On Libertarianism


Off-Topic Discussions


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In another post on another thread a gentleman who described himself as a "staunch Democrat" took me to task for (among other things) being a "fake Libertarian" because of my stance on "Homosexual rights". At that time my response was simply that we would have to agree to disagree. There were several reasons for that.

The first reason is that I doubt that Mr. Staunch Democrat and I will ever be able to convince each other of anything. However, that is not the reason I am now responding. There are other people on this board who may be unfamiliar with what it actually means to be a Libertarian, and hopefully by giving a serious reply to Mr. Staunch Democrat they will be suitably enlightened.

The second reason is that I did not want to derail that particular thread with what was a sidebar issue.

Last but not least, I felt I owed it to the moderators (who do not always see eye to eye with me and vice versa), not to start something that could devolve into a flame war when they were not present to deal with the situation as they saw fit. However, the moderators are either now on duty or will be shortly, and I don't have to worry about derailing the thread that I just started.

Let me begin with tongue firmly in cheek suggesting that there is an extent to which turning to a "staunch Democrat" for instruction in Libertarianism is sort of analogous to asking a Jihadi Imam for advice on how to hold a Bar Mitzvah. Even assuming that the Imam tries to give you the best answer that he can based on what he knows, there are some things he is going to get wrong simply because there are important nuances he was never instructed in or does not properly understand.

I realize that there are people on this board who would take me to task and or disbelieve what I was saying if I were to suggest that the sun was going to rise in the east tomorrow morning. Nevertheless, having been a member of the Executive Committee for the Libertarian Party of Alachua County Florida for several years I have this feeling that I might just know something about what it means to be a Libertarian. Even though I am no longer formally associated with the Libertarian party I also feel I have something of a duty to try to make sure that what they stand for is properly presented.

Libertarians, as is true of any political party, have several different groups within their ranks. One of these groups I will refer to as the "old school" Libertarians. These people are by and large die hard followers of Ayn Rand, take their objectivist philosophy seriously, and are essentially atheistic in outlook. Though I would be tempted to argue that in some cases their objectivist philosophy is their religion. Regardless, given a situation in which various people are doing various things on their own property that don't harm other people and don't damage anybody else's property then the old school Libertarians couldn't care less what was actually going on. From that perspective then Mr. Staunch Democrat might appear to have a point. Old school Libertarians could be interpreted as being supportive of "homosexual rights". Given that I have made posts that argue against certain interpretations of "homosexual rights" then I would appear to be in conflict with that.

However, like the Jihadi Imam trying to figure out what this Bar Mitzvah thing is all about, there are some things that Mr. Staunch Democrat was either never told about or doesn't understand. I will keep it simple and boil it down to three main points.

First, in order to become a Libertarian you have to pledge that you will never initiate the use of force. They are dead serious about this and it forms the core of their beliefs and the policies that they attempt to get implemented. Note that this is most definitely not the same thing as being a pacifist. A pacifist would never use force under any circumstances. But from a Libertarian perspective, once somebody has initiated the use of force against you, you are not only free to but actually encouraged to use that level of counter force you need to solve the problem.

Second, all government action is viewed as being based on force. Don't believe me? Just stop doing something that the government mandates you do (like pay your taxes for instance). Eventually the government will get around to sending people with guns to force you to comply or else. Which is an initiation of force that Libertarians are sworn not to undertake.

Lastly, old school Libertarians are good philosophical debaters (and I mean that in multiple senses of that term). Among other things it meant that they were actually more interested in having an objectivist philosophical debating society than they were in forming a viable political party. For another, they would never accept the argument that the ends justify the means especially when the means is the implementation of government programs and by extension, initiating force. Hence it is literally true, and I am dead serious about this, that old school Libertarians would not create government programs to save their own lives.

Now, what does all that have to do with "homosexual rights"? Quite simply a lot of what the current "homosexual rights" movement is all about has nothing to do with being left alone to cavort as they want to on their own property. This is especially true in light of the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision and subsequent actions that have been taken by various different homosexual groups. What the Supreme Court has essentially done is legislate from the bench (something they are Constitutionally prohibited from doing) in order to effectively establish a new "religion" (which the Federal government is prohibited from doing) in which homosexual marriage must be permitted or else.

Old school Libertarians would go into borderline frothing at the mouth hysterics over the government forcing people to do things that they didn't want to, especially where issues of conscience were concerned. While they might on some level agree with "homosexual rights" and or "homosexual marriage" they would never countenance the use of government force to implement anything, even something that they might potentially agree with. Given that Mr. Staunch Democrat's government policies that he might like to see implemented literally can't happen without the initiation of force by the government at some level, then Mr. Staunch Democrat would never get the support from old school Libertarians that he thinks he might.

The newer Libertarians are slightly different in outlook. A lot of them are former Republicans who wanted to become part of a political party that took minimizing government as a serious goal. They aren't anywhere near as hard core objectivists as the old school Libertarians are, and they are usually more socially conservative in outlook. They too would oppose a lot of what is taking place under the rubric of "homosexual rights".

So, if you want to talk about people being left alone to do things on their own property that don't hurt other people or damage anybody else's property, then yes, Libertarians would be in with that. If you want to talk about using the force of government to compel people do things that they wouldn't otherwise normally do, Libertarians (both types) would fight you tooth and nail. But as a democrat in general can't take a dump without creating government programs to regulate the amount of water the toilet uses per flush or the specific type of treatment that the sewage has to undergo then there isn't a whole heck of a lot of support that he can expect from Libertarians.


I'm more a Jeffersonian than anything else -- "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." In that respect, it's similar to what you seem to be describing as an "old school libertarian," without the reverence for Rand's ideas (many of which I find odious for a variety of reasons).

That said, I don't share the worship of property that seems to form your core belief, and I'm not much for the straight-up plutocracy it seeks. I also think "force" has more manifestations than the cops at your door.

From that standpoint, if two gay people marry, that's no skin off my nose. To hijack the machinery of government in order to mandate a refusal to recognize it -- that's completely outside of anything I can square with a legitimate interest in rightful liberty. "Treat it like any other marriage and move on" seems much more in keeping with how to reasonably handle it, to me.

But again, although I'm definitely not a Democrat, I don't claim the title of "Libertarian" either.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ceasar Slaad wrote:
Let me begin with tongue firmly in cheek suggesting that there is an extent to which turning to a "staunch Democrat" for instruction in Libertarianism is sort of analogous to asking a Jihadi Imam for advice on how to hold a Bar Mitzvah. Even assuming that the Imam tries to give you the best answer that he can based on what he knows, there are some things he is going to get wrong simply because there are important nuances he was never instructed in or does not properly understand

Isn't having a strict instructional heirarchy and vetting process of being a libertarian a bit of a contradiction?

Also, you could have picked a less extreme example, like a football coach telling a soccer coach to kick the ball OVER the goal.

Baring that what you're working off of is a definition, which they're just as capable of knowing as you are. If you're in some "real" libertarian organization you can't just lay claim to the entire movement.

Quote:
What the Supreme Court has essentially done is legislate from the bench (something they are Constitutionally prohibited from doing) in order to effectively establish a new "religion" (which the Federal government is prohibited from doing) in which homosexual marriage must be permitted or else.

This is beyond nonsense.

Religions have marriage traditions yes, that doesn't stop the government from doing something similar, just as the government isn't prevented from giving to the poor just because charity is a religious institution or passing laws at all because some religions have them.

I get that in your view the government has no place in marriage, but the fact is that the government does have a place in marriage. Once it has that place it has to apply the law equally to all citizens. The government is not forcing you as an individual to do anything (unless you had a REALLY interesting trip in vegas), the government is forcing the government to do something.

You can argue against the governments place in marriage at all, but when you ONLY argue against a particular kind of marriage in a way that makes absolutely no sense SOMETHING is bringing that argument to the forefront and its not libertarianism.

Quote:
If you want to talk about using the force of government to compel people do things that they wouldn't otherwise normally do, Libertarians (both types) would fight you tooth and nail.

How is that remotely applicable here? Who's being forced to do what?

Quote:
But as a democrat in general can't take a dump without creating government programs to regulate the amount of water the toilet uses per flush or the specific type of treatment that the sewage has to undergo then there isn't a whole heck of a lot of support that he can expect from Libertarians.

We've lived in a world where people could decide individually what level of sewage treatment counted as "enough". Oddly enough they tended to use none.

It stank. We came up with something better.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
But as a democrat in general can't take a dump without creating government programs to regulate the amount of water the toilet uses per flush or the specific type of treatment that the sewage has to undergo then there isn't a whole heck of a lot of support that he can expect from Libertarians.

This is what makes me definitely not a libertarian; I place public health above profit on my scale of values. Because untreated sewage tends to lead to cholera outbreaks and the like, the "right" to not treat it is in essence an act of bacteriological warfare (i.e., unprovoked use of force) against the local population.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

We really need an "Americana" subforum in OtD, where US citizens can slap each other with rainbow trouts over whether they're more Liberian, Librarian, Libertartarian or Libertese.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
But as a democrat in general can't take a dump without creating government programs to regulate the amount of water the toilet uses per flush or the specific type of treatment that the sewage has to undergo then there isn't a whole heck of a lot of support that he can expect from Libertarians.
This is what makes me definitely not a libertarian; I place public health above profit on my scale of values. Because untreated sewage tends to lead to cholera outbreaks and the like, the "right" to not treat it is in essence an act of bacteriological warfare (i.e., unprovoked use of force) against the local population.

better cholera blue than pinko red?


7 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ceasar Slaad wrote:
Let me begin with tongue firmly in cheek suggesting that there is an extent to which turning to a "staunch Democrat" for instruction in Libertarianism is sort of analogous to asking a Jihadi Imam for advice on how to hold a Bar Mitzvah. Even assuming that the Imam tries to give you the best answer that he can based on what he knows, there are some things he is going to get wrong simply because there are important nuances he was never instructed in or does not properly understand

Isn't having a strict instructional heirarchy and vetting process of being a libertarian a bit of a contradiction?

Also, you could have picked a less extreme example, like a football coach telling a soccer coach to kick the ball OVER the goal.

Baring that what you're working off of is a definition, which they're just as capable of knowing as you are. If you're in some "real" libertarian organization you can't just lay claim to the entire movement.

Ceasar Slaad wrote:
What the Supreme Court has essentially done is legislate from the bench (something they are Constitutionally prohibited from doing) in order to effectively establish a new "religion" (which the Federal government is prohibited from doing) in which homosexual marriage must be permitted or else.

This is beyond nonsense.

Religions have marriage traditions yes, that doesn't stop the government from doing something similar, just as the government isn't prevented from giving to the poor just because charity is a religious institution or passing laws at all because some religions have them.

I get that in your view the government has no place in marriage, but the fact is that the government does have a place in marriage. Once it has that place it has to apply the law equally to all citizens. The government is not forcing you as an individual to do anything (unless you had a REALLY interesting trip in vegas), the government is forcing the government to do something.

You can argue against the governments place in marriage at all, but when you ONLY argue against a particular kind of marriage in a way that makes absolutely no sense SOMETHING is bringing that argument to the forefront and its not libertarianism.

The USA citizenry and government decided to modify our Constitution to specifically abolish slavery and treat non-Caucasians as equal people (in legal theory anyway). We decided it was desirable that non-property holders and women should have the right to vote. We decided that citizens should have the right to divorce and remarry. We decided that people with different ethnicities would have the right to marry each other. And now we've decided that yes, people would be allowed to engage in same-sex marriages.

None of these were explicitly stated in the original Constitution, but we collectively decided that we would as a Union recognize these rights and enshrine them into our laws. Recognizing that minority rights need to be protected from the majority is not the creation of a "new religion"; it instead goes back to our Preamble and the written words of the country's founding fathers that All are created equal and entitled to same equal treatment under the law.

Equality and protection of others' rights is not a zero-sum game.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
ceasar Slaad wrote:
Let me begin with tongue firmly in cheek suggesting that there is an extent to which turning to a "staunch Democrat" for instruction in Libertarianism is sort of analogous to asking a Jihadi Imam for advice on how to hold a Bar Mitzvah. Even assuming that the Imam tries to give you the best answer that he can based on what he knows, there are some things he is going to get wrong simply because there are important nuances he was never instructed in or does not properly understand
Isn't having a strict instructional heirarchy and vetting process of being a libertarian a bit of a contradiction?

Not really. As I said, the old school libertarians were arguably more interested in having an objectivist philosophical debating society than in creating a viable political party. From their point of view everything revolved around a proper understanding of objectivism and using that to craft policy with.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Also, you could have picked a less extreme example, like a football coach telling a soccer coach to kick the ball OVER the goal.

No. Football and soccer are simply two different games. They are not polar opposites. But when one compares and contrasts the ethos and policies espoused by the Democrat party with the ethos and policies espoused by the Libertarian party one would see that for all practical purposes they are polar opposites.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Baring that what you're working off of is a definition, which they're just as capable of knowing as you are. If you're in some "real" libertarian organization you can't just lay claim to the entire movement.

Well, unless and until somebody else shows up to carry the torch then I guess I'm it. I have yet to see anybody else argue anything even reasonably close to actual libertarian positions.

As for the rest, to keep it simple for now we're going to have to agree to disagree.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
But as a democrat in general can't take a dump without creating government programs to regulate the amount of water the toilet uses per flush or the specific type of treatment that the sewage has to undergo then there isn't a whole heck of a lot of support that he can expect from Libertarians.
This is what makes me definitely not a libertarian; I place public health above profit on my scale of values. Because untreated sewage tends to lead to cholera outbreaks and the like, the "right" to not treat it is in essence an act of bacteriological warfare (i.e., unprovoked use of force) against the local population.

The libertarian position would not be that sewage should be untreated. The libertarian position would be that you did not actually need a government program to treat sewage. Sewage treatment could be handled better, faster, safer, cheaper, and more effectively by private industry than by the government. If this was a presentation that they had prepped for they could give you an impressive array of data, analyses, studies, etc., to demonstrate that if nothing else they had a reasonable case. If you have any interest in this at all beside trying to take me to task for a comment, check out what the CATO institute has available.


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

The USA citizenry and government decided to modify our Constitution to specifically abolish slavery and treat non-Caucasians as equal people (in legal theory anyway). We decided it was desirable that non-property holders and women should have the right to vote. We decided that citizens should have the right to divorce and remarry. We decided that people with different ethnicities would have the right to marry each other. And now we've decided that yes, people would be allowed to engage in same-sex marriages.

None of these were explicitly stated in the original Constitution, but we collectively decided that we would as a Union recognize these rights and enshrine them into our laws. Recognizing that minority rights need to be protected from the majority is not the creation of a "new religion"; it instead goes back to our Preamble and the written words of the country's founding fathers that All are created equal and entitled to same equal treatment under the law.

Equality and protection of others' rights is not a zero-sum game.

Strict Constitutionalists would argue that the first 2 sentences represent perfectly acceptable approaches, since we actually amended the Constitution to accomplish them. The others were not - they were found to be rights by activist judges, despite not being in the Constitution.

Theoretically, that has nothing to do with Libertarianism, but many US libertarians also seem to be strict Constitutionalists.


Ceaser Slaad wrote:
The libertarian position would not be that sewage should be untreated. The libertarian position would be that you did not actually need a government program to treat sewage. Sewage treatment could be handled better, faster, safer, cheaper, and more effectively by private industry than by the government.

No disagreement, as far as you've gone. But pray continue, because it's when they go the step further and say, "and no government is needed to oversee and/or regulate that treatment" that they lose me, because that's arguable the one legitimate function of government.

If you say "private is cheaper, safer, and more efficient," I'm on board. If you say, "and they'll do it because (reasons) even though no one has the actual authority to make them," I'll point to the near-ubiquity times they didn't, when given an out like that.


Ceaser Slaad wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
But as a democrat in general can't take a dump without creating government programs to regulate the amount of water the toilet uses per flush or the specific type of treatment that the sewage has to undergo then there isn't a whole heck of a lot of support that he can expect from Libertarians.
This is what makes me definitely not a libertarian; I place public health above profit on my scale of values. Because untreated sewage tends to lead to cholera outbreaks and the like, the "right" to not treat it is in essence an act of bacteriological warfare (i.e., unprovoked use of force) against the local population.
The libertarian position would not be that sewage should be untreated. The libertarian position would be that you did not actually need a government program to treat sewage. Sewage treatment could be handled better, faster, safer, cheaper, and more effectively by private industry than by the government. If this was a presentation that they had prepped for they could give you an impressive array of data, analyses, studies, etc., to demonstrate that if nothing else they had a reasonable case. If you have any interest in this at all beside trying to take me to task for a comment, check out what the CATO institute has available.

The fundamental problem with libertarian ideals and environmental issues is "Who decides what the standards are?"

Sure, the private sector might be able to do the sewage treatment "better, faster, safer, cheaper, and more effectively", but why would I pay them to treat my sewage at all? What happens to people who don't do so?
Or who pick the cheaper, but less thorough competitor?

What recourse do I have if someone's dumping raw sewage upstream of my property? Alternately, what recourse do I have if the downstream person demands absolutely no pollution from me?


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

The USA citizenry and government decided to modify our Constitution to specifically abolish slavery and treat non-Caucasians as equal people (in legal theory anyway). We decided it was desirable that non-property holders and women should have the right to vote. We decided that citizens should have the right to divorce and remarry. We decided that people with different ethnicities would have the right to marry each other. And now we've decided that yes, people would be allowed to engage in same-sex marriages.

None of these were explicitly stated in the original Constitution, but we collectively decided that we would as a Union recognize these rights and enshrine them into our laws. Recognizing that minority rights need to be protected from the majority is not the creation of a "new religion"; it instead goes back to our Preamble and the written words of the country's founding fathers that All are created equal and entitled to same equal treatment under the law.

Equality and protection of others' rights is not a zero-sum game.

There are established policies and procedures for legitimately amending the Constitution. In most of the cases that you cite, those polices and procedures were actually followed. Hence, because proper procedures were followed, the changes to the Constitution were legitimate.

In the case of the recent Supreme Court decision those polices and procedures were not followed. The specific reason that those policies were NOT followed was because those pushing the agenda knew that they wouldn't be able to accomplish what they wanted to by following those procedures as they would never get the support they needed (actual ratification of a Constitutional amendment by the requisite number of States). So 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices threw the established policies and procedures out the window and flat out did what they felt like regardless. Unfortunately that totally and completely invalidated the result of their efforts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

The USA citizenry and government decided to modify our Constitution to specifically abolish slavery and treat non-Caucasians as equal people (in legal theory anyway). We decided it was desirable that non-property holders and women should have the right to vote. We decided that citizens should have the right to divorce and remarry. We decided that people with different ethnicities would have the right to marry each other. And now we've decided that yes, people would be allowed to engage in same-sex marriages.

None of these were explicitly stated in the original Constitution, but we collectively decided that we would as a Union recognize these rights and enshrine them into our laws. Recognizing that minority rights need to be protected from the majority is not the creation of a "new religion"; it instead goes back to our Preamble and the written words of the country's founding fathers that All are created equal and entitled to same equal treatment under the law.

Equality and protection of others' rights is not a zero-sum game.

There are established policies and procedures for legitimately amending the Constitution. In most of the cases that you cite, those polices and procedures were actually followed. Hence, because proper procedures were followed, the changes to the Constitution were legitimate.

In the case of the recent Supreme Court decision those polices and procedures were not followed. The specific reason that those policies were NOT followed was because those pushing the agenda knew that they wouldn't be able to accomplish what they wanted to by following those procedures as they would never get the support they needed (actual ratification of a Constitutional amendment by the requisite number of States). So 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices threw the established policies and procedures out the window and flat out did what they felt like regardless. Unfortunately that totally and completely invalidated the result of their efforts.

Of course, if you take that approach nearly every decision in the past 50 years or so fails.

It's not at all outside of standard Constitutional jurisprudence to recognize a right existing in the Constitution that hadn't been recognized previously. I'm sure that some of those decisions are ones you agree with (sure that's always been in there, it was just ignored) and some you don't (they're changing the law).
Griswold, Roe, Loving, Heller, Citizen's United, Wong Kim Ark, Brandenburg
Just to name a few off the top of my head.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
The libertarian position would not be that sewage should be untreated. The libertarian position would be that you did not actually need a government program to treat sewage. Sewage treatment could be handled better, faster, safer, cheaper, and more effectively by private industry than by the government.

No disagreement, as far as you've gone. But pray continue, because it's when they go the step further and say, "and no government is needed to oversee and/or regulate that treatment" that they lose me, because that's arguable the one legitimate function of government.

If you say "private is cheaper, safer, and more efficient," I'm on board. If you say, "and they'll do it because (reasons) even though no one has the actual authority to make them," I'll point to the near-ubiquity times they didn't, when given an out like that.

Hell, the fact that tons of companies now duck any and all regulations placed on them whenever they can, no matter how important those regulations may be, tells me that without governmental oversight, there would be 0 protections for anyone else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a large part of the problem with your philosophy, Mr. Slaaad, is that you look upon the mere idea of a social contract with the heavy-handed term "government force". That doesn't mean, "I pay too much in taxes for these benefits I receive." It means, "I wanna get benefits but not pay for it". That is unrealistic and selfish, to put it mildly. If true, old-school libertarians are even still a thing, they basically have two choices: accept some degree of quid-pro-quo compromise with government "force", since they do benefit from it, or become an ex-pat and leave. Not to seemingly veer into the realm of dichotomy, but I really don't see a third option here.

Now, for the "legislating from the bench" and "forcing homosexual marriages" bits. The first is merely striking down unconstitutional laws and leaving others standing. That's not legislating anymore than the president vetoing a new law is. The second is concerning government-issued marriage licenses and benefits. It has nothing to do with, say, the FBI forcing the Mormon church to host a blood-rite wedding for two gay Pastafarians.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:


In the case of the recent Supreme Court decision those polices and procedures were not followed.

This is not true. Specifically, the policies and procedures were followed in enshrining the following words into the Constitution:

No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Those words are, in fact, less conditional than many other rights granted by the Constitution and, facially, do not admit of any exception.

If person A and person B want to get married, and the state provides them special treatment in any way, then it must offer that same treatment to any two people who want to get married. That's what "equal" means.

Now, you might argue that the state shouldn't be involved in the relationship between person A and B in the first place, and that's at least sensible. But there is literally no rational basis under libertarian theology for opposing gay marriage.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
It's not at all outside of standard Constitutional jurisprudence to recognize a right existing in the Constitution that hadn't been recognized previously.

No, it's not -- in fact, that's the point of the 9th Amendment. Since the right to get married has long been recognized under English Common law, and since the 14th amendment explicitly denies the states the ability to discriminate against gay marriage, the 10th amendment guarantees gays the right to marry.

Having said that, that's not how the SCOTUS ruled or what the case held. They didn't find a right to marriage. They simply found, more narrowly, that states cannot discriminate against gays in their marriage policies.

The SCOTUS did not say "Gays must be allowed to marry," although they were invited to. Instead, they merely said "If you allow straight couples to marry, you must also allow gay couples to marry." (ETA: Actually, it was even narrower than this, since the "you" in the previous sentence applies only to governmental actions. The Mormons are free not to perform specific types of marriage services, since the Mormons are not bound by the 14th Amendment -- but the State of Indiana is so bound.)

The fact that Libertarians don't understand this is one of the (many) reasons I don't take Libertarian arguments about constitutional law any more seriously than I take creationist arguments about biology.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Ceaser Slaad wrote:


In the case of the recent Supreme Court decision those polices and procedures were not followed.

This is not true. Specifically, the policies and procedures were followed in enshrining the following words into the Constitution:

No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Those words are, in fact, less conditional than many other rights granted by the Constitution and, facially, do not admit of any exception.

If person A and person B want to get married, and the state provides them special treatment in any way, then it must offer that same treatment to any two people who want to get married. That's what "equal" means.

Now, you might argue that the state shouldn't be involved in the relationship between person A and B in the first place, and that's at least sensible. But there is literally no rational basis under libertarian theology for opposing gay marriage.

Even more subtly, libertarians shouldn't care about constitutional arguments of procedure at all.

If the Constitution allows or requires government to violate libertarian principles, libertarians should oppose it.
If government was being expanded through the proper process of constitutional amendment, libertarians should oppose it.
If the government was being shrunk through some improper judicial decision, libertarians should applaud it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Even more subtly, libertarians shouldn't care about constitutional arguments of procedure at all.

If the Constitution allows or requires government to violate libertarian principles, libertarians should oppose it.
If government was being expanded through the proper process of constitutional amendment, libertarians should oppose it.
If the government was being shrunk through some improper judicial decision, libertarians should applaud it.

The first rule of constitutionalism is that the Constitution says whatever I want it to say, whenever I want it to say it, and only to the precise extent and in the precise way I want it to say it. This is as true for Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson as it is for John C. Calhoun, John Marshall, and John Roberts. Everything else is unconstitutional tyranny that we must oppose as all hazards, especially if you disagree with me. This is also the only rule of constitutionalism.

Or put another way: Constitutionalism is policy preference in drag. And now that I've written this I have a slight temptation to go back into my books and dig up the history of the theory that the Supreme Court has no right to rule laws unconstitutional. I already know where the arrow points (slavery) but might be fun to refresh the details. But so many research interests, so little time.


Samnell wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Even more subtly, libertarians shouldn't care about constitutional arguments of procedure at all.

If the Constitution allows or requires government to violate libertarian principles, libertarians should oppose it.
If government was being expanded through the proper process of constitutional amendment, libertarians should oppose it.
If the government was being shrunk through some improper judicial decision, libertarians should applaud it.

The first rule of constitutionalism is that the Constitution says whatever I want it to say, whenever I want it to say it, and only to the precise extent and in the precise way I want it to say it. This is as true for Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson as it is for John C. Calhoun, John Marshall, and John Roberts. Everything else is unconstitutional tyranny that we must oppose as all hazards, especially if you disagree with me. This is also the only rule of constitutionalism.

Or put another way: Constitutionalism is policy preference in drag. And now that I've written this I have a slight temptation to go back into my books and dig up the history of the theory that the Supreme Court has no right to rule laws unconstitutional. I already know where the arrow points (slavery) but might be fun to refresh the details. But so many research interests, so little time.

I certainly agree, but my real point was that libertarianism isn't Constitutionalism and shouldn't really be more than very loosely linked with it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

The way a libertarian can argue against gay marriage is by arguing against all state issued marriage licenses.

But until numerous laws and regulations are re-written to not give special rights to married couples, it is unfair to only recognize particular types of couples the right to gain the legal "married" status, which is distinct from any religious "married" status. It was wrong to deny the rights to mixed race couples, and it's wrong to deny the rights gay couples.

The common retort is that you can duplicate any of those relationships via contract law, but there are numerous rights (inheritance, not testifying against spouses, hospital visitation, healthcare coverage, child custody, tax benefits, and many more I can't think of off the top of my head) that can only be acquired via a state recognized marriage.

So while libertarians might crusade against all any state recognized marriages, while they exist, they need to be free to all.

Liberty's Edge

Samnell wrote:
And now that I've written this I have a slight temptation to go back into my books and dig up the history of the theory that the Supreme Court has no right to rule laws unconstitutional.

Other way around, and it's in Marbury vs. Madison.


Krensky wrote:
Samnell wrote:
And now that I've written this I have a slight temptation to go back into my books and dig up the history of the theory that the Supreme Court has no right to rule laws unconstitutional.
Other way around, and it's in Marbury vs. Madison.

I think he's talking about a later theory. Essentially that Marbury vs Madison was wrongly decided.

Liberty's Edge

It's not really a later theory, I'm fairly sure Marbury and the rest of the Federalists thought it was wrongly decided, especially since the principle of Judicial Review isn't anywhere in the Constitution.


So you are saying that libertarians are OK with the government enforcing straight marriage, but not gay marriage? Or should the government not enforce marriage at all according to libertarian beliefs?

It also seems like a political system that allows a tremendous amount of discrimination. Would you say that libertarian beliefs would allow a business owner to not employ or offer their services to women, Jewish or black people for example?

Liberty's Edge

Yes, that is exactly the libertarian position.


Ceaser Slaad wrote:


No. Football and soccer are simply two different games. They are not polar opposites.

So to you, the polar opposite of a religion with one supreme deity that created the universe in 6 time periods and then rested on the seventh, forbids pork, practices circumcision at birth, lead moses out of egypt, asked abraham to sacrifice his oldest son, and had his followers conquer a small part of the middle east is the polar opposite of a religion with one supreme deity that created the universe in six time periods, didn't need to rest, forbids pork, practices circumcision at some point, lead moses out of egypt asked abraham to sacrifice his younger son and had his followers conquer a rather larger portion of the middle east...

Likewise Libertarians share many values with democrats: freedom of the press, assembly, religion, speech, and the right to do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. The difference is really how far you go on that last part.

Is your definition of polar opposite supposed to be something attacking its own reflection over the differences ?

Quote:
But when one compares and contrasts the ethos and policies espoused by the Democrat party with the ethos and policies espoused by the Libertarian party one would see that for all practical purposes they are polar opposites.

I think you've demonstrated an ability not to be able to tell what that is.

Quote:
Well, unless and until somebody else shows up to carry the torch then I guess I'm it. I have yet to see anybody else argue anything even reasonably close to actual libertarian positions.

Self referencing definition is self referencing. You're obviously part of some group, you could link a website or something.

Quote:
As for the rest, to keep it simple for now we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Yeah... no. The arguments you've presented so far ----> something happens ----> gay marriage is bad makes the gnome underwear business plan look reasonable. There is absolutely NO conceivable logic between anything you've said and your conclusion. Thats a large part of why your statement gets received as hateful bigotry, no other answer makes any sense. Something is cramming that conclusion into a philosophy where it clearly doesn't belong.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You have that completely backwards. Government restricting people from getting married, on the basis of gender, is the user of force. Furthermore, using law to compel Christian morality is also use of government force.

Not only that, restricting marriage is attacking one of the cornerstones of Libertarian theory: contracts. Marriage is at it's heart a contract, and if the government tells you that you cannot form a contract with an informed, consenting adult, then that is as clear a violation of Libertarian values as there can be.


Fergie wrote:
Would you say that libertarian beliefs would allow a business owner to not employ or offer their services to women, Jewish or black people for example?

(Rearranged slightly.) Yes, that's more or less the straight-up libertarian position. Property owners should be able to do as they like with their property as long as they do not initiate force or fraud. As a business owner, I am under no obligation to hire, serve, or otherwise treat with Ruritanians if I don't want to. Many libertarians go even further, considering a person's property to be an extension of their person, and thus if someone "initiates force" against my property, for example, by stepping onto my sidewalk without my permission, that authorizes me to use deadly force in "self-defense."

I don't want to say that all or even most libertarians are sociopathic. So I won't.

Quote:
So you are saying that libertarians are OK with the government enforcing straight marriage, but not gay marriage? Or should the government not enforce marriage at all according to libertarian beliefs?

This is framed, and phrased, badly.

The government does not "enforce" marriage (except in very rare circumstances). The government "recognizes" marriage, by granting special privileges to spouses. For example, the government will not ask my sweetie to testify against me in court, will tax my income at a lower rate, and will forgo its usual share of inheritance tax on anything my sweetie receives at my death. It's very rare for the government, however, to grant a spousal privilege that a third-party must follow -- the only one I can think of is the right of my sweetie to visit me in the hospital or to make medical decisions on my behalf, which is generally binding on the hospital whether they like it or not. (I expect a certain amount of litigation the first time St. Agnes' Extraordinarily Catholic Hospital doesn't want to allow a gay spouse to visit, and I'm not sure how that case will be decided.)

So, basically, any two people can hold themselves out to be married, which the government may or may not recognize -- generally the recognition process requires a certain amount of paperwork in the form of a license, and there are certain things that will bar recognition -- being underage, being already married, being too closely related, and until recently, being the same gender, but the courts have spoken on that last and said that it is not an acceptable reason for the government to withhold recognition.

However, there's nothing that requires third parties to recognize any particular marriage. For example, most universities offer (as a perk) free or reduced tuition benefits to faculty spouses. Public universities will be required to offer gay spouses the same benefits as straight ones, but nothing keeps a private (Catholic) university like Notre Dame from saying "we will only offer tuition benefits to straight spouses."

However, this is likely to cause substantial backlash and make it much harder to recruit quality faculty. The general trend for the past decade has been for most companies to offer "partner benefits" even for unmarried couples (incl. gay couples) precisely because that makes them a more desirable place to work. But this is generally a market-driven choice. Google doesn't want to lose all its top engineers to Apple and vice versa; MIT doesn't want to lose its top researchers to Harvard, and so forth.

According to libertarian ideals, the government shouldn't tell anyone they have to recognize a marriage -- fortunately, they generally don't. More generally (and controversially), the government should not be in a position where it itself should recognize any marriages, either, but even in Libertopia, there will need to be default rules on inheritance and medical decision-making, so it's highly unlikely that anyone not a total wingnut would actually advocate the elimination of marriage law entirely.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Would you say that libertarian beliefs would allow a business owner to not employ or offer their services to women, Jewish or black people for example?
(Rearranged slightly.) Yes, that's more or less the straight-up libertarian position. Property owners should be able to do as they like with their property as long as they do not initiate force or fraud. As a business owner, I am under no obligation to hire, serve, or otherwise treat with Ruritanians if I don't want to. Many libertarians go even further, considering a person's property to be an extension of their person, and thus if someone "initiates force" against my property, for example, by stepping onto my sidewalk without my permission, that authorizes me to use deadly force in "self-defense."

By the way, just in case anyone thinks I'm making that up:

Quote:
(Coercion is here defined as any action taken by a human being against the will or without the permission of another human being with respect to his or her body or property. This includes murder, rape, kidnaping, assault, trespassing, burglary, robbery, arson and fraud.) ... The vast majority of libertarians [...] maintain that physical force used in self-defense or defense of one's family or property is fully justifiable.

So go ahead and gun down trespassers -- in Libertopia, you're "fully justified."


Ceaser Slaad wrote:
[somethings] treatment could be handled better, faster, safer, cheaper, and more effectively by private industry than by the government.

...wasn't this the philosophy that led to the current state of our prison system?

Wait, no, bad kobold. *Swats*

Community Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Locking thread. Lately, political threads are getting a bit too heated and in need of more moderation action. For now, I am putting the kibosh on this and similar threads until further review.

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / On Libertarianism All Messageboards
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions
Deep 6 FaWtL
Ramblin' Man
Weird News Stories
Good New Stories
Did you know...?
Conversational phrases
Quotes Thread