Main Page Contact Register Log In

I was expecting the read something that would have some import or light on the issue but this seems just equivalent to calling it "social value" and saying that it is mysterious.

Also skipping over polyamory like a taboo but then contemplating hetero and homo monoamoric relationships as viable candidates seemed kind of arbitrary. Why is it clear that polyamory doesn't provide the same level of social value?

I didn't think it was necessary.

Isn't it more or less obvious how polyamory or polygamy or any "other social relationship" would be treated under the proposed system? The same as all the others, predicted utility correlated to incentives.

And that's the point. I'm proposing this principle of involving the government in marriage and other social relationships without knowing which relationships provide the most utility.

I don't claim any insight on that, I'm just saying in advance what I think ought to be done with that knowledge to the degree it's had.
Replies (1)