Brent - you're exactly right on how things are today. And as long as the welfare state exists and is funded by income tax (cap gains is still income), then I see no reason whatsoever to be okay with amnesty or any "immigration reform".

But if there is no income tax, no cap gains tax, and only a sales tax... then at least in theory, even the illegals (and visitors) end up paying into the system whenever they purchase something here.

Whether they then partake of benefits or not becomes a somewhat separate issue.

I find the idea appealing in some ways, I must admit.

Thinking back to my Progressive days... I found the books I read in sociology class to be far more directly influential. Two that immediately come to mind:

The Wretched of the Earth, by Franz Fanon

Pedagogy of the Oppressed, by Paulo Freire

I recall thinking that the idea of "false consciousness" was extremely important, and it explained why all these redneck rubes and bitter clingers behaved the way they did. What was required, of course, was enlightened education... mandated if necessary by the benevolent public servants....

I'd love to attend, but it all depends on when. It's not about commitment, but about conflicts....

Well, the terror attacks in Boston completely sidetracked everything for me (as a 9/11 survivor of sorts), but... life must go on. Which means arguing with thoughtful people must also go on.

CN and Dr. Rahe - I'm with you in terms of NFD being not the solution but one small part of the overall program. However, I suppose where I am today is that eliminating NFD in the current marriage culture environment would actually do more harm than good.

Let me agree arguendo that eliminating NFD would lower the divorce rate. Why, if I may ask, would you think it wouldn't also lower the marriage rate? Especially in the at-risk Fishtown demographic where marriage is below 50% already?

Is it better, in your view, to have fewer "higher quality" marriages? Or to be have more marriages, albeit at higher risk of divorce? (I lean towards the latter because NFD or not, divorce is expensive and painful for all involved. It isn't undertaken lightly.)

If the goal is to reduce bastardy, then the latter seems a more rational choice.

I'm good with your better options too :)

But I do want to point out that the cavalier man might be willing to screw whomever, whenever. The issue is whether women would let him if financial abortion were reality.

Completely agree - so structure those other institutions appropriately. But eliminating NFD will not achieve those ends.

We're after the same goals, I suspect, and probably have identified the same root causes. I just don't see the NFD angle at all.

It's really not that complicated: when women are falling over themselves to give it away, men are hardly going to refuse. But instead of bringing slut-shaming back, we have SlutWalk 2013. So, good luck to us all.

Three things.

First, it appears there's conflicting social science research on just how much NFD contributes to breakdown of families and divorce rates. (See appendix: http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.nofault.divrate.pdf)

Second, since the point is that Fishtowners are not getting married in the first place, why would changing divorce laws -- which only impact people already married -- matter in the least?

Third, assuming that eliminating NFD does matter by "making marriage more sacred than today", is the proposition that making getting out of marriage more difficult would get Fishtowners more eager to tie the knot?

Um, no doubt? My point is that financial abortion would create incentives for young women of Fishtown to be more selective in choosing baby daddies. Maybe even *gasp* ask him, if you like it, then put a ring on it.

Prof. Rahe wants to eliminate bastardy. He proposes a backdoor approach by way of NFD that would have no impact. I propose a more direct approach that would have an impact.

The alternative is to ban abortion, of course, but well, I'm sure you know the political issues with that fight.

And you ignore the fact that without question, in the Belmont demographic, marriage is anything but a bald-faced lie, whatever the status of the divorce laws. They are marrying and desperate to be married, despite NFD. I suggest marriage-as-not-a-lie has to do with education, social norms amongst the Belmont demographic, religious belief, and so on and nothing to do with NFD.

I asked that we settle your first question: why marry in the first place? to see if the NFD is the solution to the problem. It appears that the problem you want tackled is bastardy.

This is not a problem in the upper-middle-class Belmonters. It is a severe problem in the Fishtown demographic. I submit that "fault" can be found easily in the Fishtowns of today, and eliminating NFD would do nothing to make marriage more attractive to either men or women in that demographic.

Allow the man to decide unilaterally -- just as women do today with real abortion -- whether he will claim financial responsibility for the child. If the decision is no, then the baby is financially aborted, and the man would owe no child support requirements at all.

Harsh and cruel, yes. But it creates a real incentive for the young woman to decide whether she will in fact have sex with this man or that one. Such thinking might actually lead to consideration of marriage.

In fact, if the goal is to make marriage more attractive to the young women now having babies without marriage, it can be accomplished much more rapidly and efficiently:

Give men the right of financial abortion.

We would see young women make different decisions about baby daddies overnight.

And I believe that you err in your judgment of what's going on.

Social changes -- namely the fact that these young women are opening their legs to pretty much any man who buys them a shot and a beer -- have led to blue collar young men realizing they don't need to become some responsible Ward Cleaver figure to get laid and to have babies with a series of baby mamas. The young women then decide they don't want to marry such unreliable lads.

Plus, have you seen some of these young women in our Fishtown areas?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "finality of marriage" or some such.

I can get behind this, but under that regime, the terms of the marriage contract are going to have to change more than a little bit.

In fact, if you're really looking to treat marriage as a contract, and enforce damages in cases of breach, then we're going to have to start with the fact that the standard terms (all you "my marriage is perfect" people can now safely back off) of today's marriage contract are such that any man who signs one is a moron and/or should sue his attorney and advisors (preachers, etc.) for professional malpractice.

More and more, this is starting to smell like "Men Need to Step Up".

This makes your post even more puzzling. Since those young women giving birth to the 53% of single-mom kiddos come from the Fishtown demographics of Charles Murray's Coming Apart, they're not getting married in the first place. Just as you said. What does NFD have to do with anything?

So... the solution to blue collar women having babies before tying the knot is to make marriage even more punitive and even less attractive for the blue collar man?

Seems a whole lot like the beatings will continue until moral improves approach to things.

Perhaps the first question in Peof Rahe's title ought to be answered first before moving onto the argument against NFD?Why marry in the first place?Answering that seems a prerequisite to addressing the second.

My brother is there right now. Saw his FB update where he said he wasn't worried in the least.

Do you want to contact him directly?