The 7-1/2 Year Marriage License

Excerpt from Chapter 9 -- Pages 206-209

---------------------------------------

The policy of termed marriage licenses was an extremely novel one.  I viewed it at the time as a bit reprehensible in my heart, but the government could not overlook the will of the people.  The idea of termed marriages worked out to be perfect on just about every level.  As divorce rates, by that time, had grown to almost sixty percent, there seemed to be no point in marriages being considered for life anymore.  It just wasn’t the way that families in America were structured.

Another benefit was the strain on the relationship that this kind of the marriage alleviated.  There really was not the need for a messy divorce as people knew that they could just wait out the current term of their marriage and that would be the end of it.  Of course, messy break-ups of marriages did not become a thing of the past, as the dilemma is still a big problem when both parties do not want to separate to the same degree.  However, that was no different than what was going on prior to the termed licenses so it didn’t matter all that much.

A third benefit was the reduction of costs of legal fees.  Divorce law was a massive business and usually the biggest cost incurred during separations.  Since the settlement was now predetermined as part of the marriage license, legal expenses were lessened.  By 2025, hardly anyone went to court anymore.  Initially, there were many marriage licenses that were called into question when the marriage broke up, and it was primarily by the person who had not increased financially as much as the other.

Prior to 2018, however, there was a great injustice happening in America as the wealthier person was unceremoniously being robbed of half their wealth as a result of a divorce.  The prime example that began the backlash was Tiger Woods divorce.  Though he was clearly guilty of many infidelities, he had to part with over $500,000,000.  No one ever contested that Tiger earned all the revenue for the couple, and that she certainly provided well in her role as mother and wife, but at the end of the day I don’t think anyone felt she deserved that much money after just three years of marriage.  There was very much a sentiment in America at the time that Tiger was, in fact, being punished.

The situation as I mentioned earlier, is that many women viewed their appearance and sexuality as their means of gaining stability in society.  These women were regularly initiating divorces at ridiculous high numbers as a means of cashing in on their husbands wealth.  This happened at all levels and needed to be curtailed.  To be fair though, many men who found themselves in these situations were quite culpable in sustaining this circumstance as they married the women for their appearance.

The termed marriage license had a list of independent assets as well as the expected financial positions for each partner throughout the balance of the marriage.  There usually was a willingness on both parties to share matrimonial assets that grew (or shrunk) over the period of the license, and that was agreed upon at the time as well.  Whatever amount in either hard cash or percentages of assets was agreed upon was what was rewarded at the end of the license period.  Most of the time, it was a 50/50 split, so in practice remarkably little changed.  Where there was a substantive improvement in the dissolution phase, was where one party had a disproportionate amount of assets at the outset.  These divorces were now settled in no time and the parties involved could get on with their lives.

The terms of the license was as follows:  If one of the persons involved was in their first marriage the period was 7-1/2 years in duration. All other licenses were for five years.  Renewal of your marriage license was automatically a five-year period if no termination request was received.  After the second renewal of a license at 12-1/2 years of marriage, an update to the asset list had to be submitted.

The notion of common law marriages was entirely abandoned.  Couples that lived together without a marriage license were not entitled to any assets other than their own personal ones.  This meant that if a couple were together and did not register a marriage license, and then they broke up, there was no such thing as palimony or financial compensation to either.  The thinking was that as traditional relationships were being abandoned then so should the common-law approach.  The couple was either building a life together, which in this case meant you were married, or you weren’t.  Marriage licenses were no longer seen as an emotional type of agreement but rather a legal one.  It made sense that everyone entering a relationship that would likely end.  It was better to address this scenario up front with clarity, rather than after the fact when emotional and vindictive thinking and legal posturing would be prevalent.

Not surprisingly, the termed marriage licenses caught on like wild fire and in the first year, over 15,000,000 licenses were registered on-line.  It only took about thirty minutes as long as you had your asset inventory (which was updatable as required).  There was no need to go to a church, hire a lawyer, and register at town hall or even say “I do” if you didn’t want to.  We were quite kitschy in having both parties click on an “I DO” button as a form of agreement to the terms of the license they were submitting. 

Excerpt from Chapter 1 - changing perspective towards wealth

Chapter 1 -  Pages 8 & 9

---------------------------

Historically, where the personal valuation had gone awry, however, was in terms of the origin of one's individual wealth.  The mere possession of money had come to supersede the means of accumulating it.  In the early twenty-first century, any individual could accumulate wealth with no regard to the impact one made on other individuals or society. The worst aspect of that system, however, is that one could accumulate wealth at the expense of others.  This was a flawed model, as the most aggressive people and organizations, that seemingly prioritized wealth and power, ended up accumulating a disproportionate amount of both and subsequently started persecuting and taking an authoritative position in relation to those who had less.  This ultimately led to the “Occupy Movement” in 2011 and 2012.

America fortunately came to realize that accumulation of wealth at the expense of others is not wealth that should be judged as valuable or honorable. Through the “New Freedom Initiative” (NFI), wealth that was accumulated without adding value to individuals or society, started to become less respected or desired, and per my initial point regarding human judgment, “unsavory money” actually became judged as negative by a great majority of Americans.  Just as an easy example, banks in America came to refuse drug money out right by 2015.

The effect of this unsavory label was to encourage individual and corporate wealth-building as a result of benefiting a wider group of society.  It would also serve to keep those who had amassed their fortunes in a less than honorable manner from having personal influence or access to broader political, business or social institutions.  No one ever argued that any individual could not make money in America any way they liked.  What came to pass, however, was that the holding of that money did not automatically include power and influence along with it.

By the mid-2030s, ethics have since returned and are now a key component to wealth-building such that the amount of money that one accumulates is reasonably proportionate to the contribution one makes throughout that process.

In today’s world, those individuals that provide the greatest benefit to society receive the greatest return in terms of money, property, power and authority.  As a result, most people can claim a higher level of happiness and stability in 2043 than they ever could in 2013.  This claim to happiness extends well beyond American borders into parts of the world where in 2013 even having a claim on clean water was rare.  The world genuinely has improved significantly as a result of changed attitudes toward money.

The Dilemma of Islam

The issue that we are facing with the Islamic religion is a major one.  Whether or not religious freedom can lead to a complete overhaul of the tenets that our nation was founded upon.

By allowing Muslims to enter our society we essentially run the risk that at some point in the future this group becomes powerful enough to usurp the fundamental nature of America.

For example in Britain, a recent poll was conducted within the Muslim community and 40% of the respondents indicated that they would like to see Sharia Law imposed.  Right now, that number does not constitute a large number of voters but it clearly articulates the point for the future and one that we in America have to consider.  Is it right to allow a group of people who are fundamentally opposed to the American way of life into the country?

The First Amendment of the Constitution offers religious freedom as a fundamental right of humanity.  However, if those claiming religious freedoms are not interpreting that doctrine in a manner consistent with freedom but rather pro ports a moral code and political direction that undermines the basic philosophy of individual freedom then should it be opposed?  I would say 100% absolutely.


The Constitution further suggests that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion..." though it does not go as far as separating church and state as many people believe  It is obvious that religious fundamentals are not universally shared but the basis of individual freedom is an ability to make independent decisions.  Any group or organization that disagrees with this view point should be resisted in their access to American institutions or their ability to construct their own.  Individuals would be able to worship as they choose but any attempt to organize to undermine principals of freedom and independence should be opposed.


It is not necessary to ban Muslims from moving to the USA but efforts should definitely be made to curtail them from gaining any type of influence.  For example, several steps can be taken at this point to curtail an emergent political movement that supports Sharia Law or strives to change the nature of America.


The first would be the banning of any Muslim from holding political office at any level.  Two, limiting of mobility within the nations borders upon entry.  Thirdly, the holding back of US citizenship until individuals have demonstrated an ability to appreciate the principals of the western world and finally the out right ban of Muslim schools.


Though these thoughts sound counter-intuitive to the basic fundamentals that the USA holds paramount, keep in mind that America has only ever had to deal with fundamental opposition to freedoms on this scale once before and that lead to a Civil War.  The goal is not to limit individual freedoms rather ensure that the thinking and principals that have allowed the world to thrive continue unabated by a religious/political movement at the institutional level.

The Recognition Era: Accolades without Achievement

People today prioritize and strive for recognition over all else.

The days of actually earning recognition through accomplishment have been overtaken by a world whereby accolade is easier in a self-developed media environment and subsequently there has grown a culture of reward for nothing else other than doing.

Reality TV is the obvious outcome as people who have no significant skill or talent and certainly have not achieved anything are watched and on occasion celebrated for doing absolutely nothing.  This phenomenon extends from people going about their daily jobs like building motorcycles or catching fish to the full blown cult of celebrity whereby people who are otherwise normal gain a following for merely being followed by cameras (the Kardashian's for example).

Our society has created this from birth as we no longer embrace a spirit of accomplishment to gain recognition nor do we rely on competition to distinguish those who deserve accolades. Everyone today, who in the past would have been considered average receives acknowledgement.  At a recent university graduation, every graduating member of the class received Honours or Distinction status.  What is the point?

In sports, there is a Para-Olympic program that permits those with disabilities to perform on a world stage though quite often their achievements are microscopic when compared to the world’s best.  In fairness though, these folks work very hard to get where they are.  Even in team sports overall, a spirit of inclusion and equality of playing time quite often is paramount when compared to winning and losing so why even refer to it as sport?  Under these conditions it has become merely exercise.

YouTube has given every single person in the world the opportunity to be acknowledged for doing nothing more than holding a camera.  Sadly, the elements of YouTube that attracts the most attention are cat videos, people doing dumb things and Justin Bieber.  None of which adds anything to a broader society beyond a few brief seconds of distraction.

On an extremely more negative note, recognition has also become more important for the truly dysfunctional element of society.  These individuals now feel justified in undertaking quite spectacular atrocities so that they receive some type of acknowledgement as they know that they cannot be acknowledged within modern societal norms.

What needs to happen is that achievement and accolades have to become more attainable without the media being present and/or for merely fulfilling the mundane part of existence. 

People who deliver results and rise above difficult circumstances certainly warrant more from society than they currently receive.  People who contribute greatly to their local community deserve more pay.  People who rise above the norm deserve more acknowledgements for their contributions.  Those who truly have unique skills or achieve major accomplishments in athletics, business, entertainment, beauty can still attain disproportionate amounts of success due to their personal accomplishments.

Post from the Road: Dallas Morning News

I am on a mutli-city road trip for the next couple of weeks so I will take my inspiration from news stories found in the local newspapers:  As I am currently in North Texas I will comment on the Dallas Morning News cover story regarding the alleged bribery scandal at Walmart in their Mexican operations.
----------------
One significant challenge all multinational companies face is adapting their current business practices to foreign cultures.

The Walmart story is a perfect example of just such a challenge. Walmart (it is claimed) paid bribes mostly in 2005 to local government officials in order to accelerate the process of Walmart expansion in Mexico.  Obviously bribery is an illegal business practice.

The second questionable behavior is in terms of Walmart's investigation of the in incident and the subsequent silence and evasion to regulatory agencies.

This second issue reflects the requirement for transparency in private companies and is testament to the need for the "Spirit of Law" mandate I set out in a prior post (April 12, 2012).  Companies need to at a minimum attempt to play by the rules and not try to hide findings purely for the desire of avoiding poor press and subsequent drops in share holder value.  It is inherent in any fairly run organization, that shareholders have access to truthful information in order to make educated decisions in terms of financial investment.  Executive level management has to come to believe in this philosophy and "the Spirit of Law" provisions would be useful in ensuring appropriate behavior. In instances like this though whereby obviously illegal activities are being undertaken then the Executives need to be liable and subject to criminal punishment.

The bigger issue of course goes back to the first point regarding the bribes. In the era when Sam Walton was in charge, Walmart was generally seen as an extremely admirable and ethical organization in context of its operations. Walton would never have authorized or condoned bribery as he knew that was bad for business in the long run. Short-term profiteering once again is just testament to the selfishness and shortsightedness of many of today's CEO's. It is also representative of the win at all cost too many of today's boomer possess overall in their attitude towards life in general.

American companies specifically have to become the role model for appropriate corporate behavior globally. There can be no challenge to put ethical agenda as a primary objective of business expansion. American companies have to be the benchmark on how foreign companies conduct their operations and also how foreign governments learn to work with them. Economic expediency can never be the only purpose of an American company in a foreign land. The era of exploiting foreign nations is long over.

Finally, as more and more countries around the world have access to capitalism then there is more and more competition for investment dollars. American companies have to be the ones that lead the way in making their profits honestly and ethically in countries where they operate. American companies have to embrace the mindset that if they do business in a foreign land then they have to bring the experience and advanced business knowledge to those regions in order to expedite global development. Successful business practices by these American companies will have positive influence over foreign areas and aide to bring them into a positive, honest and free market environment. Under this model, American companies can thrive by opering new markets without having to embrace the poor business environment that preceded them.

The notion of "ethical capitalism" I put forth earlier (February 28, 2012) is the future for American companies. Brand value and revenue streams will flow to the companies that operate in the most humane and honorable way possible. Corporate valuation and investor confidence will be given not from just domestic operations but international as well.

Precedent...It Doesn't Matter Anymore

Precedent is the quicksand of the American system and it is time to put that outdated concept to bed.

In our modern world, almost every issue has become so complex and ultimately very different from the next in terms of circumstance and context that no single legal, political or moral decision or action can rely on the thinking or actions that preceded it.

In business, the concept of zero-based planning starts with a tangible objective and does not take into consideration a predetermined budget, existing infrastructure or action-plan. One then creates a strategy and a corresponding action plan to fulfill the stated objective. This is the approach that needs to be under-taken moving forward in all areas of modern society.

For example, the most obvious area where precedent dominates is in the criminal world. Let's face it, the circumstances of any given violent crime is different than any other. Even in the simplest of crimes...say a street robbery...the intent, the motivation, the circumstances and the antagonists are very different. Therefore, why would other crimes be utilized in a trial or in a verdict? One can make the argument that perhaps in the sentencing process precedent can be utilized in terms of establishing punishment but in the facts of the case it is irrelevant.

Now, extrapolate this thought into terms of national and global politics, economics, social development, public policy etc. and why then would thinking or methodologies of the past be relevant in the 21st century? World events have to be considered in terms of modern conditions and not some by-gone era. By ignoring precedent the path can become clearer as new factors can be considered on their own merit. For example, dealing with a Muslim component in society has never been part of the American heritage so utilizing zero-based planning allows this fact to be considered whereby precedent has no relevant frame of reference.

Zero-based planning also has the primary benefit of ignoring and by-passing any existing limitations in strategic and action-plan development. An obvious area to highlight where this methodology can be extremely beneficial is in terms of governmental operations whereby political agenda and bureaucracy more often that not supersede effectiveness. By eliminating the necessity to consider political history, previous legislation and bureaucratic road blocks modern and efficient policies and programs can be developed that deliver the objective rather than be watered down to the point that they are virtually meaningless.

Precedent and current institutional conditions are too varied and bulky to the point that the limitations of previous actions prevent virtually any part of society from moving forward. Hence, the US has become stagnant and needs to free itself from it's own self-imposed shackles.