Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
A while back I explained how child support would work in a free society. Today I will explain exactly how marriage would work in a free, small government, libertarian society where government stayed the hell out of your personal life and where you would be allowed to conduct your love life as you see fit.
-By Caleb Jones
This is why when you get married you actually have to sign a marriage license. You are then logged into a government registry where you are now subject to a myriad of new laws you weren't before, many of which don't make any sense and are often completely nonsensical and ridiculous.
Sadly, both right-wingers and left-wingers like it this way. Right-wingers like it because it allows them to force religious and/or quasi-religious bullshit down your throat, using government force to ensure you behave "morally," as defined by whichever bureaucrats, billionaires, and lobbyists happen to have the most political power at the time. Left-wingers like it because they can use it as yet another mechanism of the welfare state and the income redistribution they crave so much, and they incorrectly believe that without it, women would be exploited or taken advantage of.
Everyone seems to forget that this is your personal life. Emphasis on the word personal. The bureaucrats and moneyed interests that run the government should have no say whatsoever in your personal love life. As long as you're a legal adult, you should be allowed to marry whomever you want (as long as they're a legal adult too), behave any way you want during your marriage (as long as you don't commit violence or theft against your partner or children) and get divorced in any way you and your spouse choose.
Marriage and divorce are deeply private and personal matters. Since the government should have no business whatsoever in your personal love life, it should have nothing whatsoever to do with the practice of marriage.
Often it's very difficult for both right-wingers and left-wingers to understand or acknowledge this. I will address the concerns of both political leanings in this article. Hopefully by the end of this article you will better understand how marriage would work in a truly free society (which we currently do not have), and how this system satisfies much of your political concerns.
Between You and Your Spouse - That's It
The first difference in marriage under a free society would be that marriage would be between you and that special woman. That's it. Absolutely no other entities would be involved...unless you wanted them to be. For example, if you were religious, you'd probably want your faith or church involved in your marriage. Perfectly fine. That's up to you and your lady. Involve your religion, or not. Your choice.
If you had finances you wanted to protect, you may also want to involve an attorney. I'll discuss this more in a minute, but the point is you could involve an attorney or legal contracts in your marriage if you wanted. If you didn't want to, fine, don't. If you do, you can. Then the government can perform one if its valid functions: the enforcement of contracts. The government is not involved at all unless one of you violates the contract down the road.
Therefore, marriage would be between you and your spouse, and perhaps your church if you wanted and/or your attorney if you wanted. No government involvement at all.
Under this system, a "marriage" can be whatever you want it to be. The only requirement is that the participating parties are of legal age of consent, which is between 16 and 18 in most of the Western world. Other than that, you can structure whatever you like.
Want a monogamous marriage? Fine.
An open marriage? Fine.
A swinger marriage? Fine.
Polygamous marriage where one Alpha Male marries three women? Fine.
The reverse, where one Dominant woman marries three pussy beta males? Fine.
Gay marriage? Fine.
Polyamorous marriage where four women and two men all marry each other? Fine.
A temporary marriage that expires in three years, forcing both of you to go down and "renew" it if you want to keep going, otherwise it just "ends?" Fine.
As long as everyone is a consenting adult, do whatever you want. It's called freedom.
Now if you're a right-winger, your head probably just exploded. You're probably screaming something like:
WTF Blackdragon?!? You can't have a society where a bunch of gay or polyamorous are fucking each other in some insane marriage arrangements! How the hell would you raise kids? History has shown that most stable society is built upon the traditional family unit with two parents! You're insane!!!
Guess what? You don't have to worry about that.
Why? Because as I've said many, many times, human beings are pair-bonding creatures. It's true were not long-term sexually monogamous, but we are also not naturally polyamorous, polygamous, or gay. A few people are like that, but they're in a small minority and always will be. The vast majority of human beings, even horny dumb ones, eventually like to pick just ONE person of the opposite sex and be with that ONE person, at least for a while. (Statistically they'll eventually break up of course, or will eventually get some on the side by secretly cheating, but that's a discussion for another time.)
Therefore, under a system where people could marry any way they wanted, guess what? The vast, vast majority would voluntarily choose a one-man-one-woman marriage that conservatives scream so loudly about. True, some gay people would get married, but again, as I've shown before on this blog, it would be a very tiny percentage of the population since it's been repeatedly proven that the vast majority of gay people don't bother to get married in countries where gay marriage has been legal for a long time.
Also, yes, there would be some people who would do polygamy or polygamous marriages or whatever. But again, those would be a minority, even if they were poly in their personal lives. Take me for example: I hate monogamy and even I wouldn't do a marriage like that. (Have three wives? Dude. Kill me.)
So if you're a right-winger or strong Marriage 1.0 supporter, just relax. While there would be a small percent of people who would be doing it "wrong" (in your eyes) and annoy you, the vast majority will go along with your traditional model. It's how human beings are designed. You don't need government pointing guns at everyone to make sure they behave in ways human beings are already designed. They'll do it on their own. In the end, they always do.
How would divorce be handled if government was not involved in your marriage at all? In a divorce, the man and woman would simply part company. If they had kids, child support would be paid under the system I outlined before. That's it. If there are no kids, nothing would happen. Nobody pays anybody, and they would just break up and continue on with their lives.
If you're a left-winger, your head probably just exploded. You're probably screaming something like:
Are you crazy? Men would constantly be kicking their wives out on the street and these poor women would be penniless and starve to death! Men would just go on their merry way and women would get screwed! That would be a horrible system! I can't believe you would want a system like that! Why do you hate women so much?!?!
Guess what? You don't need to worry about that.
Why? Because you're forgetting about that contract I mentioned above. Under a free system, a man and woman about to get married can write up any contract they want, that says anything they want, that can apply to the marriage or possible future divorce any way they like. Then the government will enforce that contract, just like it should, if either party doesn't live up to what he or she promised.
For example, let's say that under a free society, a man and woman become engaged. The man makes $120,000 a year and the woman makes $30,000. Since it's a truly free country, there are no marriage laws, no divorce laws, and no co-habitation laws. Because of this, the woman is concerned that if she's married for ten years and then gets divorced and gets nothing, she'll be in big financial trouble. This is a perfectly normal and natural concern.
What if they get divorced, the guy goes back on his word, violates the contract he purposely signed, and doesn't pay her anything? NOW the government gets involved. Just like under the free system child support scenario, the woman takes her legally enforceable contract into some kind of very inexpensive small claims family court, presents it, and now that guy is in very big trouble. He'd better pay her like he legally promised, or he gets his wages garnished or goes to jail. Of course he could present the court with mitigating circumstances, like if the economy crashed and/or he went out of business and has no money, and the court can make a decision at that point.
Let's take different example. Like before, prior to the marriage the women goes to the man and expresses concerns that she'll be destitute if they get a divorce. She asks for them to place some kind of amount of money she gets if there's divorce down the road. The man replies, "Hell no. I'm not paying you anything if we get divorced. If you don't want to lose access to my money, you'd just better not divorce me."
He has every right to say that. It's his money. At the same time, she has every right to say, "Well then fuck you, I'm not marrying you then." Then guess what? They don't get married. They both move on and find spouses more compatible to who they are. Which is the way marriage is supposed to work.
A Free Market For Marriage -
Either way, the problem is solved. Women would be protected to their satisfaction, or they wouldn't marry that guy and go find someone else. In a free society, women would be well aware there is no government safety net in cases of divorce (child support yes, divorce no) so many hypergamous types would pick and choose their husbands based (in part) on what he's willing to sign in their enforceable marriage contract.
There would be some truly independent women who wouldn't want to sign a contract at all, knowing they can take care of themselves and don't want or need a man's money. On the other extreme, there would be extreme gold diggers who would demand thousands or even millions of dollars in any future divorce from a potential husband. The majority of women would fall in-between those two extremes.
On the flip side, men could decide who they would marry or not marry based (in part) on how demanding the potential wife is during the marriage contract discussion. There would plenty of needy or ugly beta males who would agree to damn near anything a woman demanded. On the other hand, there would also be some good-looking, wealthy Alpha Males who would be inflexible and very picky. And again, most men would fall somewhere in the middle.
By the way, the marriage contract doesn't need to simply lay out about what happens in a divorce. Remember, it's a free society, so the contract can say literally anything the two people want, so it could (and probably should) discuss what happens during the marriage too.
Issues like money, health, sex, children, living conditions, and all those other things could be described in the marriage contract if the spouses wanted. I don't know if it's legally enforceable where he lives, but I once met a guy who had a prenuptial agreement that stated both he and his wife were required to stay below a certain weight as long as they were married. And before you start screaming about misogyny, it was the woman's idea to put it in there. And if he didn't like it, he wouldn't have signed it. That's how this works.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could sit down and design a completely custom-made marriage with your future wife? Very cool. It's called freedom.
At no point is government involved in any of this stuff, unless someone gets divorced and fails to live up to the contract he or she signed when they first got married, assuming they signed anything at all. The only parties involved are those consensual adults engaging in a private, personal activity. Which is the way it should be.
Is it a perfect system? Nope. Does it have flaws? Yep. What I'm describing is an improvement, not perfection. If you're looking for a 100% perfect system, I can't help you (and no one else can either). But I can offer you something better, which this is.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Greg 2015-02-22 15:18:48
What exactly is the point of marriage under your system? To put a contract on your relationship based on how you feel right now and how you predict the future next to your woman would be? Why not be free to choose every day to do what you think and feel is best for you, with all the data you have at that time? What if you didn't anticipate something that causes you deep unhappiness a few years in your marriage? You are now forced to behave according to a contract you signed when you felt completely differently. What are the upsides of putting a contract on your relationship? Also, since I'm allowed to make whatever contract I want as long as I get an emotional being to sign it based on how she feels right now, can I finally get myself a legal lifetime slave? 🙂
Blackdragon 2015-02-22 16:27:24
What exactly is the point of marriage under your system?The same point in the normal system. To allow emotional, irrational, needy, or elderly people to pair bond in a way acceptable to their family, social circle, customers, and/or religion.
Why not be free to choose every day to do what you think and feel is best for you, with all the data you have at that time?Obviously that system allows for that. Just don't get married or get married without a contract.
What if you didn’t anticipate something that causes you deep unhappiness a few years in your marriage? You are now forced to behave according to a contract you signed when you felt completely differently.Then yeah, you're fucked, just like with any other long-term contract you sign that you later change your mind on. That's why people probably shouldn't get married, as I've been saying forever. (The problem is most people will ignore that advice, as I've also been saying forever.)
What are the upsides of putting a contract on your relationship?Depends on who you are: To a woman: Some semblance of financial security. To a beta male: Leverage to get a woman to marry you. To an Alpha Male 1.0: To (possibly) keep a woman from fucking other men. To an Alpha Male 2.0: None.
Also, since I’m allowed to make whatever contract I want as long as I get an emotional being to sign it based on how she feels right now, can I finally get myself a legal lifetime slave?No, because A) slavery would still be illegal, B) someone agreeing to follow your orders because they want to is not slavery, C) marriage rarely lasts "a lifetime"; you'd still likely get divorced.
Mr 2015-02-23 17:15:00
I got a question, and its kinda long i guess, so i didnt know where else to put it. It's about online gaming and working with the numbers. As i live in a small country where our biggest city is small compared to average city's in other countries, it's already a tough start. And atm I'm in our 7th biggest city 100k people, and can't move for a while. And I find it impossible to work with these numbers. The problem isn't finding girls online, but it's the hot girls. 9/10 is fat. And the few times I find someone good looking, i really can't afford to blow it. And whenever I leave my house, then 8/10 girls I see, is hot as hell. I just got the materials to work with, and unless I live in a "huge" city, I have the feeling that I need to expand the market. It's on tinder I find the hottest ones. But even there, the odds are way too slim. Do you have any tips on how I can be the one invading their life and not meeting them half way on dating sites? I got to work this from more than one angle, and I'm sure a lot of other people here are in the same situation as me. I know we must move, but until we do, there has got to be something. Thank you
Blackdragon 2015-02-23 17:26:28
POB 2015-02-23 17:42:38
Things that came to mind which I would probably put on my marriage contract: 1) Both husband and wife can have sex on the side as much as they like. If during these adventures a child is generated, the marriage is instantly over. 2) If a divorce happens, any parent who is absent for more than 01 month untill the child reaches 18 years of age instantly looses his/her custody. No exceptions, even to work/study abroad! 3) If the man reaches over 20% of body fat or if the woman reaches over 25% of body fat, the other part has the right to call for a divorce. Exceptions to this rule: pregnancy, chronic diseases, big accidents that require a long recovery time (and after these events there would be a timetable to be back under those numbers). This rule could be revised every 10 years as aging would probably be a factor. 4) All finances 100% separated. Prior to the wedding, every part would have to have its own place on it's own name (no relatives involved). 5) If both agree on co-habitation, the extra place would be rented and the profits split 50/50. The overall maintenance would be held enterely upon the owner (like, one part would continue to own and mantain the main house and the other would mantain and take care of the extra place). If one side decides to sell it's place, a new one would have to be bought within a month to maintain the "2 houses/2 owners" status.
Blackdragon 2015-02-23 17:55:06
Both husband and wife can have sex on the side as much as they like.Yep. I'd throw in something about STD prevention too.
If during these adventures a child is generated, the marriage is instantly over.Never thought of that. Good idea.
If a divorce happens, any parent who is absent for more than 01 month untill the child reaches 18 years of age instantly looses his/her custody. No exceptions, even to work/study abroad!Partially agree. I would put in something about if she wanted more kids, 90% of the kid duties would be hers. Otherwise let's just skip having kids.
If the man reaches over 20% of body fat or if the woman reaches over 25% of body fat, the other part has the right to call for a divorce.Each to their own, but I wouldn't put that in mine. I'm never going to get fat, and if she wants to get fat, that's her business. As long as I can have sex with other women, it's not super relevant. Getting a big gross fat wife is only a big problem in mono-marriages, where you're not allowed to have sex with anyone except her. If I can still have sex with hotties on the side, I don't really care if my wife gains weight. But that's me.
All finances 100% separatedYep. I would allow a thing in there about how I will financially help take care of her during the marriage (not if she divorces me) if she made much less money than me, but everything would still be separated legally.
If both agree on co-habitation, the extra place would be rented and the profits split 50/50.A clever type of Dual Live-In OLTR. Good stuff.
POB 2015-02-24 05:29:06
"I’m never going to get fat, and if she wants to get fat, that’s her business. As long as I can have sex with other women, it’s not super relevant." I'm more concerned about the health issues. The fat part is the best way I came up to garantee that she'll keep exercising and eating right. I'm not really interested on taking care of a fat wife that constantly needs medical attention. "I would allow a thing in there about how I will financially help take care of her during the marriage (not if she divorces me) if she made much less money than me, but everything would still be separated legally." Agreed. Maybe if she's much younger than me that would be plausible, but I would make damn sure she's constantly trying to increase her income. After she pops out our kids, I'd probably be cool to the idea of me doing less work (even if it means a little less money) so she can remain focused on her income. The ideal scenario is 50/50. "I would put in something about if she wanted more kids, 90% of the kid duties would be hers. Otherwise let’s just skip having kids." Yep, and I do have a max number. If she wants more, it's her choice. Again, it'll be my child, I will love the baby but I will not do the extra work.
Duke 2015-02-24 10:29:16
I'm curious about this stance of yours. Bd, you say you don't care if your wife gets fat as long as you can have sex on the side. Does this mean that you won't have sex with your wife after she gets fat. If not, isn't the marriage/co-habitation over at that point or do you keep her as merely a companion in that case? Also I'm guessing you don't care what people think if they see you in public with a an overweight woman?
Blackdragon 2015-02-24 11:17:03
I’m not really interested on taking care of a fat wife that constantly needs medical attention.I agree. If that was my concern, I would put in the contract that I'm not paying for any weight-related health issues she incurs later in life (diabetes, heart attack, most cancers). You're right in that I don't want to be a wallet-excuse for her to get fat and have a bunch of health problems that I have to pay for. Screw that. Aging is inevitable, but fat is a choice.
I’m curious about this stance of yours.Haha. I knew when I said that it would raise some eyebrows.
Does this mean that you won’t have sex with your wife after she gets fat.If she gets chubby, I'd still hit it. If she gets FAT, hell no. I'll cuddle with her but I'm not having sex with her. As I've said before, aging is inevitable but fat is a choice. Like POB indicated, if she CHOOSES to get fat, that's her CHOICE, but I'm not going to suffer because of her choice. I'm not having sex with her if that's the case, since I won't be able to get physically aroused. (And I'm not taking Viagra just because you want to get fat, Darling.) If she wants to get FAT, that's her decision, not mine, and if she doesn't like not having sex with me, she's welcome to either A) have sex with other men on the side or B) lose weight back to the way she used to look, then we can have sex again.
If not, isn’t the marriage/co-habitation over at that point or do you keep her as merely a companion in that case?As I said, it would not be over. I would continue to stay with her, but the sexual dynamic would racially change, as described above. Pierce Brosnan has a fat wife (who used to be gorgeous). He's still with her, and guys online give him a lot of shit for it. But I understand where he's coming from. He loves her and values the connection and companionship. I just hope he's fucking some hotties on the side so he can maintain happiness as a man and an Alpha (he probably is). If he's truly monogamous, which I really doubt, than I applaud him for staying with her but think he's making a huge mistake in his sex life.
Also I’m guessing you don’t care what people think if they see you in public with a an overweight woman?I'm outcome independent, so not really. Plus, people who knew me would know my marriage was open at least to some degree, and that I was probably getting some on the side from some skinny hotties. The bottom line: A core tenet of Alpha Male 2.0 is minimum number of rules, and minimum number of things you have to worry about, monitor, and/or concern yourself with. If I have a bunch of rules about the weight of my OLTR, I'm going to have to concern myself with this, especially if she breaks those rules, and I have better things to focus my limited time and mental energy on. And again, I'll never be 100% monogamous, so an OLTR wife who gains some weight is far less of a problem for me than it is for the other 95% of married men who were dumb enough to promise eternal monogamy no matter what happened in the marriage.
Duke 2015-02-24 11:40:13
Thanks for your input BD. This reinforces by belief in the ability to compartmentalize when it comes to ones needs. A guy can have a chick for companionship and emotional needs, one for physical needs, and maybe one for intellectual needs, although I tend to get intellectual needs from male friends and family. The mistake most people make is that they want the highly impossible package deal with only one person forever.
Blackdragon 2015-02-24 11:46:22
The mistake most people make is that they want the highly impossible package deal with only one person forever.Exactly. That's why long-term monogamy is so unrealistic. No one person can provide 100% of everything you need at all times forever. (But two or three can...)
POB 2015-02-24 12:28:05
One more thing about the fat wife concern...EVEN if we were to be non-monogamous, I'm 100% positive that as soon as I laid eyes on some skinny hottie, she would be full of drama towards me. Maybe not at that particular moment, but on some point in the near future (for sure). Without generalizing, I know from past experiences that even gorgeous chubby chicks hate skinny girls with all their guts. Now, imagine a fat wife married to a fit Alpha...
Blackdragon 2015-02-24 13:05:19
I’m 100% positive that as soon as I laid eyes on some skinny hottie, she would be full of drama towards meYeah. Then you dump her and find someone else. I don't plan on a marriage being for the "rest of my life" anyway.
Gray Beard 2015-02-26 04:39:16
It seems like the changes you suggest address the problems with existing marriage, but it lacks a certain practicality that I see with your other relationship ideas. People always create some sort of culture that frames the meaning of things in life. I think if marriage was 'anything you want' that would make it unusable as a cultural institution. You wouldn't have the common basis to understand what other people's marriages were unless you had the contract terms explained to you. Today the core of marriage means one man, one woman, starting a family, monogamy, government sanctioned, until death. You are right about all the things wrong with that. But it does provide a basis for which to discuss (and judge) the variations. Gay marriage, open marriage, childless marriage, broken marriage, common law marriage.. we know what all these things mean because they are variations on the core principle. I'm not saying that cultural institutions are the be all and end all. And I've personally become less and less judgmental of others as I've grown older. But lets face facts, humans are a judgmental bunch! My criticism isn't that this idea isn't 100% perfect, but that it's fundamentally flawed. I think about this because I imagine what it would be like to live in a place with sane and rational rules that would actually work for humans. I agree that modern marriage has a lot of room for improvement. I think if this system went into place a lot of people would freak out that marriage had been gutted of all meaning. Feminists would rage against the loss of assumed entitlement to beta provider-ship. And then, if we were truly stuck with it, a few common variations would become popular. And these would form the cultural basis of 'marriage'. I don't think humans can let their institutions be 'just anything'. Like dating... if you don't like monogamous 'dating', you don't turn it into 'anything', you turn it into FB, MLTR and OLTR. If it's 'anything' how do you talk about it, how do you spread your ideas? To me the implication is that marriage would need to be turned into a few concepts that will actually work for people. Maybe we would need to go with your idea in order to actually find out how people would do it.
Blackdragon 2015-02-26 10:22:07
I think if marriage was ‘anything you want’ that would make it unusable as a cultural institution.I answered that exact point in the post.
You wouldn’t have the common basis to understand what other people’s marriages were unless you had the contract terms explained to you.Incorrect. Your common basis for what marriage is would be determined by what most people were doing, which would overwhelmingly be man/woman one-on-one marriage.
I think if this system went into place a lot of people would freak out that marriage had been gutted of all meaning.Now there you're absolutely right. As I said, both right-wingers and left-wingers would flip their shit if we converted to this system tomorrow. They would both be wrong of course, because as I explained, both of their fears are unfounded in the system I described. But they would still freak out, yes. This is probably why we'll never see this kind of system in the real world on a mass scale. Sadly.
Like dating...if you don’t like monogamous ‘dating’, you don’t turn it into ‘anything’, you turn it into FB, MLTR and OLTR. If it’s ‘anything’ how do you talk about it, how do you spread your ideas?The difference between what I'm saying and you're implying is that I'm presenting a system I know works, I'm not presenting a system that I think the government should enforce on innocent private citizens. FB/MLTR/OLTR is a superior system to both long-term monogamy and being a forever-player. However I would never, ever want the government to enforce that system (or any other relationship system) onto others.
Duke 2015-02-26 16:16:36
Hey BD, I can't help but wonder after you mentioning several times throughout your blog, that you will eventually move in with or marry an OLTR. Is there any possibility at all that you could/would have MLTRs until you die. I get the impression that at some point in your old age you will just pick one to do this with. It's hard to imagine that you have not found an OLTR in eight years, but then suddenly you will find one when you're older? So, my question is:Do you think it is possible for a man to be happy doing MLTRs forever?
Blackdragon 2015-02-26 16:28:52
Is there any possibility at all that you could/would have MLTRs until you die.Yes. A very strong possibility. The unique problem I have, not shared by many other Alphas, is that the older I get the LESS I tolerate drama. At some point I may get so happy and so intolerant of even a tiny drip of drama that I may end up pricing myself out of the market. So yeah, it's entirely possible.
It’s hard to imagine that you have not found an OLTR in eight years, but then suddenly you will find one when you’re older?Two answers: 1. I did find an OLTR. I was with her for 5.5 years. We didn't live together though (though at one point we planned on it). Instead she just stayed at my place 3 days a week. It worked very well while it lasted. 2. I won't "suddenly" find anyone. It will take a few years I'm sure. Plus she has to be an MLTR for at least six months before she qualifies for an upgrade. There's no "suddenly" about it.
So, my question is:Do you think it is possible for a man to be happy doing MLTRs forever?YES. Very, very happy. The snag there is that when a man gets really old (65+) he's less likely to want to live alone. It's a human thing. But could he still do MLTRs and be happy with that as long as he stayed relatively fit and kept on with his Mission? You bet!
chemistry dating gay review 2021-08-02 13:42:53
chemistry dating gay review How Marriage Would Work In A Free Society - Alpha Male 2.0