[P]rivate property is unnatural to man, even if it is necessary for mankind do produce a division of knowledge and labor.
Private property was a technical innovation that allowed males to take control of reproduction that they had lost with the invention of gossip, cooperation and spears, and to do so without resorting to in-group violence, or violence against women.
Private property was granted and gained in exchange for service in the creation and preservation of private property.
Monogamy was a compromise. It was an unnatural compromise.
Women, having obtained the vote, did not seek equal rights to property, but rents and privileges, and they are now able to use the state to extract rents from aggregate productivity regardless of gender – albeit mostly male productivity.
And women are abandoning seeking rents from a single male’s productivity through marriage.
It’s in women’s interest to violate private property, and regain reproductive and economic control through the state rather than through marriage or sex.
Marriage doesn’t make sense for women unless they can capture an alpha, and even then its a question of benefits versus compromises.
Marriage doesn’t make sense for men at all.
The logical outcome for men is to free ride as much as possible, and avoid having any property at all.
For those men that desire property, it cannot be obtained by majority decision. As such, it must be maintained by either exchange – buying off the rentiers – or by violence – preventing the rentiers.
AND THAT IS WHAT THE DATA SAYS.
Men and women are doing the logical thing. What else would we expect them to do? We may be irrational moral voters, but we are certainly rational moral consumers.
The source of property is use of violence to create the institution of property against the will of the majority. Only then is property an asset worthy of seeking by the middle and lower classes who which also to be enfranchised in the prosperity that results from the formal and informal institutions of private property.
(It’s thankless work, you know. …. Putting violence back into polite political discourse, one sentence at a time. 😉