From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Pre-Sex Contract
Keywords: Guilty; Studs'n'Sluts
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:50:40 GMT

In article <19499@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec25.073354.5806@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org 
>(Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>> [...]
>
>>In article <19491@smoke.brl.mil> matt@smoke.brl.mil (Matthew Rosenblatt) 
>>writes:
>
>>>There's gotta be a better reason for taking from A and giving to B
>>>-- which is what redistributionist government policies do -- than
>>>the mere fact that A has more than B and B therefore ENVIES and
>>>RESENTS A.  If there is no better reason, we should let A alone
>>>to keep what he has, and tell B to be content with what *he* has.
>>>[Matt Rosenblatt]
>
>>Sounds good to me. How do you justify the current redistributionist
>>government policies implicit in paternity child support? What underpins
>>the current system besides the "ENVY and RESENTMENT" [sic] by women of 
>>men, because the maternal instinct is, according to the Conventional Wisdom,
>>stronger and less controllable than the paternal instinct, or their "ENVY
>>and RESENTMENT" [sic] of men's statistically-higher rates of income (a
>>disparity I assume you would defend as part of "Male Privilege" [sic])?
>>[Kevin Darcy]
>
>What underpins the current policy of paternity child support?  Why,
>Status Law!  Status Law based on the same "Natural Law line of reasoning"
>that Mr. Darcy characterizes above as "marvellously quaint."  

Status Law is inoperative unless it facilitates a rational state interest.
There is no justification for a Status Law which deprives a man of his
property for absolutely no other reason than "tradition".

>The child has a right to support, a right grounded in
>his blood ties to his father.  Blood ties are the reason for taking
>the father's resources and re-allocating them to the child who is his
>own flesh and blood, and that's a much better reason than any ENVY 
>or RESENTMENT.

Why then, if this Status Law is so damned traditional, were bastards barred
from inheriting from their "blood ties" under the Common Law, and why,
at least some of the time, in some jurisdictions, did bastards not have any
rights even to SUPPORT under the Common Law? You seem to be rewriting 
history, Rosenblatt. Sure, the old ways made a lot of noise about "blood 
ties". But usually in the context of LEGITIMATE births. The Status of bastards 
was much more questionable, and, as far as I can tell, the Common Law much 
less generous to them than today's.

>Again:  The policy of making fathers support their children is well known.
>It's not something that society sneaks up on a man and pulls on him 
>without warning.  A man knows that if he engages in sexual intercourse,
>there is a risk that he will conceive a child and that once that happens,
>there will be nothing he can do to keep from forced fatherhood if his
>girl-friend wants to bear that child.  For some men, this knowledge is
>enough to deter them from expressing their sexuality in this way, and
>that is all to the good, because man ought not to be having sex except
>with a woman to whom he has made a commitment that he will support her
>and any children they may bring into the world; that is, except with
>a woman he has married.

It is folly to build any modern social policy on the unenlightened and naive
hope that adults will repress their sexuality, Rosenblatt. In case you haven't
noticed, a Sexual Revolution has been fought ere these last several decades, 
and your side -- the side of repression -- lost big time. You can't turn back 
the clock. You can't regain lost innocence. Pass all the laws you want, 
Rosenblatt, people will still screw each other's brains out, all day, all 
night. In fact, if you listen very closely, you can probably hear them right 
now, somewhere near you. Grunting, moaning, squealing. Doesn't it just drive 
you C R A Z Y knowing you can't stop all of this evil *gasp* fornication???

>Other men are not deterred and are willing to take the risk that they
>will become fathers and be held to the responsibilities of fatherhood.
>It ill befits a man who has chosen to take this risk to cavil when he
>is later called to meet those responsibilities.

These "responsibilities", however, are artificially-imposed, and, IMO, 
unjustifiable. It very much befits, nay behooves, any and all members of a 
democratic society to attempt to fix a social mechanism which starts causing 
more harm than good. It very much DOESN'T befit a member of that society to 
start screeching "privilege!", "status!", "stop the evil fornicators!" when 
modern reforms are proposed. You're an anachronism, Rosenblatt, to be swept 
aside by those who believe that a society can learn from the mistakes of its 
past, and progress and develop into something much better.

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: misc.legal