I have a question for those who have some familiarity with libertarian theory. Is there a way in which patriarchy can be compatible with libertarianism?
The view of most moderate libertarians (i.e. the group that tends to be dominant in the Libertarian Party, and therefore gets to pick the Libertarian candidates who are some of the more visible representatives of the movement) tends to be that the state should simply stop issuing marriage licenses, and treat marriage like any other contract. They also tend to believe that a spouse has a right to leave the marriage at any time -- the same way a person would breach any other contract -- and be subject to no other penalty than lawsuit in civil court. The rationale is that the individual retains his sovereignty even after getting married; he cannot sell himself into slavery.
It's unsurprising that they would take this stance, since one of the goals of privatizing marriage was to assure that gay couples would have equal rights as straight couples. Some libertarians, such as Augustus Sol Invictus, have called the Libertarian Party out for its alleged focus on left-wing issues such as LGBTTQQIAAP rights, and become black sheep in the movement as a result. The fact remains that some of the concerns and needs of straight couples are different than those of gay couples; for example, gay husbands don't need to be worry about the possibility of their spouse bearing the child of another man, the way that a straight husband might, so faithfulness is not such a big concern for them. One could come up with a long list of differences and speculate about their possible implications for how straight and gay relationships should be regulated differently.
The moderate libertarian view of marriage isn't exactly compatible with patriarchy, which calls on men to be rulers rather than merely parties to contracts. (I'm drawing a distinction between a ruler and a leader; a ruler has power to compel obedience, but not all leaders have power to rule.) And to the extent that egalitarianism (i.e. the right of women to disobey their husbands), and the inalienable individual sovereignty of women (including their right to abandon their husbands), produces marital instability and harms the institution of the family, this could ultimately work to the detriment of liberty, by making the state by default the main source of leadership and protection.
For example, when men are unable to take charge of their families and prevent their wives from abusing or neglecting the children, there is more occasion for CPS to step in. (See, for example, this list of incidents.) Mike Gannon warns that "the dictators of totalitarian regimes the world over, understand that the Family is the greatest threat to the unchecked might of the State, for it is within the sanctity of the home that loyalties stronger than any flag can command are fostered. Minds, both young and old, are at liberty to develop free of the suffocating hand of political correctness and party line."
Does libertarianism need to be compatible with patriarchy in order to be workable? In figuring that out, I think some key questions to ask are, "How replaceable are husbands and fathers?" and "How replaceable are wives and mothers?" If they were easily replaceable, then a binding marriage might not be as necessary, since a divorce would harm neither the spouses nor the kids, but rather would simply present an opportunity for the husband to trade up for a younger wife. If there is no suitable replacement for either of the parties, then specific performance (i.e. telling the spouses, "you can't break up") becomes the only remedy for breach of contract.
The next question is, "Can marriage obligations be effectively enforced by the threat of lawsuit for breach of contract?" My thought is that the wife is often judgment proof, because she wasn't the breadwinner. You can't get blood out of a turnip. So what is to prevent her from leaving her husband on a whim? Is it enough that, if she leaves, she might walk away with nothing, and have trouble finding a man who wants to support a post-wall single mom?
Perhaps the marriage contract might also specify that in the event of a breakup, the disloyal spouse loses custody of the kids. That would be a departure from current policy, which holds that custody should be determined by "the best interests of the child." Child custody tends to be a touchy issue with libertarians, who may or may not be okay with assigning rights to custody based on contract, as though the kids were livestock. But of course, if the mother is allowed to leave with the kids, then patriarchy, which is based on fathers instilling masculinity in their sons and ruling over their daughters, falls apart.
Then another question is, if you have to force a woman to stay in a marriage, is she even suitable as a wife or mother? Red pill theory holds that war brides can adjust to their situation, and that love is a combination of mutual attraction and a lack of other options, so I'm thinking the answer to that could be yes.
The libertarianism of ages past (when it was called "liberalism") was patriarchal. John Locke held, "But the husband and wife, though they have but one common concern, yet having different understandings, will unavoidably sometimes have different wills too; it therefore being necessary that the last determination, i. e. the rule, should be placed somewhere; it naturally falls to the man's share, as the abler and the stronger." Ayn Rand likewise said (on Phil Donahue's show), "A commander-in-chief of the army, a woman? I think it's unspeakable" which is another way of saying that men should be in charge.
It seems that in modern times, feminism has infected much of the libertarian movement. (Feminists' entryist strategy has always called for them to infiltrate and take over organizations that might otherwise oppose them.) So, what modifications or clarifications would need to be made in libertarian theory, in order to align it with patriarchy? I see a few possibilities.
The first is to simply regard women as children who never grow up, and therefore need to be under guardianship their whole lives. Libertarianism already has a body of theory pertaining to children, and we have records of ancient family laws specifying how women, marriage, and the family were regulated back before women were regarded as having a right to self-determination, so reverting back to that system would be fairly straightforward. Since decisions about marriage have to be made while the woman is fairly young (since SMV starts falling off when she's in her 20s), it also makes a certain amount of sense.
The other way would be to regard men and women as losing their right to self-determination once they marry. Prior to marriage, the individual would be regarded as the fundamental unit of society; but after marriage, the individual would be irrevocably fused into the family, which would become the new fundamental unit. (This would be similar to the concept in Mark 10:8-9, "And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.") The husband's right to rule would then flow from natural law, according to the Lockean principle mentioned above.
Another way is to rely solely on culture (soft power) rather than rule (hard power). That is, influence women rather than control them. Praise and shame would become tools of persuasion, as would men's red pill thinking and behavior, including unwillingness to wife up post-wall sluts. If women marry as young virgins, they are more likely to pair-bond successfully and stay loyal. All of this would require no change to libertarian theory.
Of course, a libertarian critique of patriarchy that is sometimes offered is that the husband might abuse his power. Another critique is that the same logic that would justify men's rule over women might also justify the rule of some men over other men. For example, maybe a father would claim the right to order his grown-up son around for the good of the family, or a dictator might claim the right to order around his people for the good of the nation, the same way that a husband might tell his wife what to do.
I don't think it's entirely out of the realm of possibility that some libertarians would support patriarchy. Way ahead of the alt-right uprising against political correctness, anarcho-capitalists such as Walter Block (who, by the way, believes that it's permissible under libertarian theory to sell oneself into slavery) were already telling the truth about differences between the sexes. Murray Rothbard also blew the whistle on women's lib. And of course we have libertarians like Gavin McInnes arguing that "womankind is better off in a patriarchy."
It does seem that the more radical libertarians are leading the way in being a voice for red pill awareness in the libertarian movement, although they aren't dominant in organizations like the Libertarian Party, and it remains to be seen what specific ethical framework they will propose for relations between the sexes.
The view of most moderate libertarians (i.e. the group that tends to be dominant in the Libertarian Party, and therefore gets to pick the Libertarian candidates who are some of the more visible representatives of the movement) tends to be that the state should simply stop issuing marriage licenses, and treat marriage like any other contract. They also tend to believe that a spouse has a right to leave the marriage at any time -- the same way a person would breach any other contract -- and be subject to no other penalty than lawsuit in civil court. The rationale is that the individual retains his sovereignty even after getting married; he cannot sell himself into slavery.
It's unsurprising that they would take this stance, since one of the goals of privatizing marriage was to assure that gay couples would have equal rights as straight couples. Some libertarians, such as Augustus Sol Invictus, have called the Libertarian Party out for its alleged focus on left-wing issues such as LGBTTQQIAAP rights, and become black sheep in the movement as a result. The fact remains that some of the concerns and needs of straight couples are different than those of gay couples; for example, gay husbands don't need to be worry about the possibility of their spouse bearing the child of another man, the way that a straight husband might, so faithfulness is not such a big concern for them. One could come up with a long list of differences and speculate about their possible implications for how straight and gay relationships should be regulated differently.
The moderate libertarian view of marriage isn't exactly compatible with patriarchy, which calls on men to be rulers rather than merely parties to contracts. (I'm drawing a distinction between a ruler and a leader; a ruler has power to compel obedience, but not all leaders have power to rule.) And to the extent that egalitarianism (i.e. the right of women to disobey their husbands), and the inalienable individual sovereignty of women (including their right to abandon their husbands), produces marital instability and harms the institution of the family, this could ultimately work to the detriment of liberty, by making the state by default the main source of leadership and protection.
For example, when men are unable to take charge of their families and prevent their wives from abusing or neglecting the children, there is more occasion for CPS to step in. (See, for example, this list of incidents.) Mike Gannon warns that "the dictators of totalitarian regimes the world over, understand that the Family is the greatest threat to the unchecked might of the State, for it is within the sanctity of the home that loyalties stronger than any flag can command are fostered. Minds, both young and old, are at liberty to develop free of the suffocating hand of political correctness and party line."
Does libertarianism need to be compatible with patriarchy in order to be workable? In figuring that out, I think some key questions to ask are, "How replaceable are husbands and fathers?" and "How replaceable are wives and mothers?" If they were easily replaceable, then a binding marriage might not be as necessary, since a divorce would harm neither the spouses nor the kids, but rather would simply present an opportunity for the husband to trade up for a younger wife. If there is no suitable replacement for either of the parties, then specific performance (i.e. telling the spouses, "you can't break up") becomes the only remedy for breach of contract.
The next question is, "Can marriage obligations be effectively enforced by the threat of lawsuit for breach of contract?" My thought is that the wife is often judgment proof, because she wasn't the breadwinner. You can't get blood out of a turnip. So what is to prevent her from leaving her husband on a whim? Is it enough that, if she leaves, she might walk away with nothing, and have trouble finding a man who wants to support a post-wall single mom?
Perhaps the marriage contract might also specify that in the event of a breakup, the disloyal spouse loses custody of the kids. That would be a departure from current policy, which holds that custody should be determined by "the best interests of the child." Child custody tends to be a touchy issue with libertarians, who may or may not be okay with assigning rights to custody based on contract, as though the kids were livestock. But of course, if the mother is allowed to leave with the kids, then patriarchy, which is based on fathers instilling masculinity in their sons and ruling over their daughters, falls apart.
Then another question is, if you have to force a woman to stay in a marriage, is she even suitable as a wife or mother? Red pill theory holds that war brides can adjust to their situation, and that love is a combination of mutual attraction and a lack of other options, so I'm thinking the answer to that could be yes.
The libertarianism of ages past (when it was called "liberalism") was patriarchal. John Locke held, "But the husband and wife, though they have but one common concern, yet having different understandings, will unavoidably sometimes have different wills too; it therefore being necessary that the last determination, i. e. the rule, should be placed somewhere; it naturally falls to the man's share, as the abler and the stronger." Ayn Rand likewise said (on Phil Donahue's show), "A commander-in-chief of the army, a woman? I think it's unspeakable" which is another way of saying that men should be in charge.
It seems that in modern times, feminism has infected much of the libertarian movement. (Feminists' entryist strategy has always called for them to infiltrate and take over organizations that might otherwise oppose them.) So, what modifications or clarifications would need to be made in libertarian theory, in order to align it with patriarchy? I see a few possibilities.
The first is to simply regard women as children who never grow up, and therefore need to be under guardianship their whole lives. Libertarianism already has a body of theory pertaining to children, and we have records of ancient family laws specifying how women, marriage, and the family were regulated back before women were regarded as having a right to self-determination, so reverting back to that system would be fairly straightforward. Since decisions about marriage have to be made while the woman is fairly young (since SMV starts falling off when she's in her 20s), it also makes a certain amount of sense.
The other way would be to regard men and women as losing their right to self-determination once they marry. Prior to marriage, the individual would be regarded as the fundamental unit of society; but after marriage, the individual would be irrevocably fused into the family, which would become the new fundamental unit. (This would be similar to the concept in Mark 10:8-9, "And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.") The husband's right to rule would then flow from natural law, according to the Lockean principle mentioned above.
Another way is to rely solely on culture (soft power) rather than rule (hard power). That is, influence women rather than control them. Praise and shame would become tools of persuasion, as would men's red pill thinking and behavior, including unwillingness to wife up post-wall sluts. If women marry as young virgins, they are more likely to pair-bond successfully and stay loyal. All of this would require no change to libertarian theory.
Of course, a libertarian critique of patriarchy that is sometimes offered is that the husband might abuse his power. Another critique is that the same logic that would justify men's rule over women might also justify the rule of some men over other men. For example, maybe a father would claim the right to order his grown-up son around for the good of the family, or a dictator might claim the right to order around his people for the good of the nation, the same way that a husband might tell his wife what to do.
I don't think it's entirely out of the realm of possibility that some libertarians would support patriarchy. Way ahead of the alt-right uprising against political correctness, anarcho-capitalists such as Walter Block (who, by the way, believes that it's permissible under libertarian theory to sell oneself into slavery) were already telling the truth about differences between the sexes. Murray Rothbard also blew the whistle on women's lib. And of course we have libertarians like Gavin McInnes arguing that "womankind is better off in a patriarchy."
It does seem that the more radical libertarians are leading the way in being a voice for red pill awareness in the libertarian movement, although they aren't dominant in organizations like the Libertarian Party, and it remains to be seen what specific ethical framework they will propose for relations between the sexes.
![[Image: troll.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/troll.gif)
![[Image: tard.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/tard.gif)