All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 13, 2020 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
46:38
NO MARRIAGE, NO SHARED HOUSE, NO KIDS - HE STILL HAS TO PAY $6M IN SUPPORT!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, Stefan Maloney from Freedom, Maine.
Hope you're doing well. Hope you're doing better than this guy.
There's so much to unpack in this story.
Get comfortable. We are going to lead you up the path of righteousness to help you make, for the best, the decision that is most important in your life.
The most important decision in your life is who you marry, who you shack up with.
So, Ontario court, the top court has just ruled, couple has no home or kids together but are still considered spouses.
Oof. Oof.
Man. So let's get into this.
A wealthy businessman, and by God, this man has got to have some serious coin under his belt, a wealthy businessman will have to pay more than $50,000 a year?
In total? Oh no, my friends.
$50,000 a month.
In spouser support for 10 years to a woman with whom he had a long-term romantic relationship, even though they kept separate homes and had no children together.
Ontario's top quarters rules.
Under Ontario law, an unmarried couple are considered common-law spouses if they have cohabited, lived together in a conjugal relationship continuously for at least three years.
So, does that seem pretty clear?
You have to have lived together continuously For at least three years.
But! I'm sorry, it's not funny.
It's not funny. It's a little funny.
It's not funny. But that doesn't necessarily mean living in the same home.
The court found, ah, you see, you think you understand the law.
You don't understand the law.
The law exists to serve women.
It doesn't exist to serve truth.
Right? So, you would sit there and say, oh, well, you have to live together.
Um... For at least three years.
So if you don't live together, you're safe from this stuff.
You can never be considered common law.
Because you've got to live together.
But, you see, funny story, it turns out living together doesn't necessarily mean living in the same home.
So, you know, if you say to a woman, hey, let's move in together, and then you say, no, no, no, you stay in your place and I stay at my place.
I'm almost on vacation together a little bit here and there.
Maybe you can come visit my cottage, but you say to a woman, let's move in together, and then you say, oh, no, no, we're going to keep our separate places.
She's going to be a little confused. So, yeah, living together doesn't necessarily mean living in the same home, you see.
Oh, my God. So the appeals court said, lack of a shared residence is not determination of the issue of cohabitation.
So living together doesn't mean that you live in the same place.
Hmm. He says, the appeal court said, there are many cases in which courts have found cohabitation where the parties stay together only intermittently, right?
So here it says, live together in a conjugal relationship continuously for at least three years.
But you see, continuously...
Continuously, you see, also means intermittently.
Although, of course, in a reading comprehension test or a verbal IQ test, if you say that continuously means intermittently, then you'll fail that, right?
So, in sort of common parlance, in logic, in basic common sense, it all adds up to one thing.
In needy, needy female court land, It means something quite different.
The decision comes in the case of Lisa Klimans and Michael Lantner, both of Toronto, who began a romantic relationship after meeting in October 2001.
At the time, she was 38 and separated with two children.
Court records show he was 46 and divorced with three children.
Ooh. Quasi-blended family hell situation.
All right. Although they maintained their separate homes, Latina and Kleiman's behaved as a couple, both privately and publicly.
They vacationed together. He gave her a, hold on to your hairies, 7.5 carat diamond ring.
I believe the price of that is basically infinity and other jewelry that she wore.
She quit her job and would regularly sleep at his house.
They traveled together and talked about living together.
So he's a rich guy.
She's a woman pushing 40.
He's older than she is by eight years.
He gives her a massive diamond ring, lots of jewelry.
She quits her job. How interesting.
She quits her job.
Which means someone's got to pay the bills, especially because she's got two kids, right?
So who's paying the bills?
Don't do it, men.
Don't do it. Unless you're married and have children, Or planning to have children imminently.
Do not pay a woman's bills.
That is buying sex.
That is vile.
That is hideous. That is horrible.
It's fine to pay for children.
It's fine to pay for a wife.
It's fine to pay for a household.
That makes perfect sense. Women bring an excess of fertility to the relationship and men bring an excess of resources to the relationship.
You combine the two and you get a continuance of the human race, which is a double plus good thing.
But don't pay for sex.
Don't pay for sex.
My God. All right. So the woman...
I'm just going to check this because I was a bit surprised about this, right?
Ah, yes. Okay. So Lattner, this is the dude, right?
He proposed several times and the woman, Klimans, accepted.
He often referred to her by his last name.
However, he insisted she sign a marriage contract and came up with several drafts.
She refused. Huh.
I wonder if he was concerned that after she gave up her job and he was financially supporting her that she might in fact be a bit of a gold digger.
He might have been concerned about that.
I don't know these people. Of course, I'm merely theorizing, but it could be the case, right?
So he said to her, man, I'd love to get married, but I have a lot of assets and you kind of came to me late in life.
I got three kids. I got an ex-wife that I'm sure he's also paying some sort of support to.
And I really am going to need a prenup, right?
So marriage contract, I assume this means prenup.
Now, prenup, sometimes it's a little bit like skywriting in cloud vapor in terms of their longevity of the court system, but nonetheless.
So he said, let's get married.
Maybe the ring was an engagement ring.
He said, let's get married. And she said, sure.
And then I say, he said, listen, I got to protect my assets.
You know, I'm pushing 50 when you met me.
So, you know, a lot of my assets were gathered before you came along.
And she's like, I refuse to sign a prenup or a marriage contract here.
Throughout that relationship, the two kept separate bank accounts and never owned property in common.
Nevertheless, boom, here's where it falls apart.
So there's the heading, right?
There's the headline. And then there's the body.
And this body is what we, I guess the body is what we want to get into here.
Nevertheless, a Latner male gave Kleiman's, the female, thousands of dollars every month.
A credit card paid off her mortgage and showered her with expensive gifts.
He provided her and her children with a lavish lifestyle, the court found.
Theirs was a committed relationship, the appeal court said.
See, here's the funny thing.
If you talk about a committed relationship in the past tense, like in the past tense, then it's not.
If you say theirs is a committed relationship, sure, they're committed to each other, they're still together.
If you say theirs was a committed relationship, then it's no longer a committed relationship, because it's in the past tense!
So, it's was. When their 14-year relationship finally broke down in May 2015, Clemens asked the courts to recognize her as Lattner's spouse and order him to pay her support.
He argued that she had been a travel companion and girlfriend, nothing more.
As such, he said they were never legally spouses and he owed no support.
An eight-day trial ensued.
So, that's interesting.
So, obviously, I'm just theorizing.
I don't know what happened with these people, but here's my guess, right?
So, they met...
When he was, what was it, 46, right?
So, you know, he's still got pretty high middle-aged male testosterone and all of that, and she's 38 or whatever.
So their relationship lasts for 14 years.
So he goes from 46 to 60, right?
And, you know, she goes from, you know, 38 to 52, right?
So she's in menopause, which means her sex drive is, you know, not exactly like a tumbleweed in a blindingly bright desert, but, you know, not exactly a...
At WAP. And so he's older.
His testosterone is beginning to diminish.
He doesn't really care that much about sex anymore, at least not as much as he did 14 years prior.
As Socrates said, you know, sexual lust is a demon that is extinguished by age.
And so what she's offering to him, clearly the companionship wasn't enough or something went wrong with the relationship.
But if the relationship was based on, you know, the ancient bargain of sex for resources, which is the shallow R-selected version of investing in your family, then, like, the transfer of resources from men to women is for children.
It's not for sex.
I mean, sex, I know that there's this whole thing, right, that men have a higher sex drive and so on.
That's debatable. But...
The deal is supposed to be a bachelor needs one-tenth the money that a married man with children needs to have.
So a man can live on very little, but a man wants access to sex.
And the deal has been that you commit to providing resources.
The woman commits to providing...
Children and the mothering of the children, and the man provides the resources to pay for that.
And people say, well, marriage is sex for money.
It's not true, because women enjoy sex just about as much as men do.
I mean, if they didn't, there would be no such thing as the female orgasm, which as a man is sometimes something to be envied, given that it seems to go on for half a long weekend.
Anything which results in an orgasm for both parties can't be considered a sacrifice by one party.
So no, the money is supposed to go to the children and to the mother of your children.
It's not supposed to go in return for sex.
When you change that bargain to make it money for sex, then you have a problem.
Of course, you're saying as well, the man, he's saying, I'm so unattractive that I need sex.
To provide thousands of dollars a month, plus myself, just to equal whatever the woman's bringing to the table or to the boudoir or whatever, right?
And that's bad. You're insulting yourself.
Like, if you say, well, if you're a rich guy and you say, well, in order to have friends, what I need to do is I need to constantly pay for them to go on weekend trips to Cabo or I need to take them all, you know, paintballing with gold finger guns or something like that or I need to buy them tickets for concerts, then you're saying, me, just me, It's not enough to bring to a relationship.
I need to bring me plus thousands of dollars.
You know, that's not good.
You have to be the bare forked animal, so to speak, right?
You just have to be yourself and see who finds that appealing.
You know, one of the things I know about, I know about you, not in a creepy way, but I know this about you, that you are here despite me.
Like, you are here despite me.
In other words, I'm not providing you money.
I'm not providing you ease or comfort or whatever.
I mean, I think philosophy can provide happiness, but there's a lot of misery that you often need to go through in order to break through to that happiness side.
You know, there's no muscle without the burn.
There's no happiness without the disapproval of those who are counter to reason.
So, I know that you value what I have to say despite what I have to say, because what I have to say in terms of provoking integrity and virtue and honesty often costs you, and if it's any consolation, It often costs me.
This last year in particular has been just brutal for the show.
But I know that we're here for the sake of virtue, for the sake of truth, for the sake of integrity and all of those things.
So I don't have to pay you to listen to my show.
And if I had to pay you to listen to my show, to listen to philosophy, I would be devaluing both myself and philosophy.
So don't do that, right?
So in her decision...
Now that's got to be a coincidence.
You think? Yeah.
Got to be a coincidence. In her decision in February 2019, Superior Court Justice Sharon Shore sided with the female climates.
She ruled that they were in fact long-time spouses, finding that despite their separate homes, they lived under one roof at Lattner's Cottage for part of the summer and during winter vacations in Florida.
Shore ordered him to pay her, so he ordered the businessman to pay his girlfriend, $53,77 monthly indefinitely.
Indefinitely. Forever.
Until one of them died.
Hopefully he doesn't do an amoral cost calculation there.
Latner appealed. The higher court leaned heavily on Shor's analysis, finding that she was right to conclude cohabitation can occur even when the parties stay together intermittently.
The appeal court did find Shaw had made an error in deciding how long Latiners should have to pay Kleiman's support based on when they first began cohabiting.
When Shaw had found that to be almost from the get-go, the higher court said it wasn't earlier than their first day together at his cottage, meaning they didn't reach the threshold for indefinite payments.
Instead, it ordered him to pay her support for 10 years.
So only a little north of six million dollars.
Six million dollars!
Six million dollars!
My God! Here I was, working for a living.
The Climons and her lawyers declined to comment, blah, blah, blah, respond.
Okay, so, like, what's going on with all of this?
This is wild stuff.
This is wild, wild stuff.
So... In the economics of marriage, right?
So marriage is fundamentally an economic contract.
It's an economic arrangement. It's an economic agreement.
And it's not based on sex, right?
This is the thing, right? So if...
Let's say you... I don't recommend it.
I disapprove. But let's say you pay a prostitute to have sex with you.
If she doesn't have sex with you, you don't pay her.
I mean, unless she's Cardi B and knocks you out and steals from you or drugs you and steals from you.
I think she did. So...
It's not about sex.
And the reason I know that is that a man who doesn't support his family is considered in a fundamental breach of the marriage contract and abandonment or lack of financial support used to be up until 1970 in California and other places different times when no-fault divorce was introduced.
Before that, you had to prove why or that you had good reason To get divorced, you know, infidelity, abuse, addiction, abandonment, and so on, right?
These things had to be established, which is why you have all of these, you know, post-war movies or pre-war movies with the gumshoe, you know, the hard-bitten, Jack Nicholson-style depressed detective who runs around taking photos of everyone and all that, right?
You had to prove infidelity, and this is the cat-and-mouse game that occurred.
And one of the reasons a woman could divorce a man is that if he did not pay her any money, she's raising his kids, right?
So that was a definition or a foundational reason as to why a marriage could be ended was man not supporting wife, right?
Now, for a wife, though, this is interesting, right?
So for a wife, let me just get a little closer here, for a wife to withhold sex from the man It's not considered to be a reason for divorce.
And I mean voluntarily, not if she's ill or whatever it is, right?
Because if a man's ill and can't pay the bills, it's a different matter.
Now, it's brutal, of course, in that situation.
In my view, a marriage...
I mean, it isn't defined by sex, but sex is one of the definitions of marriage.
In other words, it's the one thing you do with your spouse that you shouldn't do with anyone else in a monogamous relationship, which is what it should be, because otherwise you have confusions about paternity with regards to kids, and you have more chances of breakups.
I mean, this polyamorous stuff is just a complete bonobo nightmare of infinite genetic and relationship splitting.
A woman can say to a man, you can't have sex with anyone else.
She's then in a monopoly provision of sexual services, so to speak.
And then she can just say, no, I'm not going to have sex with you.
And he can't have sex with anyone else.
And this used to be, of course, a strategy for women, which is to withhold sex from their husbands and then pay a gumshoe to follow him around until he had an affair and then, boom, you know, get him all that, right?
Anyway, No Fault Divorce came in, I'm sure driven by leftists and all that, and No Fault Divorce was, you don't have to provide a reason for this, right?
And the Betty Broderick story, which you can find out, it's a very interesting podcast.
This is a woman who's a very wealthy husband.
He was both a lawyer and an MD, so he was very king of malpractice suits, right?
And he ended up shacking up when she was in her late 30s.
He ended up shacking up. And mother of four of his children, she had like seven or eight pregnancies, maybe nine, had four kids.
And he ended up shacking up with or having an affair with his secretary, who was much, much younger, of course, and looked like her when she was younger.
And this was like a five-year, unbelievably brutal legal hell that they went through, that he put her through, and she ended up shooting them both, and she's in prison to this day.
I think she's 72 at this point, but this was pretty early on, right after the no-fault divorce went in in California, where they lived in 1970.
And she got to examine her husband.
She represented herself.
He was actually president of the Bar Association, so there weren't a lot of lawyers who wanted to go up against him, I'm sure.
Betty Broderick, she cross-examined him under oath and she demanded to know about the affair.
And the judge said, there's no point.
It's not material. It's not relevant.
Ever since 1970, the presence or absence of an affair doesn't matter.
Of course, she was dying to know because he lied to her for like two years and finally admitted the truth at some point, but she wanted to know more details about it.
But the judge wouldn't let him question him because...
Doesn't matter, right? Doesn't matter if he had an affair.
Doesn't matter if he lied to you. Doesn't matter if he cheated on you.
Doesn't matter if he took time away from you and the children to, you know, bang the nubile bouncy young secretary on his lap or whatever.
Doesn't matter. Now, of course, it does matter.
Morally, it does matter. But the most solemn contract is the one that you can get out of the easiest these days.
The most solemn contract, the one required for the continuation of culture and everything and civilization and values.
The marital contract is the one that's easiest to get out of.
And you can't get out of your cell contract without declaring yourself legally dead and moving to Argentina.
But, you know, and there's an old Stephen Wright joke.
I saw him at Ontario Place many years ago.
He's a comedian, very deadpan comedian, very funny guy.
What does he say? Yeah.
It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to paint it.
Anyway, so he was saying that he went on this long story about how he ended up in the middle of the desert somewhere and so on, but then was still found by his student loan Collector, right?
I mean, so you can't get out of these things.
Even declaring bankruptcy, you can't get out of a student loan.
But the most solemn contract, the most solemn vow that you will ever take in your life is to love, to honor, to cherish, and to better and worse in sickness and in health.
That's the vow that counts.
That's the one that matters most of all in life, in society, in history, in everything.
And that's the one that can just be toasted.
Like, it ain't no thing. You can just up and decide to leave, no reason, no giving, no reason.
It doesn't matter what reason you provide for not paying your visa bill, you've got to pay your visa bill.
You can just tear up this contract.
And this is a terrible thing that's happened in society.
And so in this situation, we have massive problems.
And so given that It is a labor exchange, right?
It's a division of labor exchange, which is in talking traditionally or how it would be in a more free society.
So the woman has the children, which disables her economically for quite some time, particularly, of course, marriage developed prior to relatively easy, although quite often destructive birth control.
And so the woman would be disabled by fairly perpetual pregnancies, by being, you know, up half the night with babies, by breastfeeding, the general exhaustion and debilitation, plus, you know, the risk of death and episiotomy style, that's it, where you get the vagina gets cut.
I know a friend of mine had this vagina gets cut to aid in birth.
Of course, in the past, it would often just tear.
It's a brutal thing.
Babies basically get born just before they're so big that they would split the woman in two kids on a turkey wishbone.
It's a brutal, brutal thing to go through.
And, you know, I say this, of course, I was in the room, but I wasn't going through it.
But it's a very, very rough thing to go through.
And this is why babies are so helpless.
They should actually stay in the womb for another trimester.
But if they did, they'd be too big to be born.
So babies get born just before they're so big that they would turn into one of those watermelon elastic contests.
So women would be disabled.
And Because they would be disabled, economically, right?
I mean, they're raising the kids, providing value, massive value in all of that.
Then the man is out there. Now, when the kids get older, there's sort of a brief span of time where the woman is more economically productive.
It could be a longer span of time, which then generally gets diminished again when she has grandkids and then becomes a grandmother and does all of that stuff.
Women were largely economically disabled.
Now, this just means in the present, because, of course, if there are no babies and no future to society, then there is no economy in the future.
So women are fueling the economy in a way that even men can't do, because men, we get old, we wear out.
Oh, and by the by, if you work out, I just wanted to mention something.
I was actually thinking of doing a whole product review on this, but let me know if you have any interest in that.
I just got a massage gun.
I call it the pain gun.
If you work out over 50, It's worked for me.
It's really, really helpful that finding knots and undoing them.
So if you want to look into them, they're really, at least one I got is very good.
But yeah, so we wear out.
So, you know, our economic productivity begins to decline fairly significantly over time.
But women produce new people, new men, new women, and they keep the economy going.
So women, while disabled in the economy in the short run, enable the continuation of the economy in the long run and thus are an integral part of everything continuing to run and go.
But so, the man provides resources to the woman in order for her to be able to raise his children, and she frees up his mind from those particular tasks in order for him to focus better on his career.
And that's the deal, right?
That's the deal. So the woman has a job, and the man has a job.
If the man doesn't do his job, if he fails to provide for his family, the marriage is basically over, and he's condemned and criticized and ostracized as a bad guy in society, and rightly so, if you can and you've got to.
That's the deal, right? Now, if the woman doesn't live up to her responsibilities, that's very interesting.
That's a very interesting question, right?
If it's just about sex, then...
To me, the woman would not have any claim on the man.
But the old argument used to go something like this.
That the woman gives up her economic opportunities in order to have the man's children.
And thus, if the man leaves her, then she has to have something to survive on.
And therefore, he's got to keep supporting her, right?
Now, that's an interesting...
It's a very interesting question.
It's a very interesting question. Now, if you say that marriage is about sex for resources, then if the woman doesn't provide sex, then the man is not obligated to provide resources.
And certainly after they separate, when she's not providing sex to him, then the man is under no obligation to pay her.
Because if it's sex for resources, then when the sex is not being provided, the resources should not be transferred.
And so that's...
A very interesting point.
Now, if it is the raising of children, well, the woman is being paid for that throughout that process.
But that process has an end point.
You know, when your kids grow up and move out and so on, then the job is largely done.
And so that is...
A very interesting question.
And so what has happened, of course, is that women have said, well, men can be unreliable.
Men can leave you. Men can get involved with a younger woman.
Men can become alcoholics.
They can change their mind.
They can have a midlife crisis and, you know, whatever, right?
Buy a red sports car and bang their secretary, as Betty Broderick's husband did.
And so we need some kind of security.
We need some kind of security in the face of male inconstancy.
So, what happened was, alimony and child support, basically, the modern forms of them, they came into effect because women were in a situation where they weren't being provided for by the man.
Now, the government, of course, is not a disinterested third party in this, because if the woman is left by the man, and the woman has no economic viability, then the woman goes on welfare.
And takes government resources, and therefore, it is to the government's interest to force the husband or the ex-husband to pay, because that way, well, also, he has to keep his income up, which is taxable and so on, because this guy's got to pay this woman.
I believe it's after-tax money.
I don't know if you can deduct alimony from your taxes.
God forbid I ever have to find out.
So, the woman is pursuing a job, and the job is wife.
That's the job. Wife, mother, and you know, it's the sex.
I mean, to me, the sex is not foundational.
It's definitional, but it's not foundational, right?
So, the woman has a job called wife and mother, and the foundation of the economic transaction is mother, not wife.
Not merely sexual access and companionship and so on, but the children, right?
The children that the marital situation is kind of founded on, right?
The best benefit of the children.
We know this statistically because the very best and safest and most positive and healthy physically, emotionally, mentally, the most healthy place for children to be is in a marriage.
In a committed, pair-bond stable relationship, that is the safest and best place to be.
And if you want to understand all of this stuff that's going on with this Netflix child exploitation film from The Migrant called Cuties, I think it's Cuties, Well, the presence of pedophilia has skyrocketed in society as families have broken down.
In other words, if you are a pedophile, you really have a very, very powerful interest to break up the family because that takes the father, who will protect the children, the biological father, out of the household, and then you can date the single mother with the creepy goal of having access to her children and she becomes dependent on you and it's very hard to throw that off.
So, I'm not saying all.
Obviously, it's very minority, but it's significantly higher.
So here's the thing, you have a job called being a wife and you get well paid for that, right?
You get very well paid for that.
I'm not just talking about this woman who was a companion and they didn't have children together, this man and this woman in the story, but you're a wife and you have a job and you get paid very well for that job.
And if you quit that job or you get fired from that job, why should you get paid?
Why should you get paid?
I mean, every time I quit a job or the couple of times I got fired from jobs or social media platforms, I didn't expect to get paid.
You know, there's that old Seinfeld where George Costanza keeps showing up even after he got fired and pretends he's still working there.
I mean, that's comedy, right? You get fired or you quit, you don't get paid.
That's the deal. That's the way things work, right?
That's the reality. You say, ah, yes, but the woman Doesn't have any economic skills.
But that's not true. Let's say you've been married for 20 years.
You've raised kids. You do have massive economically valuable skills, which is you know how to run a household.
You know how to raise kids. You'd be a great grandmother.
You'd be a great partner for a man to run his household, to pay his bills, to do taxes, to whatever it is that would make his life more able to focus on whatever's economically productive for him and all of that.
So you do have massive economic skills if you are a woman who's been married or in a long-term relationship, right?
I mean, this woman who she broke up with the man and she's pushing 50, I guess, is it?
No, she's over 50. She's 52 at this point when she broke up with this man.
And now, what is it, five years later, something like that?
So she's 57 or whatever.
Yeah, she's got skills.
And so she was a good enough companion to a wealthy man that she got Lord knows how much money out of all of this, and Lord knows what happened to that 7.5 carat ring, which could buy probably Marlon Brando's island.
But she has. She has the economic skills to be a good enough partner for a man that he's willing to give her a huge amount of money.
That hasn't changed.
You say, ah, yes, but she's older now.
Okay, but those skills still remain.
And a man who gets older has economic problems as well, because to hire a man in his 50s is not often people's first choice when it comes to how they're going to run their business.
There is ageism, discrimination against the older people.
In the business world, right?
So, yeah, women age out of the sexual value marketplace, but men also age out of the high value marketplace for income.
And so, yeah, these two things are roughly similar, right?
Now, when you had false divorce, you had to prove some sort of badness to get divorced, then that's different from quitting or being fired, right?
Quitting or being fired is different So if you worked for Arthur Anderson, right, before it was targeted by the government and destroyed, the business tanked.
It cratered. It went out of business because it was an auditing and accounting business and people were under indictment and you can't survive that reputational damage, right?
So you didn't quit and you weren't fired.
I mean, the business was...
Targeted, I believe, and went out of business as a result of that.
So, that's not the same as quitting or being fired.
Quitting or being fired is solely coming out of no-fault divorce.
If your husband becomes an alcoholic and you have to end the marriage to protect yourselves and your children, that's not the same as quitting a job or being fired.
I mean, certainly not being fired.
Are you quitting your job Because you don't like the job, because you want to pursue something better.
No, you're quitting your job because it's like if you're in a factory and it's really dangerous in your factory, like they just don't have any safety precautions and so on, right?
Then you say, well, I've got to quit my job because it's dangerous for me, right?
Okay, but that's not the same as quitting your job because...
You know, you're tired of working for GM and want to become a real estate agent.
It's not the same. It's not the same, right?
So quitting or being fired is central to no-fault divorce.
So no-fault divorce means, again, you can just walk out of the contract voluntarily, as you can with your job.
You don't have to really provide a lot of reasons for quitting.
You don't have to provide any reasons for quitting.
They'll ask you for reasons if they want to keep you, and they'll offer you stuff to incent you to stay, as happened to me with a bunch of jobs when I was trying to leave.
They offered me all part-time, massive salary, but no, no, no.
Philosophy is the future, and for a long time it was.
So once you quit, or you get fired, right?
Why would you get an income?
So to me, the logic of no-fault divorce would be, okay, now you can quit or you can get fired, but now it's a job.
You want all the freedom.
You don't have to prove that your workplace environment is dangerous.
You don't have to prove that your boss is abusive.
You don't have to prove.
That he's a drunken guy who hits on you all the time and you don't have to show his handprints on your bra.
You can just quit your job.
Same way you just quit your marriage.
Okay, but now you've made it a job situation.
Now, if you have to leave a job because it's incredibly dangerous, you could sue and you could get income because you say, hey man, it wasn't my choice to quit.
I had to quit because things were dangerous.
Or if your boss is abusive or if your boss says, you know, sleep with me or you're fired, then you can take those people to court and you can, right, because that's right.
But once you've got no fault, then you're just quitting because you want to quit.
Or you're firing someone, your wife or your husband, because you want to fire them.
Okay? But if you voluntarily quit a job, For your own preferences, not because it's dangerous or abusive.
You just don't want to work there anymore.
You want to move. You want a different career.
If you voluntarily quit your job, don't get paid anymore.
And so there was a hangover of Alamoli and child support from false divorce, where you had to prove false.
With no false divorce, of course, logically, what should have happened with no false divorce is it should have been like, okay, well, if you don't have a reason for quitting your marriage, then you're quitting like you would be quitting a job and you don't get paid anymore.
Oh, but that would keep people in unhappy marriages.
But the problem is, if women say, we want to get paid because men are inconstant, men are unreliable, then what they're saying is, women are saying, well, we don't have any ability to choose reliable versus unreliable men.
Don't worry, we can totally vote for a president objectively and logically and according to the best policies, but we can't choose a decent father for our children.
No capacity. So even if we date someone and vet them for months, for years, and we get married to them, and then we choose to have children with them, so we've had five years under our belt of face-to-face interactions...
We have no capacity to know whether he's a good or bad father or a constant or inconstant man.
No clue whatsoever.
But you watch nine 30-second ads, and boy, you can really judge who's going to be a great leader of the free world.
Women can say, hey man, he fooled me, he gaslit me, I couldn't possibly figure out whether he was a good or bad guy.
Okay. Then you're just saying that you can't You know, when the stakes are far higher than politics, like the father of your children, you can't possibly find a good guy, you can't pick a good guy, you can't choose a good guy, you have no capacity to judge character, but boy, that vote is going to be really, really exercised sensibly.
Well, it's all nonsense, right?
It's all complete trash when it comes to any kind of logical consistency.
Because when you say to women, okay, if you picked an inconstant man, don't worry, we'll just force him to pay you, then what you're doing is you're reducing the risks for women to choose a bad man.
You get paid either way, right?
And that simply means that women won't be as careful at picking their men.
If women pick a bad man, it's tragic.
I mean, it's really bad.
And I, you know, I sympathize and I don't want to sound cold-hearted here at all.
It's really, really bad.
It's really bad.
If women pick a bad man, that's...
Just terrible. Terrible for the kids, terrible for them.
It's just awful. It really is, you know?
And when people choose to smoke and they get emphysema, they get lung cancer, they get COPD, they get...
I mean, it's just awful.
When people drink so much that they get cirrhosis and their liver shuts down and...
I mean, it's really...
When people get really obese and they get...
Like, when people make bad choices, it's very sad.
It really is sad.
Heartbreaking. Like at an individual level, for sure.
But I don't know why other people should be forced to subsidize those bad choices, because then all you're doing is guaranteeing more.
A refusal to accept the legitimate suffering that is earned by bad choices is One of the foundational drivers of the massive economic disasters that are occurring.
So, the way it would work in a free society, just to sort of close off here, is...
In a free society, okay, so let's say that a man and a woman get married, and the woman is concerned that the man could be inconstant.
So... Now, if the man dies, a widow and a single mom are not the same thing at all, right?
Widow and single mom are not the same thing, unless she killed him.
But... If he dies, well, that's what life insurance is for.
If he gets disabled, that's what disability insurance is for.
So all of that will be taken care of.
And sure, there will be a few people who don't take out life insurance, who don't take out disability insurance, and then the husband dies or becomes disabled.
And they're going to suffer a lot.
They're going to suffer a lot, which is exactly why everyone else takes out their insurance, right?
If people don't suffer for not taking out insurance, then you wouldn't bother with that, right?
So, what you would have in a free society, if the woman or the man is concerned that the effects of the marriage breakup would be terrible for the woman in particular as to do with money, then you would simply have marital insurance.
Which is, if the marriage breaks up, then the woman is going to get resources as if she was still in the marriage or some proportion thereof, and that would be how it would work.
Marital insurance used to be provided by the community, by the church, by your relationship with God and the holiness of your vows, the sanctity of your marriage contract before God.
But as we become increasingly secular, you need other mechanisms that would supply a similar kind of incentive and disincentive program.
Now, insurance doesn't work if you voluntarily Do something.
In other words, if you don't have fire extinguishers or you don't have a fire alarm system or you don't have sprinklers and so on, okay, then it's not so good, right?
And so if you buy insurance for your marriage, then there would be particular early steps that you'd want to intervene in to avoid the marriage going bad.
There's some very, very particular steps that you can tell.
I'll do a show about this another time.
There's very, very particular steps that you can...
Tell when a marriage is going bad and, you know, the number one predictor of divorce is the emotional experience of contempt, right?
Contempt for the partner, contempt for the other person.
And so you would want to have Reviews.
I mean, the insurance company.
I know this sounds odd, right?
But we all want to save the family.
We want to make the family as strong as humanly possible.
So forgive me if this sounds odd or intrusive.
But I guess there's no more intrusive than people checking if you're actually married in order for a green card or whatever, right?
But yeah, there would be reviews.
And you would fill out questionnaires.
What's your marital satisfaction? What's your happiness level?
And if it dipped down below a certain level, Then they would be okay.
You'd get free counseling.
You'd get free sort of intervention.
And because the insurance company would find it far cheaper to have your marriage repaired than to pay for alimony, child support, whatever it would be for the next 20, 30 years.
It could be millions and millions of dollars.
And so there would be intervention and if you didn't go to the counseling and if you didn't do the work that the counselor suggested, then you would not be eligible for your insurance should your marriage break up and so on.
But they would work very hard and they would say, you know, are you limiting your alcohol consumption?
Maybe it would even be around, are you having regular sex?
I mean, because it's kind of important, right?
Well, it's very important. And so when marriages began to drift off course, When they began to, you know, accumulate.
I wrote this in a novel once.
It's available at fdrurl.com forward slash almost.
It's an audiobook reading about a woman who's unhappy in a marriage, a long-term marriage.
And I say, she had accumulated grievances during the marriage the way an elk accumulates burrs.
And at this point in the marriage, she was far more burr than elk, right?
Accumulate the big book of injustices.
I make that joke in my marriage, you know, if I don't get what I want at the moment.
I'm adding this to... Steph's Book of Infinite Injustices, volume 1200.
Anyway, so you would want to make sure that the marriage stays on course.
If the marriage drifts off course, you would want intervention.
Now, again, some of it wouldn't work and it just might, you know, maybe somebody gets a brain injury.
Well, I guess that would be disability insurance or whatever, right?
But that's the way that it would work.
And to get marital insurance, right, you would look at the data, right?
So you would say, okay, to the woman, I mean, this is how I would run it.
You say, okay, how many sexual partners have you had?
Because for a woman, divorce is dick dependent, right?
So the more dicks, the more likelihood of divorce.
And it's a dick dose dependent stairway to hell, so to speak, right?
And so you have almost no chance of getting divorced if your bride, if the woman you marry is a virgin, if she's had one sexual partner that goes up a little bit and then, you know, all the way up to crazy high odds of divorce if she's had a lot of sexual partners.
Whether that's cause or effect, I don't know, right?
In other words, whether the people...
A woman is more likely to divorce you and also more likely to be promiscuous, or if it's the promiscuity that drives the divorce, it can't be the other way around because one's before the other.
At least I hope so. So, you would look at that.
How many sexual partners have you had?
And if the woman says, I've had 20 sexual partners, then...
Of course, it would be, well, you're going to have to pay a lot, right?
Very, very risky, and that risk would then be communicated in the premiums to the husband.
So, this is how it would work in a free society.
You would either take the risks of, or you could have a prenup or a postnup or something like that, but...
Yeah, we want to do everything we can to keep families solid and paying women for bad choices.
I mean, subsidizing bad choices alleviates people's pain in the moment, but all it does is exacerbate those bad choices going forward, right?
So these kinds of stories, I mean, of course, they're quite terrifying for men as a whole, but you have to have to be aware of these things.
So you say, oh, well, you know, Maybe they spent two months in the summer at a cottage and then they spent four months in the winter in Florida or maybe it was a month and a month here and a month there.
You've just got to recognize that the system as it stands, the government has a great incentive to keep women off welfare.
It has a great incentive to shift the cost, particularly child support and all that kind of stuff too, man, because if the city doesn't get, or the government doesn't get the man to pay, then the government has to pay in welfare and child support.
Benefits and all that. So yeah, they have a huge incentive to go after you.
Pick the right people.
My gosh, it is the most important thing that you need to do.
Stop sleeping around. Look for quality, not quantity.
Look for values. You look for shared values.
A church is a great place to go.
A Christian church is a great place to go to meet quality women.
And you've got to focus on, like, think of how much time you spend figuring out What kind of cell phone you want and what kind of features it's going to have or a new computer or where you're going to live or what job you're going to have, how much education you're going to get.
Think of all of the time that you spend on that and then people are just like, wow, she's pretty.
You know, that's a bad bet.
I mean, it's not unimportant. Don't get me wrong.
Looks matter. But, you know, looks are going to fade, right?
If you, you know, for women, think of the man and imagine he has no money.
Would you still be interested? And for the men, look at the woman and think of her at 70.
Okay? Because women are going to lose their looks.
Men are going to lose their looks too. I don't look like I look.
I'm going to be 54 in a week or two.
And men don't look All the way through, like they looked, of course.
We all know this, but it's kind of tough to remember.
But for women in particular, you know, they get that meteor strike of menopause and it's rough.
It's rough on women.
And so just remember that.
Sexuality is important. But to base your decisions on that, Sex is like the dessert of life.
You know, you just can't live on dessert or everything about you rots.
Thank you very much for listening.
I hope this is helpful. Freedomain.com forward slash donate to help out the show.
Hugely, hugely appreciate it.
It is, of course, pretty rough at the moment in the old philosophy field.
So if you could drop by freedomain.com forward slash donate and help me out.
Hugely, hugely appreciate it.
Thanks so much. Lots of love from up here.
▲
Export Selection