Roman

Family is a communist cell in an ocean of the free market. Outside, there is private property and commodity-money relations, inside everything is shared, and there are gift relationships. But then one of the members of the communist cell decides to leave it and enter the market. What happens to the property? What happens to the accumulated obligations? Under communism, all of this continues to exist, but in a latent, implicit form.

One partner invests resources into another, expecting that over time there will be some return from the second person. Instead, after some time, the second person decides to leave. Or two people decide to have a child; this is a long-term creative project lasting a couple of decades, constantly consuming resources. And then one of the partners exits the project. Or, even worse, exits the family, but wishes to continue participating specifically in the project of raising the child.

The transition from communism to market relations is always privatization, the fixation of obligations, and a transition from implicit assumptions to clear contracts. The two most typical contracts in a divorce are a property division agreement and an agreement on regular payments to settle accumulated obligations. The latter are the very alimony payments you asked about.

As is easy to see, under a state, the evasion of alimony payments is widespread because those upon whom this obligation is placed consider it unfair. Indeed, it is hard to consider it fair when the lion’s share of the property during division goes to the party who invested fewer resources into its creation, and at the same time, the second party continues to bear financial obligations toward the first.

Now let’s move on to how it would be under ancap.

When I was talking about the future of the institution of marriage under ancap, I briefly touched upon the topic of children. Under ancap, a child to a much greater extent decides for themselves who to live with, who to be friends with, and from whom and what to learn. Thus, regular targeted payments for the maintenance of a child after divorce under ancap are far less likely than now, unless someone agrees to this voluntarily.

So, court-ordered alimony under ancap will be awarded primarily as payment for accumulated obligations, and the child will have nothing to do with it at all. For example, a wife paid for her husband’s landscape design courses, and after the divorce, he reimburses her for the cost of the courses.

The only example of court-ordered alimony related to a child that comes to mind is if a child is conceived at the husband’s initiative, which is documented, and at some late stage of pregnancy he changes his mind. Well, now he will have to pay a penalty “under the gestation contract.”

And what means of coercion for payments exist under ancap? Exactly the same as now: freezing of accounts and seizure of property.