Modern marriage is a product of the evolution of contract law and its deliberate extension into matters of family life. Monogamy historically wins out over polygamy as conflict over control and disposition of the property that a woman brings to a marriage, including the identification of her proper heirs, is resolved through recourse to the idea of contract.
This process is described by Mises in the following passage:
"Thus monogamy has been gradually enforced by the wife who brings her husband wealth and by her relatives-a direct manifestation of the way in which capitalist thought and calculation has penetrated the family. In order to protect legally the property of wives and their children a sharp line is drawn between legitimate and illegitimate connection and succession. The relation of husband and wife is ac- knowledged as a contract. As the idea of contract enters the Law of Marriage, it breaks the rule of the male, and makes the wife a partner with equal rights. From a one-sided relationship resting on force, marriage thus becomes a mutual agreement; the servant becomes the married wife entitled to demand from the man all that he is entitled to ask from her. ... This evolution of marriage has taken place by way of the law relating to the property of married persons. Woman's position in marriage was improved as the principle of violence was thrust back, and as the idea of contract advanced in other fields of the Law of Property it necessar- ily transformed the property relations between the married couple. The wife was freed from the power of her husband for the first time when she gained legal rights over the wealth that she brought into marriage and which she acquired during marriage. ... Thus marriage, as we know it, has come into existence entirely as a result of the contractual idea penetrating into this sphere of life. All our cherished ideals of marriage have grown out of this idea. That marriage unites one man and one woman, that it can be entered into only with the free will of both parties, that it imposes a duty of mutual fidelity, that a man's violations of the marriage vows are to be judged no differently from a woman's, that the rights of husband and wife are necessarily the same-these principles develop from the contractual attitude to the problem of marital life [1969, pp. 95-96]."
In sum, family life in its modern form, as well as the morals and rules of conduct that sustain and make it possible, are the outcome of a historical process directed by reason and fueled by the eagerness ol individual human beings to establish living arrangements compatible with the fullest possible satisfaction of their desires under the evolving division of labor. Thus, as Mises concludes, modern marriage "is the result of capitalist, and not ecclesiastical, development" (1969, p. 97)." Ludwig von Mises as Social Rationalist Joseph T.Salerno*
Nota: Algumas questões avulsas
Alguns excessos legislativos devem ser tidos em conta na análise do casamento-família moderno. A obrigação imposta compulsóriamente de repartir a herança não abona em favor da família, cuja propriedade repartida a maior parte das vezes significa a dissolução de património comum. Suponho que essa seria já a intenção de Napoleão, atacando os costumes que preservavam uma certa velha ordem.
A verdade é que o casamento e a herança devem ser assuntos contratuais da estrita soberania individual. Não se devem resolver problemas impostos por leis compulsórias nascidas do costume com a imposição de leis coercivas contra o costume. Não se deve resolver a obrigatoriedade da herança primogénita estabelecendo por lei a sua proibição e obrigação de divisão da herança.
E tanto quanto consigo perceber (tenho tentado ler sobre o assunto) outra prática medieval que foi proibida foi a possibilidade de estabelecer na herança condições que se perpetuam, como a obrigatoriedade do herdeiro estar obrigado a por sua vez a deixar a propriedade dentro da família (incluindo primogénitos, masculino ou feminino, ou alternativas) e isso implicar a incapacidade de vender esse património. Mais uma vez , uma coisa é acabar com uma prática obrigatória (por lei ou costume) outra é proibir a sua prática.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário