate was 84% higher among
Hispanics.)”
This has a particularly bad effect on children. Today, 40.6
percent of all children are born out of wedlock as compared to
less than 5 percent from 1930 to 1960. In the black community,
it went from around 15 percent in 1950 (substantially less than
the current white rate of 28.6 percent) to a tragic 72.3 percent
today.
This increase in out-of-wedlock births brought about by
government incentives has unleashed some of its worst
consequences on the children it is ostensibly trying to help.
The NIS-4 study found that only 2.9 children out of 1,000 were
abused in intact families as compared to between 10.2 and 33.6
for all other family structures.
Furthermore, the evidence is clear that the best interests of
the children are in most cases to be raised by their biological
parents. Children in such homes do better on almost every
measure even when controlled for socioeconomic status. And even
using such controls is questionable as poverty is highly
correlated with family breakup and illegitimacy. Between 1967
and 2003, the poverty rate for every cohort (single mothers,
married couples with children, etc.) went down substantially.
For example, the poverty rate for single mothers fell from 67.3
percent to 44.2 percent. Yet the overall poverty rate remained
almost unchanged because the rate of single motherhood had risen
so drastically. Yes, many single mothers (and fathers) do a
great job, but it is quite obviously a lot harder to raise
children alone.
And government mischief runs into divorce as well. It’s no
secret that some divorce settlements beggar belief. And women
are by no means immune from this either. Madonna was forced to
pay something like $76 million to her husband Guy Ritchie (who
just happened to also be a multimillionaire) for a marriage of
only eight years.
Splitting up millions between millionaires pales in comparison
to what can happen to normal citizens, though. In his book Taken
Into Custody, Stephen Baskerville describes the many ways
divorce courts trample over basic Constitutional liberties. For
example, he notes,
The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual
punishment” does not stop family courts from summarily depriving
parents of professional licenses, drivers’ licenses, and
passports that bare no connection with the alleged offense.
Parents who are alleged (but again, neither formally charged nor
proven) to be delinquent in child-support payments also have
their cars booted and their names published in the newspapers.
Even debtor’s prisons — abolished in the United States’ a
generation before slavery — have made a comeback.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “No person shall … be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law” does not prevent family courts from jailing parents on
civil contempt for weeks, months, or even years without trial.
In December 2003, in response to a letter from the American
Civil Liberties Union, a Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, judge
freed some one hundred prisoners who had been incarcerated
without due process for allegedly failing to pay child support.
The fathers were sentenced with no notice given of their
hearings and no opportunity to obtain legal representation. ACLU
lawyer Maila Brink says courts across Pennsylvania routinely
jail such men for civil contempt without proper notice or in
time for them to get lawyers. Fathers relate the hearings
typically lasted between thirty seconds and two minutes, during
which they are sentenced to months in jail or prison. … Nothing
indicates that Pennsylvania is unusual … one hundred such
prisoners in each of the America’s 3,000 counties is by no means
unlikely.
In South Carolina, where Walter Scott was killed for running
away from a cop trying to arrest him for being behind on his
child support, a full one-eighth of the inmates were jailed over
child support arrearages. Many of these child support judgments
are simply absurd. As The New York Times reported that, “A 2007
Urban Institute study of child support debt in nine large states
found that 70 percent of the arrears were owed by people who
reported less than $10,000 a year in income. They were expected
to pay, on average, 83 percent of their income in child
support.” Some cases are even more of a farce. One man was
ordered to pay $30,000 in child support for a child who wasn’t
his and a 15 year old boy was ordered to pay child support to
the 34 year old woman who statutorily ****d him. And it can
happen to women too.
Now certainly divorce is sometimes necessary. But even in those
cases, the evidence shows that joint custody is usually in the
best interest of the child. Of course, this isn’t always the
case. If for example, a woman is being beaten by her husband,
she should obviously leave him and take the kids with her. But
generally, a standard of joint custody seems like a fairly
obvious solution to divorce court malfeasance that the
government has mostly avoided. Indeed, one study found that
“Divorce rates declined nearly four times faster in high joint
custody states, compared with states where joint physical
custody is rare.”
Government has damaged marriage at every step of the way. Indeed
it is time to get government “out of the marriage business
altogether.”
#Post#: 16609--------------------------------------------------
Re: Γάμος και
Κράτος
DIR By: mistermax
Date: September 8, 2015, 3:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Αυτοι ειναι
οι
"αναρχικοι"
οπαδοι του
"μικρότερου
κρατους".
Τους αφήνω
στον
χλευασμό
των
μυριάδων
επισκεπτών
του ww.
#Post#: 16612--------------------------------------------------
Re: Γάμος και
Κράτος
DIR By: Tortelini
Date: September 8, 2015, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ο γάμος
ειναι ιερό
μυστήριο
και
εννοείται η
κυβέρνηση
δεν έχει
σχέση με
αυτό. Αλλά η
αποθάρρυνση
των
ζευγαριών
να
παντρεύονται
έχει πολλά
αρνητικά
κοινωνικά
αντίκτυπα,
συμπεριλαμβανομένων
των παιδιών
από γονεις
που δεν
έχουν
παντρευτεί
και μπορούν
να χωρίσουν
για πλάκα.
Και, συν τοις
άλλοις, όλα
αυτά δίνουν
στην
γυναίκα το
δικαίωμα να
απομακρύνει
το παιδί απ
τον πατέρα
του με βάση
την δική της
υποκειμενική
κρίση για το
άτομό του,
ακόμα και
την στιγμή
που ο
πατέρας
μπορεί να
είχε λόγους
να την
κακοποιεί
χωρίς αυτό
να σημαίνει
ότι δεν θα
φερθεί
σωστά στο
παιδί. Το
διαζύγιο απ
την άλλη
είναι η
χειρότερη
και πιο
διεφθαρμένη
κατάπτωση
της
κοινωνίας
αφήνοντας
τις
γυναίκες να
παίρνουν
αποφάσεις
για τις
οποίες δεν
είναι
αρμόδιες,
κάτι που
αυτές
πολλές
φορές
κάνουν με
σκοπό να
εκδικηθούν
τον άντρα
τους
ξεδιάντροπα,
χωρίς να
ενδιαφέρονται
για κάποια
αντικειμενική
δικαιοσύνη.
Απ την άλλη η
οικονομία
επιτρέπει ο
γάμος και το
διαζύγιο να
μετατρέπονται
σε
συμφέροντα
των
διεφθαρμένων
που τα
χρησιμοποιούν
είτε αμιγώς
για να
εξασφαλιστούν
είτε για να
εκδικηθούν
είτε για να
απομυζήσουν
χρηματικώς
ξεδιάντροπα
τον άντρα με
τον οποίον
μοιράστηκαν
την ίδια
κλίνη, κάτι
που είναι
ανεκδιήγητο.
Αυτό
οφείλεται
στο ότι ο
γάμος έχει
καταντήσει
οικονομικό
συμφέρον
και της
εκκλησίας
με
αποτέλεσμα
να μην
κρίνει η
θρησκεία τα
άτομα που
παντρεύονται
ανάλογα με
το ποιόν
τους.
Εννοείται
ένα ανήθικο
ζευγάρι
πρέπει να
στερείται
και τα
δικαιώματα
του γάμου
και τα
δικαιώματα
της
τεκνοποιήσεως.
Στ αλήθεια η
θρησκευτική
ηγεμοσύνη
πρέπει να
δουλεύει ως
δικαστής
των ζωών του
ζευγαριού
αλλά και να
τάσσεται
υπέρ του
άντρα αντί
να
προσφέρουν
τον γάμο ως
όπλο για την
στήριξη της
γυναίκας,
ακόμα και αν
είναι
ανήθικη. Όσο
για το
διαζύγιο
κανονικά θα
έπρεπε να
υφίσταται
μόνο σε
περίπτωση
που
κινδυνεύει
η ζωή της
γυναίκας
(πάντα υπό
την
προϋπόθεση
ότι είναι
ηθική) ή σε
περίπτωση
που η
γυναίκα
διαπράξει
μοιχεία. Σ
αυτήν την
περίπτωση
πρέπει να
αφορίζεται
και αυτή και
ο
αγαπητικός
της και να
καταδικάζονται
εις θάνατον,
πνευματικό
και
σωματικό.
Πολλά απ
αυτά τα
εξηγεί ο
πατήρ
Ευρύνομος
όταν τελεί
γάμο. Ακόμα
και αν
κάποιος δεν
συμπαθεί
τον ίδιο,
τελεί τον
γάμο για να
τον
ιεροποιήσει
ενώπιον του
Θεού, κάτι
που
σημαίνει
ότι πρέπει
και αυτός
και η νύφη να
είναι
σίγουροι ο
ένας για τον
άλλον. Γι
αυτό σε όλες
τις
περιπτώσεις
που η
μητρόπολη
δέχεται το
διαζύγιο η
γυναίκα
(περισσότερο)
ή ο άντρας
(λιγότερο)
είναι
νεκροί. Είτε
γιατί
κάποιος δεν
σεβάστηκε
τον
ομόκλινό
του ενώπιον
του Θεού
είτε γιατί
μεσολάβησε
κάποια
δολοφονία.
Το διαζύγιο
τελείται
μετά από
εφτά μέρες
αφ ότου η
νύφη
αποδημήσει
ή μετά από
τρεις μήνες
αφ ότου ο
άντρας
αποδημήσει
(συνήθως σε
κάποια
συμπλοκή).
#Post#: 16613--------------------------------------------------
Re: Γάμος και
Κράτος
DIR By: Pinochet88
Date: September 8, 2015, 10:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Είναι
καταφανές
ότι μόνο ο
Αναρχοκαπιταλισμός
μπορεί να
σώσει την
παραδοσιακή
έννοια του
Γάμου που
κυριάρχησε
στις
Ευρωπαϊκές
Κοινωνίες
και γέννησε
τον
Πολιτισμό
και εξίσου
καταφανές
είναι
άλλωστε ότι
όσο πιο
κρατικιστής
είναι
κάποιος
τόσο
περισσότερο
εχθρεύεται
τον Γάμο και
επιδιώκει
να τον
καταργήσει,
έχοντας
παράλληλα
αντικοινωνικές
ονειρώξεις
περί οργίων
και
χυδαιοτήτων,
που μόνο
κακό
μπορούν να
φέρουν και
την
κατάρρευση
του
Πολιτισμού.
[img]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RCHZzRuSMX4/Ve8lEFw3bBI/AAAAAAAAtmc/y-NbnCNy0Oc/s1600/marriage.JPG[/img]
[img]
HTML http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vxfDFMhlDd8/Ve8lFzJTmSI/AAAAAAAAtmk/vPb3ls-BnAo/s1600/marriage2.JPG[/img]
^^
"The present number of homeless children may be attributed to a
large degree to the disintegration of the fainily." (126: p.
255) The following words seem to come from the heart: "If we
continue along this path, I fear we shall turn Russia into a
country where each will be married to all." (126: p. 270)
#Post#: 16614--------------------------------------------------
Re: Γάμος και
Κράτος
DIR By: mistermax
Date: September 8, 2015, 12:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Pinochet88 link ---
>
> Είναι
καταφανές
ότι μόνο ο
Αναρχοκαπιταλισμός
μπορεί να
σώσει την
παραδοσιακή
έννοια του
Γάμου που
κυριάρχησε
στις
Ευρωπαϊκές
Κοινωνίες
και γέννησε
τον
Πολιτισμό
και εξίσου
καταφανές
είναι
άλλωστε ότι
όσο πιο
κρατικιστής
είναι
κάποιος
τόσο
περισσότερο
εχθρεύεται
τον Γάμο και
επιδιώκει
να τον
καταργήσει,
έχοντας
παράλληλα
αντικοινωνικές
ονειρώξεις
περί οργίων
και
χυδαιοτήτων,
που μόνο
κακό
μπορούν να
φέρουν και
την
κατάρρευση
του
Πολιτισμού.
>
>
[img]
gopher.createaforum.com:70 /forums/webwar/p/1921:630: line too long