Note that when I say "government" in this thread, I could mean either a minarchist state or competative ancap PDAs and arbitrators, I don't think it really matters for the sake of this particular discussion. So, if you're an ancap, as I am, assume "government" means some kind of free market civil law alternative.
So I've kind of always just assumed that the libertarian position on adultery was that, regardless of the morality of adultery (I think most of us would say that its immoral, but that's irrelevant), that its an issue that the government should have nothing to do with, and that it should be up to the parties involved to deal with.
I still think that's the correct position, but after debating with a theonomist briefly today, I'm kind of thinking about this from a different angle that I haven't really thought about yet.
Let's assume that government has nothing to do with marriage other than enforcing contracts (libertarians generally believe government should enforce contracts). Let's say a couple comes up with a contract and make marital vows to forsake all others and stay together until one party should die.
Than one party commits adultery.
Could it be argued that this is fraud, since it is a violation of the agreed upon contract? Would this fall under contract enforcement, according to libertarian theory? Why or why not?
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us