Free, Except No Fraud Here

Have you ever been worried about something that you buy from a stranger? Like a used car not from a dealership?

A free market economy will avoid restricting what can be produced and sold. This will allow production and trade to flourish. That also means even some low quality things will be in the market.

However, with no organization to the market the market may shut down. For example, if people selling milk on the street are often sneaking water into it then people won’t trust milk sold on the street. Or if some street vendors are not worrying about germs put into their food then people won’t trust street vendors, even if another vendor is being especially careful about germs.

One solution is a good reputation. An organization like Walmart or another well-known retailer is trusted by people to buy and distribute non-fraudulent products. Their products may not be high quality all the time, but they are what they purport to be.

Another solution is the government banning certain products. Since nobody would say “I am selling germ-infested hamburgers,” the government is reducing fraud by banning germ-infested hamburgers.

When possible, I like the large retail store solution better because it eliminates expensive government inspectors. Those stores are mostly motivated by maintaining a reputation for having decent products. My parents’ house has been receiving tons of Christmas packages from Amazon, and we expect that they contain good things because Amazon wants to keep a good reputation.

Our knowledge and spirituality are also generally benefited by freedom. They also are benefited by keeping out fraud. Since God is full of light and truth, being close to Him will drive out fraud.

1 John 1

5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:

7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

God is not stopping Satan or his followers from sending out their message, but He does give us the option to be in the light where lies cannot harm us. He gives maximum freedom to everybody, freedom to do bad or to do good in the light.

Like stores that we trust to not have fraudulent products, there are places that we can count on to be full of light: the temple, our homes, and other places where we feel God’s Spirit.

Does Religious Liberty Help or Threaten Society?

In my Constitutional Law class there seemed to be a lot of concerns that enforcing the part of the Constitution that stops Congress from impeding our “free exercise of religion” (1st Amendment) will lead to all sorts of crazy acts and religious excuses. “Next thing you know everybody is saying their religion requires them to kill people!” etc. The people that have that concern are my target audience for this blog, though unfortunately they are probably not reading this. (So even if you don’t have that concern, please keep reading, you’re all I’ve got!)

Photo Link

The Court already has some precedent in this matter that has worked well enough. It will let the government infringe on religious liberty if the government has a compelling reason to do so. This is in line with thoughts on religious freedom during the time that Americans chose to put religious protections into the Constitution. (For example, the author of the 1st Amendment, James Madison, said religious acts shouldn’t be “subjected to any penalties or disabilities, unless under color of religion the preservation of equal liberty, and the existence of the State be manifestly endangered.”) It may seem like the Court can’t predictably determine what compelling government interests are, as opposed to other government interests, but the Court does that in other areas of law and it may be the best way to balance religious freedom with regular democratic practices.

What I am more interested in discussing than the Court’s ability to prevent extremist religious action is the infrequency with which those actions will even occur. I think part of the reason that the Founding Generation wanted to protect religious freedom was that religion usually leads to good things. They did not pass a Constitutional Principle stating that “Congress shall make no law stopping people from doing what they want” or “Congress shall make no law which collides with policies of large non-profit organizations.” Instead, they chose to give extra protection to groups that are dedicated to good causes and are sometimes persecuted for it. These groups do not only feel accountable to government, but to God in some form. I believe it is still true today that religion generally urges people to do good, and so there should not be concern about lawlessness happening because we protect religious freedom.

Photo Link

I will list a few prominent examples of religion being influential in the political sphere in ways that most liberals and conservatives would approve of. Some of Abraham Lincoln’s most famous speeches were actually prayers in which he was addressing himself to God. The most prominent and best organized German opposition to the Nazis came from churches. Martin Luther King Jr. used religious themes extensively in his most inspiring speeches. Today, religious groups are amongst the most active in providing relief following natural disasters and in helping refugees.

Photo Link

A few less prominent examples of religious influence are in the areas of forgiving, teaching children to be loving, and overcoming addiction through reliance on God. And this is not to mention the purely spiritual benefits.

Photo Link

Of course, there are examples of people doing awful things in the name of religion. I don’t claim to understand what has gone wrong in every case. But it is interesting to note that a lot of the terrible things that are done (like the crusades or inquisition) are done by a mixture of state and religious power, where there is an utter failure to respect religious freedom. This should strengthen our desire to maintain strong religious freedom for each individual, even when that individual wants to do something against some only medium-important public policy.

In a case the Supreme Court will hear in December, it will determine whether the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop can refuse to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. The State of Colorado says he is violating an anti-discrimination law. The Supreme Court can allow him to refuse by saying that the Colorado law violates his Free Expression (a right that is related to the First Amendment’s reference to speech), or it can say that the law violates his Free Exercise of Religion. I think the reason that a lot of people care about this case, and the reason that is relevant to what was intended by those who ratified the First Amendment, is that he is being pressured to do something that violates his conscience. I hope the Supreme Court sees this as a violation of his Free Exercise of Religion.

My main point is that we should be happy to hear that somebody is doing something that his or her conscience dictates, even if we or the government do not agree. This will usually lead to good. Though very religious people are far from perfect, I don't know anybody who feels religiously obligated by their conscience to harm homosexuals or any other person. Allowing all people to follow their conscience will allow people to do what they believe is right, which is usually in line with what society wants.

Transgenders in the Military

Though I believe gender is an important part of our eternal identity, I do not believe the military should ban people who are transgender.

What got me thinking about this was something a federal judge said recently: President Trump's proposal to reinstate the pre-Obama ban on transgenders in the military is likely unconstitutional. However, I will not discuss the constitutionality of the ban, but will talk about other arguments that are relevant to President Trump’s and Congress’s decisions.

Photo link

A special religious document that my church has, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” gives me a few authoritative answers to questions I have had regarding gender and the family. Part of that document states that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” I assume that means the gender we are born with, though I admit I don’t know exactly what that means for people who are born in medically unique situations.

It is conceivable that having an authoritative answer to a question could lead to not exploring the issue. For example, if my boss gives me a specific task to do and tells me just how to do it, I might not look into it since my boss hasn’t given me discretion or any incentive to think deeper about the task. God has already given some answers too, but these are based on eternal principles. So I think it is worthwhile to explore these eternal principles to improve myself and help answer questions that a lot of us have.

Reflecting on my personal experiences and the teachings of Jesus Christ, I believe that the primary concern with the transgender movement is that more people will doubt God’s purpose for them and turn away from core principles, rather than faithfully ask God for answers about their identity while following God’s plan for families.

I learn so much about love as I seek to be a good family man. I am learning to fulfill a father’s role of leading out in spiritual family routines, providing for my family, and protecting my family with love. I try to do this with respect for my wife as my equal, and she has lovingly helped me in all my roles/duties.

What is a main take-away of the purpose of gender being an essential characteristic? Love: God has lovingly given us opportunities to use our gender to lovingly and dutifully serve others. Gender provides some unique ways to help others.

Having laid that foundation, the question about military service is easier for me to think about. I don’t believe that keeping transgender people out of the military is likely to do more to promote a message of love and duty than it is to promote unkind discrimination. Therefore, I believe that the correct move for Congress or the President is to allow transgenders in the military. (To address a concern that gets a lot of publicity, but which I think is slightly overstated, I do think that if anybody feels insecure in their rooming situation, it would be appropriate to accommodate.)

When a commandment from God seems clear to me, I don’t do a cost-benefit analysis because I assume God knows best and so any cost of compliance must be outweighed by the benefits. But since God doesn’t command specific political things usually, I will look at some costs and benefits of this decision.

Benefits (and costs) of a ban could include the moral message that is sent. My views of morality are connected to God’s commandments, however I believe these morals could be acceptable to nonreligious people as well. The morals involved here are being a good father and husband myself and loving everybody. I don’t see a ban on transgenders as sending a message that strengthens families, so no benefit with the ban there. Also, many people would view the ban as a message of hate, which could in fact be the motive for some people who support the ban.

An obvious cost of the ban would be the military service that is lost. I believe that allowing them to serve will benefit our country and benefit the people serving. One’s gender identity is but one of many characteristics. Regardless of whether we agree with these difficult choices people have made, accepting a brave decision to serve with the military seems like the right answer to me.

Loopholes are Loopy: Why I don't like tax exemptions

Today House Speaker Paul Ryan proposed a major tax overhaul, including the elimination of some exemptions. Senator Flake has also recently suggested that we get rid of loopholes in the tax code. I think these are good ideas.

What’s wrong with a complex tax code?

401kcalculator.org

What is wrong with loopholes? There could be some benefits and costs for a specific loophole that end up cancelling each other out. For example, a tax credit for homebuyers could have the benefit of encouraging people to settle down, which strengthens a community. On the other hand, that same tax credit may hurt companies that rent housing or be given as a corrupt way to get campaign financing from some home builders.

Here is a cost of loopholes that applies to all loopholes: the cost of finding and using the loopholes! Every complexity in the tax code represents work that people are putting into using that complexity. Of course, a given person uses a tax code complexity because they will at least barely benefit from that use. But there is a way in which everybody is hurt by using the complexity.

Imagine a simple situation in which we all pay a 20% tax, and that is just enough to fund the government. Now let’s say we are going to give everybody with a home (half the taxpayers, for this example) a 1% reduction in what they need to pay, given that they fill out a form that takes 10 minutes to fill out and 10 minutes for the government to review. Well now we need to increase the default tax rate to 20.5% so that homeowners pay 19.5% and everybody else pays 20.5%. So overall society still has the same amount of taxes that need paid, and additionally 20 minutes per homeowning taxpayer are used up.

This is the case for all tax complexities: the amount of money needed by the government stays the same, but more work is needed for taxpayers and tax collectors to use the complexities for personal benefit. Hence there is a net loss in time and resources that society can use.

Of course, as a future lawyer, I receive extra personal benefits from complexities in the law, so for whatever complexities must remain, I hope you’ll pay me to help you with them ; )

A similar cost comes from finding exceptions to God’s laws. The time we spend rationalizing does not reduce the compliance to commandments that is needed to receive God’s blessings, and so it is time wasted.

Exceptions that that are specifically outlined by God or his prophets are obviously good, or exceptions that we prayerfully determine are appropriate for our situation. But I personally spend much more time than I would like on deciding whether the “happiness of [my] spouse is more important than [my] own pleasure,” should I refrain from reprimanding a boy scout while I still feel angry, and should I turn to the Lord and humble myself. I have learned time after time that the answer to these questions is yes, and so I would like to stop looking for exceptions.

Let’s not waste time with a complex tax or with spiritual matters. If we get rid of some exemptions in the tax code then administering the tax code will be cheaper. If we stop looking for exceptions to spiritual principles when we know that we won’t find valid ones, then we save energy for better pursuits.

Being A Homemaker

What do you think about when you hear the term “homemaker”? I think of some physical and some spiritual things.

While there is more to making a good home than putting up physical decorations, I have a lot of great memories of decorating our house for holidays. My mom and I would excitedly open boxes that contained our familiar decorations: a laughing witch for Halloween, a cornucopia for Thanksgiving, and candles and a countdown calendar for Christmas. My dad had a life-threatening tradition of putting lights on our large pine tree, sometimes putting a ladder on top of our van. Perhaps my favorite family tradition was decorating our Christmas tree while listening to Hanson’s “Snowed In” album, laughing with my siblings about our ridiculous hand-made ornaments.

I also think of some of my favorite dinners that my mom would make: thick soups, heavenly chicken, and Hawaiian Haystacks. And I loved my dad’s Saturday morning breakfasts, like blender pancakes (whole kernels of wheat blended in) and sourdough pancakes.

A less typical but more important meaning of homemaker is spiritual: “All of us—women, men, youth, and children, single or married—can work at being homemakers. We should ‘make our homes’ places of order, refuge, holiness, and safety. Our homes should be places where the Spirit of the Lord is felt in rich abundance and where the scriptures and the gospel are studied, taught, and lived” (Bonnie L. Oscarson).

Rather than viewing bygone statements (in judicial opinions, for example) about the importance of motherhood and homemaking as an insult to women, I see them as a call to me to place higher importance on fatherhood. Making my home a consistently loving place is the most difficult and focus-requiring task that I am working on, and I don’t see that changing soon. Home is where we share deep feelings, reach our highest point of exhaustion, talk about long-term goals, and deal with mundane tasks.

All of these situations force me to choose what attitude I am going to have and to exert great energy and trust in the Lord and others. Why is this harder at home than elsewhere? Partly because we are home a lot, and partly because we are more free at home. There are not as many social pressures, and in fact we have special legal protections over our homes, like from the 4th Amendment. With this freedom comes greater temptation to not behave optimally, since the consequences of behaving badly seem less harsh or more distant.

However, members of my church have been taught that “no other success can compensate for failure in the home” (David O. McKay). My dad knows and lives this. I assume that people that my dad works with really appreciate him; I’m not sure, because he doesn’t talk about work much. But my mom and siblings appreciate his gentle, hard-working, and fun-loving nature more than we can say. So yes, I suppose I think I’m my parents’ highest achievement : )  And I hope Ginny is the same for me.

How can these warm and homey thoughts translate into action? I can be willing to slow down, truly see, and love my wife and daughter and other family members, even while there are other things that could be done. Even while at school or work, I can try to be motivated by a desire to make enough money to let my wife be at home as much as she chooses. And as excited as I get about activities that I have with friends, I can be respectful of the fact that they have responsibilities at home.

I can try to be respectful and complimentary of the eternally important things people are doing in their own home, understanding of struggles they have with this most difficult endeavor, and helpful when possible. I believe these efforts at home are the most important efforts we can make to make society better today and to prepare us for eternal blessings.

Accepting Welfare While Voting Against It

Now that we have a baby, we qualify for WIC (Women, Infants, and Children), a nutritional assistance program. As a Republican/Libertarian, I think there should be less, if any, government welfare. However, we are taking it, and I don’t feel bad about it!! ; ) But really, I’m not writing this defensively, though I am very defensive sometimes. Rather, I’m writing it because I think it’s an economically and politically fascinating predicament that I think you’ll enjoy analyzing.

For my purposes, you can think of government as a club that we have formed. We vote on certain club rules. Some rules I like more than others, but even if I don’t like a rule that a majority of the group votes for, I’ll accept it because I still like the club and want to go along with what the group wants. I may even think that sometimes the group knows better than I do on some topics.

One rule might be that we will all contribute money through various means, and then the poorest get some of that money to buy food through government programs like WIC. I would prefer that we don’t have that program, but since it’s in place I accept the benefits  that are part of the program and club experience.

Of course, I don’t think there is anything wrong with not accepting government benefits. But I think it’s appropriate to politically promote the best government policies, while participating in any government programs that we think are helpful to our families.

A related (but more radical) view that I have is that public schools should be sold to private companies. (I guess; I’m still working through these things). But I’m not about to try to make a middle class income stretch to put my kids into private school, though a lower taxed and more privatized school seems nice in some ways.

Whatever means we come upon, whether from the government, inheritance or hard work, using them honestly and with an attitude of helping and not wasting will bring ourselves and those around us fulfillment and happiness.

I suppose a simple principle that I could be getting at is that it makes sense to do one’s civic duty and politically promote the best system possible, and then take the system that society provides to best pursue important family goals.

What is a government policy that you disagree with, and how do you think you might balance being a part of the society we are in while holding to your core values?

Thoughts on Political Rallies

I know this may seem an overly gushy message, but having witnessed such anger in my fellow citizens at a Hillary Clinton campaign event done by Michelle Obama and then seeing the crowds gathering for Donald Trump's rally last night, some reflections about what there is in common between Republicans and Democrats could be edifying, at least for me.

The Latin roots of these words are res publica (public thing) and demos kratia (people power). Not that your typical Republican or Democrat cares about the root words of the party whose views they mostly agree with, but it is cool that they both basically mean popular government.

photo by Melanie Atkins

The signs above, ironically, have several examples of what Republicans and Democrats have in common. If you ask an average Republican or Democrat how they feel about wages for the poor, they probably wish those working people could be paid more than what the current minimum wage is. If asked about women's rights, they probably want them to be respected. And with regard to education, they probably want more resources devoted to that for their children (and many Republicans even agree that the government should increase resources toward education).

Talking about the Constitution with my aunt, who is a Democrat, I realized that both Republicans and Democrats believe that the Constitution supports our views, even though they're opposing views. We agree that the Constitution is a valuable document that protects us from tyranny.

And when we aren’t talking “politics,” disagreement seems to be the exception. Maybe that’s why we can so often respond “you’re right,” “that makes sense,” “oh yeah,” etc. Most think that strong families, youth that obey parents, service, and learning are all valuable.

Understandably, a politician running for office needs to point out why he is a better fit for office than his opponent, and that won’t happen by saying “we’re pretty much the same.” But as citizens talking about how to make the world a happier place, I think it’s helpful to remember how much we have in common.

True Sources

Why is it more efficient to go to or to recognize the true source of something?

Think of the sun and how much brighter it is than the moon, which merely reflects the true source of light.

Working hard in specialized fields is the true source of productivity, and Jesus Christ is the true source of joy.

True Source of Wealth

Presidents are often credited or blamed for the country’s economic prosperity or hardship. While I think it is important to hold political leaders accountable for what they do, I think that this connection we make can lead to a misunderstanding about what brings economic prosperity.

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, the full title of Adam Smith’s main work, basically explains that nations become wealthy because people are allowed to work in specialized fields. Against common thinking of his day, he said that England’s prosperity did not come because of the government’s meddling with trade (promoting certain industries, creating a government monopoly), but in spite of it.

“In England. . . the natural good effects of the colony trade, assisted by other causes, have in a great measure conquered the bad effects of the monopoly. These causes seem to be. . . the unbounded liberty of transporting [goods] from any one part of our own country to any other [part of our country] without being obliged to give any account to any public office. . . ; but above all, that equal and impartial administration of justice which . . . secur[es] to every man the fruits of his own industry, gives the greatest and most effectual encouragement to every sort of industry.”

washingtonpost.com, 2018 proposal

I have heard very intelligent people who nonetheless talk about a smaller government budget being bad because it leads to people losing their government-paid jobs. I think they’re forgetting that the true source of valuable jobs is hard work and specialization in the market, unrestrained by government influence.

True Source of Joy

With spiritual “goods,” I am learning to remember that Jesus Christ is the true source.

My wife and I have recently noticed a lot of overwhelming goodness in others. Partly due to our coming baby, people around us have given us lots of gifts and kindness lately (but if you were considering giving us a gift and now worry that we’re getting spoiled, please close this window and forget the last 20 seconds of your life). As we prayed together, it struck us that in fact these gifts come from God. Not only did He create the people who are so kind to us, but he also gives commandments that shape our wonderful generous friends into who they are.

I get excited, stressed, nervous, elated, and sometimes disappointed about the huge variety of people in my life who serve me and whom I serve. Sometimes I am exhausted by these emotions and sad that I have to say goodbye so often. However, throughout all of these emotions, there is a consistent feeling of warmth and love that I feel from and towards Christ.

These feelings highlight the principle taught in Mosiah 2:17, “that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.” These feelings also help me to see why Jesus Christ is the greatest “Joy to the World.” As I look at the longer-term view of my life I can see Him watching over and shaping me. He is the true source of “every good thing”.

Thanks to freelyphotos.com for some of their images.

Sellers want to reduce your options

Sellers have an incentive to reduce buyers' options.

People born in the United States who sell their labor to employers want to reduce employers' options of who to hire by making immigration more difficult. Ford tries to make it difficult for people buying cars to get Toyota cars, perhaps by lobbying for tariffs on foreign cars. iPhones don’t charge with Android chargers, thereby reducing charger options for iPhone users so they are willing to pay more for the Apple charger.

 

For a more stark example, think of a partnership of three people, and two partners want to get rid of the third. The judge may give them two options: 1) they can offer to buy the third partner's share at a price the third partner is willing to accept, or 2) if the third partner refuses their price then the whole business will be sold at an auction and and the profits are divided among the partners. With option 2 we need to know whether the judge will allow the two partners to participate in the auction. The third partner is going to encourage the judge to exclude all the partners from the auction. This may be surprising, because the two partners who want to stay would be willing to pay more than anybody else (since they're already familiar with the business), and hence the third partner would end up with more money than if the business sold to people besides his old partners. The reason is that depriving his partners of the opportunity to participate in the auction (option 2) gives the the third partner more leverage in option 1, which will induce the two partners (buyers) to pay the third partner (seller) more in option 1. See Prentiss v. Sheffel, Ariz. App., 1973.

 

The third partner's preference, however, is less efficient in that it makes it less likely that a good transaction will happen. For the third partner to be able to really get extra money out of the others, he has to be willing to say no to their offer if it isn't high enough. If he does say no, then the partnership will be sold to people who value the business less than the two partners and cannot run the business as well as the two partners.

Tyrants in some sense have to "sell" or promote their country as their people's land of residence. I imagine tyrants are pleased when other countries close themselves off as options for emigrants, so that their people have few options besides continuing in their current state of oppression.

 

Quentin L. Cook points out that the "[adversary] and his emissaries declare that the real choice we have is between happiness and pleasure now in this life and happiness in a life to come (which the adversary asserts may not exist." Satan wants us to pay him a high price, our souls, so he tells us that we have two options: happiness now or misery now with a small chance of happiness in the uncertain future.

Of course, not every combination of choice and result is possible. We can't consume any drug while avoiding any addiction. Hence God teaches about true impossibilities, whereas Satan teaches lies that make our options seem fewer than they are.

 

Thomas S. Monson also taught about how Satan makes good choices seem undesirable, thereby making us more willing to sacrifice our well-being to follow Satan. "He cunningly calls: Just this once won't matter; everyone is doing it; don't be old-fashioned; times have changed; it can't hurt anyone; your life is yours to live. The adversary knows us, and he knows the temptations which will be difficult for us to ignore. How vital it is that we exercise constant vigilance in order to avoid giving in to such lies and temptations." The adversary wants us to think that having friends and avoiding sin at the same time is not an option, neither is being both up-to-date and principled nor being both free and righteous. If we think those are not options, we become more willing to give up good principles.

The key is remembering that we in fact have a lot of options even while avoiding sin. When I look at the world clearly, I see that there are all sorts of social people who avoid sin, up-to-date people who hold to certain principles, and people who have accomplished many goals of their own choosing while still making righteous living their first priority.

Photos from pexels.com

Do nonreligious couples have the freedom to contract with each other?

A contract is an agreement, typically between two parties, that 1) binds them to perform certain actions or give something and 2) creates the expectation of receiving something in return. Government-enforced contracts make the world a better place because they allow planning in a world of liars. For example, say I decide I want to go to Arizona for school and want to make sure I will have housing before I drive down there. If I don’t know many people in Arizona, then I want to have a contract with an apartment complex so that the complex doesn’t sell to somebody who shows up last minute and offers to pay $2 more per month than I would pay. The complex benefits from the contract as well, from the assurance that I won’t find a complex that is $2 cheaper last minute and leave them scrambling to find a new tenant. Both parties benefit from getting to know ahead of time what the other party will do.

Do only straight-up liars want to break contracts? I think there are a lot of people who, without the negative effects of bad credit or the threat of a lawsuit, would break contracts because their circumstances changed. Sometimes the court might allow a contract to be broken without having to pay damages because circumstances changed so much that keeping up your end was really impossible. But I think that even an honest party that want to break a contract will be prone to see circumstances making completion of a contract “impossible” much sooner than the party who wants the contract to be completed. So government enforcement of contracts prevents liars and people who give up too easily (all of us to some extent) from ruining the reliability of contracts.

Marriage is a contract in a sense. It creates expectations and reliance. For example, you rely on the fact that your marriage will work out by pulling yourself out of the dating pool when dating is the easiest. Many people give up certain career plans in order to have a more family-friendly lifestyle. This reliance is well worth it to people who are expecting to get in return the benefits that they married for (happy family, etc.).

The reliance is not worth it if those benefits are not received. In that case, somebody has forfeited exciting dating and careers for no reason. Contract law calls this detrimental reliance.

What if marriages were “enforced”? This would mean you can’t break them when there has been no fault, and theoretically this means people will not be relying in vain as often, because they will be more assured of getting the benefits they expected to get from marriage. The fact that marriages are not “enforced” could be a reason that fewer people get married in their twenties or at all; they are nervous that they will be giving up a career or their prime years for something that will just be broken down the road. Similarly, if the government stopped enforcing business contracts, people would stop making business contracts.

Chart from a 2015 Washington Post article.

You may be objecting: “The government forcing two people to stay together isn’t going to ensure them the benefits they hoped to get from marriage. The reason they are breaking up is because they have already seen that those benefits are not coming.” But the expectations that people have affect their behavior. In a world of unenforced contracts, both you and the person who has been contracted to build your pool are going to be nervous that the other person is going to break the contract, and so you want to pay/work as little as possible in order to minimize your losses in case the other party bails on you. Likewise in a marriage, if you’re nervous the other person will leave, you might be hesitant to put your all into creating a strong relationship, for fear that you’ll be hurt when the other person doesn’t care.

I have often reflected on how grateful I am that my wife and I know that we are in it for the long haul. I suppose you could be laughing since we just had our first anniversary on April 29th. But there are some strong influences pushing us towards staying together: our love (perhaps the most common thing that couples start out with), our spiritual obligation, and social pressure. I hesitate to say social pressure, because I don’t want you to misunderstand and think that our families and friends are cold-hearted or really judgmental. We know things happen, some that we might not understand, and are happy to love and support anybody who goes through a divorce. But there is a small part of me that wonders if Melanie would get invited to family events before me if I ever left her : ) As for the spiritual obligation, I was sealed (for eternity) to Melanie by God’s authority in a temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I believe that God expects me to stay with Melanie. I like to think that just our love would keep us together too, but I know that’s what most couples think and yet it only works out for half of them.

Can people without religious pressure achieve the same result of realistically expecting marriage will last? Probably hard to say, since so many people were religious before the change in laws. But I imagine some good econometrics could figure out whether social and legal influences can lead to equally low divorce rates. Certainly though, any influence that promotes the principle of keeping commitments will have some positive effect on the number of lasting marriages, thus allowing people to develop more correct expectations (the benefit of contract law) upon entering into a marriage contract.

I welcome your comments!

Thanks to freelyphotos.com for some public domain photos that I am starting to use : )