This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Divorce should be cheap and accessible.
Please remember that this is a DEBATE topic and agree or disagree?
Would appreciate your opinions, personal stories or expression of the tough emotions that this one brings up?
Dr Bruce Fishers 'Rebuilding' is the most useful tool to work through those emotions and climb the mountain of despair in order to gain the freedom of choice. Choice to risk vulnerability again in other relationships.
Closing Statement from Kate Blake
Thanks heaps to everyone who contributed! As I thought TEDsters do reflect a good cross section of society and the responses below demonstrate that. Thanks TED for the forum.
Points raised; lawyers make huge profit from it; it should be cheap and accessible; it should be difficult so that couples work at their relationship; most people agreed that it should happen if the relationship is abusive.
The impact on children was discussed some saying its better to sever an unhappy relationship as this would impact on children. Others felt the marriage should be worked on so the children didn't have to suffer the divorce/separation process. Plus some discussion on children divorcing their parents in abusive situations.
Mediation was suggested for this process as a healthier alternative to the expensive court process to divide property and resolve child access issues. For those with several divorces ... Suggestion was that they try affairs rather than remarry or to undertake therapy or a specialist group to resolve issues, grow and learn.
This conversation ran in tandem with another I started on "Marriage is .....", link is posted below. Both these arose from my concern that people make more informed choices about marriage or divorce by knowing about the for and against.
There is no black or white solutions only grey areas that impact on both families, neighbors, colleagues, etc. One suggestion was that heartache and legal tangles could be avoided by signing agreed contracts at the time of marriage. Or to undertake quality premarital counseling, this usually covers issues such as religion, politics, finances, child rearing, etc so that expectations are more grounded.
Nothing is ideal and we were blessed with mature examples of those who divorced quickly and painlessly.
http://www.ted.com/conversations/17238/marriage_is.html
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
you might say, okay, okay, but what about government granted benefits to married couples? well, in libertarian world, there are no such benefits. and there is no government either.
Allan Macdougall 50+
Maybe we should ask what civilization actually means to us, and whether or not unbounded libertarianism equates with the achievement of it?
I'm not religious - and I am in favour of free will up to a point, but as far as relationships + kids are concerned, there has to be a parental bond so they experience equal male influences as well as female ones in order to instill stability in their lives for their own future. Isn't that what marriage is about?
Kids being pushed and pulled from father to mother every week, post divorce, is (depending on age), quite devastating.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
but sometimes we do, you might say, like with the church or the state. but in these situations, it is not "we" that put a ruling group over "us". it is the majority that puts a ruler over the minority. the majority could just do the thing they see right on their own. they don't need a governing agent. they want the governing agent to control those that do not want to follow said "good".
it is very hard to argue (i mean, it is easy, but also easy to show wrong) that the majority actually wants protection from the deviants. most of these subscribed "good" things could be protected in non-invasive ways, leaving dissenters free to dissent, allegedly to their own disadvantage. but no, the actual reason behind that oppressive attitude is the elimination of doubt and responsibility. what if the "good" is actually not that good? what if the dissenter is right? many of us do not want others to freely experiment and try new solutions. because if they succeed, we will be proven wrong, and it would be unbearable.
Allan Macdougall 50+
Maybe I'm wrong to think so, but the theory of a self regulating libertarian society going whichever direction it wants in ungoverned ways could lead as much to chaos as it could order, and whichever trajectory it takes, would depend on the wisdom of individuals rather than the misguided illusion of "wisdom of the crowd". Crowds without leaders are well known to behave primitively, stupidly and chaotically:
http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/ian-leslie/crowds
I think deep down we have evolved a crucial ability (need, even) to nurture the sick, the old and the young - and unfortunately I don't see that happening in a society that is heading towards a libertarian template.
Which is why I have to say that leaders and institutions such as marriage, do actually have their place in facilitating that evolved nurturing of those who are very young and those who are very old in the family and in the community.
The ease of divorce, I think, is a libertarian artifact of society that runs counter to its own idea of freedom in the broader sense - thinking ahead to the well-being of future generations.
Perhaps marital discord has to be endured more than it is now, for the sake of those who take over this world from us.
peter lindsay 30+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
and the kind of regulation we have on top of that (government) actually lacks direction, vision or any sort of predictive power. the state is awful in these things. our regulations represent fears, misconceptions, myths and outdated information.
Allan Macdougall 50+
Can you please provide evidence for your statement:
"society is already 90% self-regulated, and was 99,99% self regulated a thousand years ago. in fact, it started off as self-regulating"
??
Krisztián Pintér 200+
1000 years ago, rulers simply lacked the resources to manage people's lives. peasants in small villages did not rely on the king's or landlord's court, they organized their own courts. their life was virtually non-regulated, except the regular confiscation of wealth, which we call taxes ever since.
Allan Macdougall 50+
"Looking around you" is qualitative. It is not enough to warrant statements definitive enough to be categorised as "fact".
Where human behaviour is concerned, one has to rely heavily on qualitative perceptions, trends and likelihoods - not so much on quantitative empirical data and exact figures.
"Virtually non-regulated" is still regulated. Peasants organising their own courts, is still a form of regulation, only with different people.
What about tribal chiefs, community leaders and the like 1000 years ago?
Arguably, it is nonregulated interactions that brought about the banking crisis, the outrageous behaviour of the press intruding on parents of dead children, phone hacking, and the 'couldn't-care-less' attitude of some parents towards their own kids - and each other.
The ideal of course would be that everybody has their own internal regulation system to quell such selfishness. In many people that internal regulator does exist in the form of a well-adjusted super-ego, but in many others it doesn't, and that gets passed down to their children at formative age.
In the absence of an internal regulator, or well-formed super-ego, it is necessary to have an external one. My argument is that marriage was just that, and helped in that respect by a bond being formed legally and religiously to stay together, thus giving kids the best start possible.
I say again - cheap and accessible divorce is effectively a ruinous slap in the face for kids and I disagree with it on that basis.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
self regulation does not mean each and every person regulates themselves. it means that regulation is voluntary and based on personal freedom. nothing prevents people from forming organizations, groups, and make agreements. what we do not need is you telling me what rules to live by.
that banking crisis nonsense is boring already. the banking sector is one of the most regulated sectors. maybe it serves as a hint why we always have problems there. just check the areas mostly regulated: healthcare, schools and banking. guess which one of those fail everywhere. yes, all of them.
Kate Blake 50+
Been waiting to make you bite, and you came in hook line and sinker.
So should we post an ad here? Single cantankerous well-earning young man - apply via his profile?
PS no cactus in the few pictures I have access to ....
Allan Macdougall 50+
Yes, obviously all those bonuses were strictly regulated. Is that tobacco you're smoking a little bit stronger than your normal brand?
Listen, unregulated behaviour, especially where money is concerned, is NOT a recipe for trustworthiness in banking - or divorce settlements for that matter. Furthermore, it overrides absolutely everything else, including ethics and basic morality in people who consider materialism as being more important than well-being of others - including their own children.
I'm not telling you or anyone else what rules to live by. Merely pointing out the possible pitfalls of Libertarian attitudes, the lack of regulation in certain areas where the well-being of people is concerned and out-of-control, greedy materialism. All potentially play their part in quickie divorces.
Kate Blake 50+
Brave man for taking Krisztian on! I should imagine he's not married? So all this is merely hypothesis and entertainment for him.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
sure you are telling people how to live. you are arguing against the freedom of divorce. unless you plan to throw pamphlets out of airplanes, i don't see how else would you achieve that other than forcing people.
Allan Macdougall 50+
Effectively proclaiming that 99% of the world's population don't know what they are talking about goes some way to confirming that you have no time whatsoever for the broader context, or indeed other people who don't necessarily see the world through the eyes of an economist.
Your addiction to stats will tell you that 1% having more power over the other 99% is precisely indicative of non-regulation, and the gluttony associated with available wealth. It has come about through an unregulated mix of materialism, greed, and the idea that 'stuff' has more value than people and environment.
If you tried, for once in your life, to extract yourself from that claustrophobic box labelled 'economics', then you might just get a sense of what's going on outside it.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Allan Macdougall 50+
"the claim that 99% (probably much much more) don't know a certain subject is accurate"
"nobody knows a thing outside his expertise"
"...otherwise you are just making a fool of yourself. you have been notified. the rest is on you"
I knew it would just be a matter of time before you start digging your own hole...
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Allan Macdougall 50+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Allan Macdougall 50+
Is that kind of wisdom gained through hard and relentless personal practice?
Do you lead by example?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Allan Macdougall 50+
Here's a challenge for you: As you love expressing everything in terms of percentages, what percentage of your conversations show a basic respect and empathy for people who oppose your own opinions?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
http://i.imgur.com/oHibv.jpg
Allan Macdougall 50+
OK, that's all we need to know about your self-knowledge and how you come across to others.
Thanks.