I never said marriage was slavery. Having to support some insolvent female after a divorce IS slavery. There is no reason whatsoever for a man to support some woman once they have divorced (child support is a different matter).
Her poverty is her concern. No skills? Develop them. No money? Go out and earn it. Time for women to "woman up", support themselves and quit depending on men.
I disagree. Marriage is very much like a contract. In fact, some would say that at the root it IS a contract. When one party breaks a contract, it is only fair that they be required to pay the other party a fair amount to make up for the losses (including opportunity costs) that result from the breach. So far as I know, this is generally acceptable to the libertarian viewpoint.
So, IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS, I believe alimony can be very appropriate. If one spouse passes up valuable opportunities for the benefit of another spouse, and then gets dumped before those benefits can be repaid, I think it's only fair that the guilty party be required to pay a REASONABLE amount. I don't think any of us would object to this in a business setting, and I don't see why marriage should be any different.
That being said, I think alimony should only be required when the payer was at fault, and the payee was relatively blameless. Likewise, I think there should have been a substantial loss by the payee to justify payment. If there are no kids and one spouse stays at home for a few years I don't think that justifies anything beyond a nominal one-time payment.
Her poverty is her concern. No skills? Develop them. No money? Go out and earn it. Time for women to "woman up", support themselves and quit depending on men.
While that's possible, it may not be fair. Suppose a woman could have developed the skills and savings she needed, but chose not to for the good of the family? Suppose she was relying on her husband to remain faithful to their agreement and to continue to work cooperatively with her, and then he leaves for no good reason? You can't say she is at fault for her predicament, while the husband clearly is. Why shouldn't he be required to pay a just amount?