Prenuptial agreements: The integral case

We respond to this argument and others of the same kind (where proposition uses examples to prove a general case that pre-nups are bad) in our point ''Abuse in a system with state imposed terms vs. the system with voluntary agreements (pre-nups)''. Contracts in general incorporate protection against one party trying to deliberately abuse and exploit the contract. And abuse occurs in all sorts of contracts. The solution to this problem is not to ban contracts in general, but to counter specific harms by protecting the people who are prone to abuse by providing them with legal counsel and advice. In their example the wife should have gotten better legal advice and a more concrete contract, that would free the wife of certain obligations if the husband doesn't work. But furthermore contracts, including pre-nups, can be declared void, if certain conditions are met [[http://www.mamashealth.com/wedding/prenup/contest.asp]]. Also we don't understand how can the husband earn income through a pre-nup during marriage? (''But after certain time, the husband decided he won't work anymore since he has a financial security with his prenuptial (opposition point 2) and he uses that tool to earn income.'') If one party decides to quit their job ( whether maliciously or even with a good will i.e. to find a better job ) then irrespective of whether there is a pre-nup present or not, a situation, where one married party lives on the salary of the other party is going to happen. The most usual case is when one parent stays in home with a small child while the other one works. This is not something that is being caused by pre-nups. More generally, modern pre-nuptial agreements often include prohibitions on certain forms of behaviour, such as infidelity, as well as specifying certain ongoing obligations, such as the duty of both members of the couple to continue to work, subject to ammendments made at the agreement of both spouses. The scenario described by the proposition is in fact far more likely to occur under a State based model, because under a pre-nup couples can specify the responsibilities that are entailed within a marriage. That sort of flexibility in division of reponsibilities doesn't happen under state based models. When individuals can set their own pre-nuptial decisions, the propositions example could only arise as a result of a lack of consideration and forethought on the part of the couples drafting the pre-nuptial agreement. To the extent that people tend to suffer in any situation where they do not take necessary contemplation, and consult people with the relevant expertise (in this case legal), we do not think that this possibility represents a significant societal harm. Of course, there's also another explanation for the creation of pre-nuptial agreements which allow for exploitative behaviour. Couples may deliberately leave holes specifically to leave themselves exposed to the decisions of their spouse. Let's not forget that marriage is primarily a relationship based on trust, and even pre-nuptial agreements which forego some of the protections included in State based divorce systems may not be such a bad thing. Couples often make themselves emotionally vulnerable to each other in order to emphasize the trust within a relationship and in doing so, strengthen that relationship. If we allow couples to leave themselves exposed to emotional harm from their spouses, why shouldn't they also have the right to leave themselves open to financial harms if they believe that depending purely on trust will bring them closer together?