@ThePhilosopherAnonymous I can’t figure out what you’re trying to tell me. As fa

@ThePhilosopherAnonymous

I can’t figure out what you’re trying to tell me.

As far as I know a marriage consists of a partnership, which in turn consists of exchanges of powers of attorney(universal), and privately negotiated terms of contract, that are insured by the polity (therefore a corporation), by reciprocal guarantee (between partners and polity) of priority in commons, non-interference, defense, and punishment of those who interfere, in exchange for insulation of the polity from the consequences of reproduction, and the externalization of costs of that reproduction, by moral hazard.

This is my understanding of the institution of marriage and why it evolved, and why it is necessary for the continuous survival of a polity given human natural externalization of costs whenever possible (cheating, corruption, free riding, etc).

If by ‘government interference’ you mean, interference in the intergenerational order of marriage and the commons produced therefrom, then yes the government has no such say other that to attempt to preserve it at all costs, and if not, then the peaceful dissolution of corporation (insurance), partnership (exchanges), and contract on terms agreed.

As far as I know the 20th century interference in marriage has been for the purpose of destroying the family, and the incentives to preserve the family, so that costs are not externalized to the polity by way of moral hazard.