Tara Hunt

state regulation not state monopoly

inspiration: Tara Hunt

In every area of life but one where people freely enter into legal contracts with each another, the state’s role is clear: to ensure those contracts are kept. (A deal’s a deal.) In marriage, however, the state’s role is the exact opposite: to ensure contracts cannot be made. (There is no deal.)

Mortgages and other contracts are regulated by a system called contract law. The system that prohibits married couples from freely forming contracts also has a name: it’s called family law.

Web 2.0 Framework:
"Web 1.0 was read-only and top-down.
Web 2.0 is read/write and bottom-up. The best platforms are modular, extensible and enable symbiotic relationships."

From Government 2.0: Architecting for Collaboration by Tara Hunt on SlideShare.net.

There are three partners in marriage ... I refer to the two people concerned and to the state ... It is, therefore, a triangular arrangement and not just one between two people.
              Nigel Spearing MP, House of Commons, 24 Apr 1996

Family law makes the state the dominant party in every marriage because it is the state, not the couple, that ultimately sets the terms of the marriage contract.

The family law courts have very wide powers to break up trusts, set aside transactions, to force the sale of companies and (grant) generous maintenance awards for life. You can enter into a prenuptial agreement, but there is no guarantee that your divorcing spouse, or the court, will be held to it.
                                                   The Times, 5 October 2007

What other aspect of life would function if the state was not merely a regulator of contracts but the monopoly supplier? Very predictably, contracts dealing with mortgages, employment, mobile phones and everything else would follow the same pattern as family law-based marriage: a long-term and terminal decline. As just as cohabitation is fast replacing marriage in intimate relationships, innovative and resourceful citizens would other ways of managing their business relationships.

From Marriage 1.0 to Marriage 2.0

In the above Government 2.0 presentation Tara Hunt tracks the progression from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, and argues persuasively that governments need to make the same transition.

Let’s add marriage to this comparison of the Web and the state.

  Version 1.0 Version 2.0
Web Read-only. Content created by Big Media and passively consumed by audience. Read/Write. Users can not only consume content but also create and contribute content.
Government Decision-making centralised, participation restricted, feedback limited. Decision-making decentralised, participation widespread, feedback continuous.
Marriage Contract terms imposed by state family law system. Contract terms designed by the couple for the couple.

Of course the state has role in WeDo Marriage – the same role that it has in the regulation of all other contracts: to ensure that they are free of duress, deceit, misrepresentation, hidden clauses or gross unfairness.

Almost everything in the life works because contract law works. And marriage will come back to life when it works the way other things do.

« innovation in relationships  |  making meaning »

“Share your hopes and dreams. Talk about your expectations for your relationship. Where you would like to live, your ideal home, career plans and goals, your future family, and any other short- or long-term goals.”
– David and Claudia Arp, 10 Great Dates Before You Say 'I Do'