RoR: Forum

Hmm...interesting point, Joe.

My girlfriend and I keep our finances separate. I hadn't thought of those particular implications of having a joint bank account, but I guess you must be right. It would be interesting to hear comment on this from those who *do* pool their financial resources with their partner.

Post 1

Friday, February 13, 2004 - 5:34am

Well, my partner and I each contribute to an account earmarked for expenses common to us: food, rent, power/phone/internet bills, etc. As long as we each put in our share, neither of us worries about the other's spending.

Post 2

Friday, February 13, 2004 - 8:24am

Another fine article, Joe! It's wonderful to read articles that make sense of half-developed ideas that hadn't been thought through onesself. Counter-intuitively for many, the more important the relationship between individuals, the more important it is to share (or not) in a mutually-beneficial way. The free market is also applicable to micro societies like families! My son's working for his nappies from now on! :-)

Post 3

Friday, February 13, 2004 - 2:46pm

LOL :-) If he poo's in them before he's earned them, perhaps you'd better start litgation proceedings :-)

Post 4

Friday, February 13, 2004 - 4:10pm

Thanks Jonathan and David.

Jonathan, there are plenty of horror stories I've heard from couple with joint accounts. Men complain about having to ask permission before they can buy anything. One partner is often irresponsible and spends like mad, and the other becomes resentful. You can also imagine that poor people will have bigger arguments over this kind of thing.

Of course, it only shows that joint property can have these problems. Some couples might get along fine with it. But if they do, it seems to be that they're getting along in spite of the joint property, not because of it.

Post 5

Friday, February 13, 2004 - 11:19pm

This raises an interesting question, what is the Objectivist position on marriage, given that marriage is a legal partnership where all property is jointly owned.

Post 6

Saturday, February 14, 2004 - 1:20am

Well,

I should say that Marriage itself is not, strictly speaking, in keeping with Objectivist principles.

The proper basis for all voluntary (free market) interactions where parties make commitments is the CONTRACT.

Contracts define the obligations of parties towards one another, and have a time limit. If after the time limit expires, all parties are still happy with the terms, the contract can be renewed. If parties are no longer happy they can dissolve the relationship or they can re-negociate a new contract.

Romantic relationships are no exception. The proper basis for commitments is the CIVIL UNION CONTRACT.

Marriage is a destructive, irrational oath - there is a rigid, limited set of commitments which are supposed to be frozen in time forever. This is crazy, because people change and demanding that a set of terms be frozen forever is a one-way ticket to unhappiness and self destruction. Divorces and unhappy marriages destroy lives and rip people apart.

Rationality is something which must be applied to ALL areas of life, not just economics! Rationality demands that marriage must be replaced by the Civil Union Contract.

http://www.betterhumans.com/Features/Columns/Change_Surfing/column.aspx?articleID=2003-07-28-3

Post 7

Monday, February 16, 2004 - 5:08am

Joe

Your article is right on, but so PC!! :-)

We all know that in reality the woman will be the one spending the money, and it won't be others she'll be buying the gifts for ...

Post 8

Monday, February 16, 2004 - 8:44pm

Tim, my friend...you sound like you've learned that lesson first-hand!

There was no intention of being PC. The story was in fact inspired by a girlfriend complaining about her "generous" boyfriend. I didn't bother writing about the more obvious example of a woman spending all the man's money just because it's so commonly talked about. And I wanted to point out that even if the money is being spent on the other person, it's still a problem. Would it have been believable if I had written about a woman who spends all the money on the boyfriend?

I'll refrain from commenting on the marriage conversation, cause you'll have a hard time getting me to stop! I'm certainly glad that implication of my article was so quickly picked up! Thanks Mark!

Post 9

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 2:23am

"There was no intention of being PC."

I know :-)

"I didn't bother writing about the more obvious example of a woman spending all the man's money just because it's so commonly talked about".

And yet the solution seems as far away as ever.

Post 10

Tuesday, February 17, 2004 - 1:08pm

"And yet the solution seems as far away as ever."

Is the solution really that hard to see, or are you joking around? If you've experienced it firsthand, then my friend, I think you can only blame yourself! :)

-Elizabeth

Post 11

Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 8:58pm

Great points on property rights and gift giving.

Post 12

Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 8:46am

I hate to say it but this article was almost as romantic as a prenuptual agreement!

Kat

Post 13

Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 9:36am

Did you say prenuptial, Kitten?

Here's something we might study...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0217062contract1.html

(ducking - All right, all right. Just joking...)

Michael

Post 14

Saturday, February 18, 2006 - 1:42pm