top of page




This is Book 1 of the 3 part series: The Broken Contract.

It has 228 pages and is broken into 4 sections:

This book looks at marriage and "committed" relationships from my perspective as a trained economist and lawyer.  I look at "commited" relationships in terms of trade.  What did women and men historically give to each other verus what do they give today.    By looking at the contract for trade we see that the Ancient Contract was designed to preserve relationships while the modern contract is designed for destruction.

I:  This section explains why the Ancient Contract gave ultimate value to men and women, but in the 20th Centry we experience a legal "bait and switch" to a new paradigm that devalues men and causes destruction

II: This section explains the historic benefits that women brought into a relationship that made men want to commit, then explains how these benefits and "commitment" itself have become illusory or even illegal.  A man therefore misses nothing by rejecting this imaginary "committment".

III: Shows how our relationship "experts" are dependent upon this Paradigm of Destruction so must promote it.  Although the legal bias is for women, only the experts actually benefit from this paradigm of destruction.  Although the paradigm devalues men, it is a greater evil to women.  

IV: Explains why the phenomenon of men rejecting "committed" relationships is far more likely to be nature's means of correcting a destructive situation than contributing to the destruction.  

  • Summary of the Empress has No Clothes.

    We live in the world of the Emperor’s New Clothes, that famous Fairy tale wherein a group of confidence men trick an Emperor into buying a “magical” suit of clothes that have the power to identify unworthy people.  Anyone who is unable to see the clothes is unworthy of his position and must be removed.  The trick here is that the clothes do not exist so no one could see the new clothes.  Everyone is so afraid of losing his job that all assume that they are unworthy and pretend to see the clothes.  In a comical but destructive act, the Emperor abandons his traditional clothing that actually protected his modesty and his body from the elements to parade around naked, while everyone praised his New Clothes.


    In the 20th Century we saw a rise in relationship “experts” such as Marriage & Family Counselors, and divorce lawyers, who could advise us on relationship standards and rights.  Oddly however, along with growing number of “experts” came a dramatic rise in failed relationships.  Divorce grew from 2% to over 50% and that is not counting the failed cohabitation and other sexual relationships.  How could this happen?  We could also ask why the Emperor felt the cold breeze and hot sun on his skin when he wore his new clothes.  Was this phenomenon despite new “expert tailors” making his new clothes or because of these new “experts”.


    Most relationship books take a psychological viewpoint and focus on the difference between men and women.  They either advise on how to overcome these differences or warn people to simply give up.  I take a different view.  I was trained as an Economist and Lawyer, so I look at the common humanity of man.  In essence, the study of Economics is the study of what motivates people.  The study of law is what restrains people.  The motivational and restraint principles are not gender sensitive.  All people are pleasure seekers and pain avoiders.  (Even people with weird fetishes take pleasure in pain.)  When I remembered that “marriage” is legally defined as a “contract” and a contract is an agreement to trade, I realized that we could apply basic legal and economic principles to relationships.  Once I did that, I realized that every bit of marital advice that I ever received was BS and designed for destruction.  If I had given any of that advice to a business client, he would have sued me for malpractice.


    Since the dawn of civilization, we had a universal contract between men and women that built families and societies.  In the 20th Century we threw out that Ancient Contract for a new relationship paradigm that supposedly had magical powers to bring more happiness and harmony.  Like the Emperor’s clothes, these magical powers did not exist.  The new contract also failed to provide the historic function of the Ancient Contract.  Like the Emperor parading around naked as people praised his “clothing”, people are trained to believe that women (and the new relationship paradigm) possess magical powers while men are unworthy.  Any man who questions this is in risk of losing public acceptance, legal rights, and income.  Even though men can plainly see that these magical powers don’t exist, we are so trained to doubt our own value vis a vie women and are so afraid of repercussions, most of us join the crowd in praising the “beautiful new clothes”.


    By looking at relationships considering the basic economics of trade, we see why people could historically build lifelong relationships while modern people cannot.  (Counselors don’t make money when couples get along and lawyers don’t make money when people don’t file for divorce or criminal charges against each other.)  We also dispel a few myths about men who reject “committed” relationships: they are not “hurt and/or scared”; they are logical.  They are not depriving themselves of something they need, because the modern paradigm has already stolen that.  They are hurting women because the modern paradigm is already doing that.  Finally, they are not rejecting historic masculine duties or their forefathers’ values any more than that little boy from the story rejected the concept of clothing when he shouted that the Emperor was naked.  I finally point out that when the little boy rejected the corporate delusion and refused to play, he did not destroy the empire.  If anything, he saved it. 

Product Page: Stores Product Widget
bottom of page