a) Isn’t the solution to qualify the “libertarian argument” by limiting it’s scope to “any terms that don’t break the law”? (Of course “libertarian” is a poor adjective choice since a legal contract very much relies on a powerful state backing the enforcement of any breach to mean anything—the concept of a libertarian contract is an oxymoron.)
b) What do suspected ulterior motives on the part of those advancing the “libertarian argument” or the fact that sincere libertarians are a fringe minority have to do with the argument’s logical validity?
c) In reality, in the case of marriage, the state isn’t merely a neutral enforcer but a party to the contract as well as the contract’s enforcer. That is to say, the married couple’s rights and responsibilities with respect to the state are modified by the contract. In particular, the way they are taxed changes; so may citizenship or residency status. And it also affects a couple’s relationship to fourth parties—e.g., if Bob is married to Ron, Ron may, in some cases, be held liable for Bob’s debts.
Several thoughts:
a) Isn’t the solution to qualify the “libertarian argument” by limiting it’s scope to “any terms that don’t break the law”? (Of course “libertarian” is a poor adjective choice since a legal contract very much relies on a powerful state backing the enforcement of any breach to mean anything—the concept of a libertarian contract is an oxymoron.)
b) What do suspected ulterior motives on the part of those advancing the “libertarian argument” or the fact that sincere libertarians are a fringe minority have to do with the argument’s logical validity?
c) In reality, in the case of marriage, the state isn’t merely a neutral enforcer but a party to the contract as well as the contract’s enforcer. That is to say, the married couple’s rights and responsibilities with respect to the state are modified by the contract. In particular, the way they are taxed changes; so may citizenship or residency status. And it also affects a couple’s relationship to fourth parties—e.g., if Bob is married to Ron, Ron may, in some cases, be held liable for Bob’s debts.