Alimony-- why pay

[jel]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

Hello everyone, I followed this thread a bit, but not throughout.

Am I correct when assuming that it's seen by many of you as a contract (like between a soccer player and his club), when going into marriage?

I believe that stuff like the church and the government, should never be mixed together! Therefore using a wedding as a contract should not be valid, as those who do not believe, but gets a wedding because the other parts wants to, should not be forced down by their promises. Sure you can say a promise is a promise, and if you do not keep your promises it shows something about you, but be realistic, only a fool promises something they have no idea to be to hold, and should not be able to be charged for it (to be specific, I'm talking about a promise that has no realistic time limit).

Am I correct when assuming that one of the main arguments of why a former husband should support his former wife in the life she used to live, is that otherwise she would not be able to hold on herself, and she sacrificed this opportunity for his sake?

Well here's my take on it. I believe that the court should have nothing to do with this, for me the "justice" system is only for the protection of freedom of life, so in stead of taking the ressources from the former husband, I believe the ressources should be taken from everyone (social support), until she's able to take care of herself.

I think it's naive to believe you can be forever be dependent on someone because you sacrificed yourself for this someone, we all make decisions, and we all have to take responsibility for our decisisions. In the world I hope we'll live in, in the future, no one have to be poor, because of enough ressources that is shared between everyone, done during a system that collects the money and only uses it on protection of freedom of life. However no one has the right to reduce another persons freedom to be able to live exactly the life they want, as mentionen I believe the state is ultimately for protection of freedom of life, so it may not remove freedom from anyone to keep freedom for someone.

Though I do come from a society that I believe is pretty different from most of yours, here people will get social help, given they have lost opportunity, and will be helped (though a rather poor help if you ask me) to get back in being able to be independent again, here religion is pretty much seperated from the state, so a divorce gives no right over goods, but of course the matter of kids is quite another.

Coming to the matter of children, I believe the same rules should apply no matter how old you're, the only difference is that you're obligated to take care of your child, given you're willing to do so, until your child can take responsibility for his/hers own actions. Forcing things on anyone is in my opinion wrong (again if it's required for proctetion for freedom of life, it may be required, such as you may not kill other beings), even stuff like forcing an unwilling parent to take care of the child, since the child really isn't suited with an unwilling parent when it comes to it, that should be obvious. Fundings from a single part should never be the case, as a part of society we should be protected by each other through the government. It does not mean there's no concequences of getting a child, if you got a child willingly (meaning you said to the other parent you wanted a child), and then decides not to take care of it, then the probability of you will in the future be able to take care of it is pretty slim, again no "justice" system should be required, only if the earlier unwilling parent decides to use force (stealing the child, or visiting when not allowed). However if you got the child unwillingly (woman not allowed an abort / man saying he didn't want the child (heck these things can even be submitted down the a much lower level as the woman being raped, and never finding out she's pregnant before it's to late of an abort, or the father of the child having his semen abused)), then nothing should be able to limit your freedom to take care of the child, the child should however of course still be protected, but that's through the government. Again not taking responsibility have the consequince of not being able to so later on, unless other chooses so, and that is punishment enough.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

in stead of taking the ressources from the former husband, I believe the ressources should be taken from everyone (social support), until she's able to take care of herself.

Whether or not the ex-husband owes her money for marrying her is up for debate, but one thing I know for certain is that I and the rest of the population of the country who didn't marry her certainly don't owe her anything.

 

[jel]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

Whether or not the ex-husband owes her money for marrying her is up for debate, but one thing I know for certain is that I and the rest of the population of the country who didn't marry her certainly don't owe her anything.

I agree, but there's a reason for everyone paying taxes. I try to write that this reason should ultimately be protection of freedom of life. Therefore one of the things the money should go to is to ensure that she'll be able to manage well until she can be independent again, I'm not saying she can live the life she used to however, as she has a responsibility in her actions as well.

In my country you do actually get social help if you cannot take care of yourself, e.g. if you loose your income or something like that, so I know it's not as idealistic as it sounds.

I believe using money to stuff like that makes much more sense than to use money on making a cultural buidling or on administration of administration of administration or similar. Not that it justifies it that there exists worse things, but I think I make the argument just above (what I believe the governments function is, utlimately).

Btw. I think that no one owes anything, I'd actually say if you do things that makes someone ows something (like a bank loaning out money) then it's not only the responsibility of the person who loaned the money, but also of the bank. So if the person is not able to pay everything back, it does not mean the bank is entitled to get everything back from this person.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

I try to write that this reason should ultimately be protection of freedom of life.

Freedom of life is the freedom to force other people to work to put food in your mouth?

That doesn't sound very free at all.

 

[jel]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

Freedom of life is the freedom to force other people to work to put food in your mouth?

That doesn't sound very free at all.

I think you're reading what I write different than what I intend it to. I never wrote anyone should be forced, surely as it is now everyone pays taxes, but that is because we do not have unlimitted amount of ressources.

There are two things I would like to make clear out of what you wrote

#1 The government is there for everyone, but I believe it should be possible to not pay taxes, that does just mean you decide not to be a part of society, and either pays directly for what you need or become self supporting, I think it's pretty dissapointing that it's not possible to do so in our world, where for some reason countries are created at abitrary boarders and depending where you are, you have a quite different set of laws. So I believe everyone should just as well be free not to invest in the society if they don't want to, and of course given a state of danger should still be helped, but should not have the goods of higher standards that comes through paying taxes. (Meaning anything acute (in a hurry to be done, for instance life threatning) will be taken care of, but anything that is not acute will have to be payed for).

#2 Protection of freedom of life pretty much means everyone should be able to do what they want as long as it does not interfer with the freedom of others, where everyone is refering to living beings.

So I agree no one should be forced, but as it is now, we do pay taxes, because we've limited ressources, so we need to work and we need an economic system since it apparently yet isn't possibly to make enough automatisation for the world to run around without us working. Therefore I see no problem in taxes going to social help at all, As mentioned I still it's our duty as the head species of this planet to make sure everyone has the protection of freedom of life, given we had enough ressources, no one would have to work for this to happen, likewise no one would have to be forced to anything with the right system I believe.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

As mentioned I still it's our duty as the head species of this planet to make sure everyone has the protection of freedom of life

But your "protection" is more than just preventing someone from harming someone else. Your "Right to Life" includes, apparently, the "Right to Food".

Someone has to get that food. If the person who is eating it were getting that food themselves, you wouldn't need to spell it out. What you're essentially saying is that someone else must farm the raw materials, harvest the food, and then distribute it to hungry mouths or else they have violated the hungry people's "Right to Life".

Even if the actual farm work were done in a completely automated fashion, you'd still have to have people to service the machines, buy new parts, etc.

No matter how you slice it, believing that everyone deserves to be fed merely because they exist is the belief that some people must be forced to work to do the feeding.

 

[jel]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

But your "protection" is more than just preventing someone from harming someone else. Your "Right to Life" includes, apparently, the "Right to Food".

Someone has to get that food. If the person who is eating it were getting that food themselves, you wouldn't need to spell it out. What you're essentially saying is that someone else must farm the raw materials, harvest the food, and then distribute it to hungry mouths or else they have violated the hungry people's "Right to Life".

Which is exactly like it is today, no one is self supporting in all modern areas, you don't just get electricity out of your self made power plant or get food out of your own farms, it's localised and then distributed. Due to our limited ressources however we need an echonomical system to make things go around, which is why social help (which does exist, but maybe not in your country, I shall not say) will of course be limited as long as the ressources are limited.

Edit: After thinking about it, it's usually so that people claim that not everything can be automatic, since if something goes wrong there won't be anyone around to fix it, but look at our society, we've no other species than ourself to fix ourself if something goes wrong, and we also have needs and desires that would be much more advanced than a non living automatic being (a robot pretty much I guess), so in principle one could let the automatic society take care of it self, it's just a question to make it sufficient large (and make the quality of the machines high enough, much higher than we're able to today I guess), so the probability of a failure in the automatic system that would be unfixable would be much much smaller than what it is in our society today, and hey look at us we're still here.
In principle it would mean the automatic system would take care of itself like a society, but in stead of having a desire for something fun, their "desire" would be to serve us, we'd be their purpose and through that, as long as their are enough ressources, no one should have their freedom limited (though as mentioned before, still limited to not limit the freedom of others). So for example the production of food (which also probably would look the same as of today, but be made completely different) would go side by side with the convertion of energy to the automatic parts. As another example the machinery would create other machines with the same quality, some in the lowest part of the chain (actually production) some in the higher part (checking up if everything is working correct in a local area), just like we'd probably be reproducing, and it's through enough energy and our ability to reproduce that we're still here, I can't see why a sufficient large and high quality machinery should not be able to do so.

Even if the actual farm work were done in a completely automated fashion, you'd still have to have people to service the machines, buy new parts, etc.

Even if the actual farm work were done in a completely automated fashion, you'd still have to have people to service the machines, buy new parts, etc.

No matter how you slice it, believing that everyone deserves to be fed merely because they exist is the belief that some people must be forced to work to do the feeding.

Well you're completely correct, but it's pretty tiresome that you've now begun to write about stuff that I actually wrote about myself in my first post, I wrote about this exact problem, and got to the conclusion that in principle it's about automating every step in the process up until one single "over-step" which is the step that corrects the lower steps that once again correct even lower steps that at some point finally corrects the lowest steps, being the production steps, the amount of steps would depend on the size of the system. My suggestion of taking care of the over-step was letting humans do that, yes that's correct, the thing is however there's no need of only one person should do it, spread it around, and it would practically be no time needed at all, but yes some time certainly. How to set this up exactly is nothing I'm going to go into, it's pretty idealistic and not technical, likewise I'd like to emphasize this would probably require enough ressourcers for all times for all live.

I'm going off to bet now, it was nice writing with you, I'll check up here again tomorrow.