RE: Is Larken Joking? [Nah, He's Just Jerking Off To The "NAP"]
Ugggh, I hate arguments like this.
... because they should never happen in the first place!
The NAP is not an argument for morals. Nor is it an argument from morals.
It is an argument on how to run a society legally. Or basically, what the constitution should say.
So, yes, nothing should happen to Larken "legally". All parties consented... except for those who were hurt by betrayal. (but none of that is legally binding) What Larken did was morally wrong. Well, morally from a society who places a high importance on family solidarity. (in a free love society, what he did was morally correct, but in that society, marriage has no meaning)
Sadly this is all the state's fault. The state is evil. The deep state is pure evil. The deep state, and their propaganda arm, hollywood, have destroyed the moral principals of marriage. They have destroyed the underpinnings of marriage. If we were true to the ideals of marriage, we, the society, would have marched on dizney studios and burned it to the ground seventy years ago.
Another piece is the destruction of marriage from a social, and socially enforced, contract to the weak pathetic excuse for lawyer fees that exists today. You see, the movies all tell women that what they want is the bad boy. The bad boy is hot, exciting. And then, when you have had your excitement, you then settle (that means accept 2nd best) for the good guy to marry and have kids. But, how long will you "settle" for 2nd best? Especially with all the divorce-porn that is out today saying older women still have a chance. (In reality they have about the same chance as winning the lottery, but the movies show it as 1 in 10, maybe better if you try hard)
Today a marriage has no benefit for a man, legally speaking. He thought he was getting a family. That he was paying forward; gaining equity. But the reality is that in getting married, he lost his only trump card. The wife now owns him. Owns all of his labor until he dies. He may stay and help raise kids as long as she is content to let him do so. At any point she can have him removed from the home. It is no longer his castle, it is hers, and he can only visit by her whim.
Yes, a solid marriage of a man and women is the best place to raise children. But do not confuse this marriage, with the legal definition of marriage.
To me, it was obvious what Larken was doing a couple years ago. Was it apparent to any of you out there?