But that's not the sort of society Bezos got married in. In the one he did, monogamy is the law and women are considered partners in a more substantial sense by both the feminists and Christians, even if they manage it differently. It's dubious if Western civilization has suffered from treating the one wife as more important and precious, even if the idea of giving away half your earnings to someone now incentivized to take it is galling.
There are two different arguments here. On one level, we can look at relationship between man and woman overall, which ranges from whores, suggar babies/daddies, friends with benefits, situationships, cohabitation, common-law marriage to secular marriage or religious marriage and many other forms between. The modern secular western view constantly blurs difference between these relationships, just look at so called toothbrush case from Australia 16 years ago. So if a regular escort like Aella has toothbrush in your home, she can be your defacto wife. That is the actual legal minimum when a whore "deserves" half of your wealth for her "partnership", so who are we kidding here.
I as a Catholic also agree with you, but I am also much more strict even than many of my fellow believers. I do not consider anything other than religious marriage as such, I do not see a point why should I in any way respect the aforementioned bastardization of this sacred institution. I do not care about "she is my monogamous partner" and other such nonsense - including divorced couples - which is something that should not happen in the first place. It is all just heathens doing their depraved shit, up and including gay "marriages" and various polycules and some such. I take it as a wordgame, where degenerates appropriated the word and completely inverted its meaning beyond recognition, transforming it to something completely different as usual. To me it is all just cohabitation in some concubinage and people having basically business contracts between themselves, especially if you include various semi-crazy prenups. Again, it is a farce.
So I do not see any issues for me to hold both of these points. If a supposed believer divorces her husband, she automatically falls under category of oathbreaker and I cannot find any sympathy for any case of how she deserves wealth for some vague concept of "partnership", that is not a standard I recognize or respect. The fact is, that she herself turned her sacred marriage into moneygrabbing operation as opposed to acting according to her duties.
This is just wordplay. In that sense even Aella is not just a lover or a whore, she is partner of sorts for powerful, intellectually stimulating them toward higher success. Maybe she also "deserves" billions of dollars. The word "deserves" carries a lot of weight here, even today there are countries where divorcees do not get shit when it comes to wealth - the whole Middle East and North Africa for instance. Similar rules exist for widows, where wealth is inherited by closest male relatives. All these countries apparently decided that wives do not deserve shit.
The point stands. Golddiging under various circumstances is highly profitable for women, even an utter bimbo without any hard skills outside of seduction can amass huge wealth and power that way. That is in fact vast majority of cases how women do it all around the world.
In grand scheme of things these whores like aella are the very bottom of intellectual courtesans. They are vastly overshadowed by lovers of powerful men who can amass properties, jewels or even yachts and other luxury items worth much more - cases such as Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn, who was a lover of King of Spain and recieved property in Marakesh and $70 million in literal direct wire transfer. And even those are of course nothing compared to wealthy divorcees such as Bezo's ex wife MacKenzie Scott. There are many more such cases such as Jocelyn Wildenstein who got $3.8 billion divorce settlement etc. If you look in top 100 wealthiest women, almost 80% inherited their wealth often from deceased spouses. Only around 14 of them are self-made. It is almost inverse of men, who are almost 80% self-made billionaires. This is how things simply work for women.
georgioz
13d ago
As other said, there is vast difference between Christian denominations, some such as Calvinists/Reformed are more harsh, that may be why you think that. Other such as Catholic Church explains original sin as state of depravity from grace, they inherited the broken nature of humanity from Adam and Eve. It is the whole basis for Christology as second Adam who provided humanity a path to reconciliation. In a sense using the word sin in Original Sin is in a different sense, for instance Orthodox Christians choose different name such as Ancestral Condition. Which by the way is also consistent with Catholic Dogma, there is just a little bit different way of thinking about it.
That is because Christian Charity is not utilitarian, but based on Christian virtue ethics. Even people like Saint Ambrose with radical view on wealth accented the impact of lack of charity on the salvation of the giver, not only on earthly comfort of the one receiving such charity. It also flows into Thomas Aquinas hierarchy of need, where only extreme necessity requires immediate action, and even then in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity - meaning you are responsible for ever expanding circle that however starts with you. So in that sense a heathy beggar who is hungry because he is lazy, is failing in his responsibility and in fact steals from truly needy. Enabling his behavior is at best lack of prudence, and at worst you become complicit, as you trap them in their sins.
It is one of pet peeves of mine - when modern Christian Churches entangle themselves in social policies and preach about human rights or inequalities or even utilitarian systems such as Effective Altruism often calling it as strategic choice. This is secular vocabulary is alien to core social teaching. E.g. talking about American poor is absolutely stupid, they are basically yesteryear millionaires with access to everything they may need materially.
This is needlessly limiting criterion, almost example noncentral fallacy. Eugenics is not only a government policy, it is also an ideology and a social movement. Eugenicists are interested in outcome of improving DNA of the population, the means to do that can vary. There were rabidly antistatist eugenicist of old, such as radical libertarian Herbert Spencer. They had more in common with modern technocratic approach of "nudges" - moral stigma, social engineering, subtle subsidies or penalties or outright propaganda in lieu of brute coercion.
My personal theory is, that the whole identification of eugenics with fascists and statists was just a standard Progressive PR campaign to clear the stain and declare post-hoc victory of always being on the right side of the history. But underlying impulse and logic is still there. They are defacto eugenicists, they just don't want to be identified with Nazis.
georgioz
27d ago
Sure, but I commented on the context that the OP introduced of economic relationships. Not about people grouping together to form a bowling league or moderating Culture Wars online forum etc. That is also an intrinsic social need, but of a different kind.
We mean different things, we have different definitions. To me it seems, that you look more into structure: is it limited or unlimited liability, is it solo owned or a group owned entity, is it for profit or non-profit, is it publicly traded or privately owned etc.
I look more on the function and need this institution serves. I'd consider a local mafia as a company in this sense, it is a group of criminals conducting illicit activities to earn profit. It's legal structure is immaterial to me, companies can exist absent of state. That is my point with OPs rant about what he thinks companies should or should not do - bad luck, companies are not bitches of states, they are manifestation of underlying reality of human nature.
Also profit is necessary component to me, doing something does not cut it for practical reason. For instance banding together with your wife in order to raise children is not a company, it is a different institution - specifically that of marriage forming a family. I guess we can extend the definition if we know what we mean, there definitely is some overlap especially if there actually is family business etc. But it is unnecessary.
georgioz
27d ago
But most kids want to go to college because, pay, wages, jobs aside, it looks like a hell of a lot more fun aged 17 than becoming a bricklayer or taking up an apprenticeship as a hairdresser or plumber or carpenter or electrician, or getting a job at a warehouse, or a call center.
There are still some positions even in corporate world where you can land without university. At 18 you can land some lower-end sales job as SDR maybe with tech-sales or similar. If you are technically savvy, you can aim for presales engineer career which is pretty neat. You can land IT support position and farm certifications. These together with work history will be more valuable than some default easy college. All of these work very well especially with some referrals and recommendations.
At its core the company is an entity formed by shareholders in order to generate profit. This is intrinsic purpose of any company, be it modern LLC, East India Company a pirate crew in Caribbean with its own charter, Hanseatic guild in Baltic or mercenary company in ancient Greece. From times immemorial, people banded together and pooled labor, capital and know-how in order to generate profit for themselves.
All of those things you mentioned such as distributing goods, creating markets, creating jobs and whatnot are externalities of certain type of regulated companies. It is a result if you make it easier for strangers to put together capital and create profitable business. But it would in some form work even without that, only it would be more costly and riskier to do that in unstable environment.
There is no material difference, single people will be always punished. It does not matter if you let's say have $10k and give tax credit $5k to family with children or if you have tax $5 and gather extra $5k tax from childless family.
More options
Context Copy link