David,
See below, between your points.
Richard - Two quick comments and I'll bow out-
1. If something requires a license, it's a privilege.
I don't know what else to say here.
2. I'm disappointed that you've generally avoided
responding to my criticisms of egalitarianism. Maybe
you have an a priori assumption that egalitarianism is
a good thing??
Not only do I see venturing into this arena as a
futile effort or mere something to do 'in the meantime
before we get our freedoms', but I agree with Rothbard
that it is generally a _bad_ thing and core to
Marxism.
D.
--- Richard Newell <richard@...> wrote:
David,
See below, between your points.
From: David Rhodes
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: EQUALITY : RIGHT ON : [lpsf-discuss]
TONIGHT: Marriage Equality rally & march>>Okay, I guess we will have to agree to disagree
on
this topic. I see you brought up many of your
previous
points yet again and I still remain unconvinced.<<Ditto.
>>Some additional counter points though, for what
they're worth->>- On the technicality of the term 'rights'.. I
would
agree that marriage or any other type of
contractual
agreement is a 'negative' type right, as in - one
has
the right to do whatever one pleases as long as it
doesn't initiate force. <<Exactly. That is why civil marriage is a right.
>>My distinction on rights vs.
privileges are that privileges are a positive type
right, or given by a higher power. (i.e. the right
to
health care or government marriage)<<If I have a right to life, speech, religion, etc.,
and the government CLAIMS (backed by force) that
only they can grant that as a privilege, is it still
a right? I think, yes, the natural right transcends
the government's claim. Just because they say it is
a privilege does not make it so. They say keeping
my earnings, owning a house (w/o paying them
'rent'), speaking outside of 'free speech zones',
and etc. are privileges, but I contend these are
rights nevertheless.Along with marriage.
I agree there is no right to (free or subsidized)
health care.>>- marriage vs. civil contract...if you get the
same
level of privilege by letters of incorporation or
civil marriage as you would conventional marriage,
what is the difference other than in name? The
cost?
Seems like seniors and kids get a break on
everything
though. Hence my comment on envy. <<There you go calling it a privilege again!
1) You don't get the same level of 'privilege'
without the real thing. (I thought I made that
clear.)
2) The cost is an important consideration. Why
should I be barred from the use of a low-cost
marriage contract available to everyone else?What if Redheads weren't allowed to buy groceries,
and had to take all their meals in expensive
restaurants? Wouldn't that be an infringement of
their rights? Sure, they could eat, but they would
have to allocate their scarce resources in an
unreasonable way due to an artificial limitation
imposed by the government upon them.This is not about getting a break that others don't
get. How many times have I heard that gay rights
are special rights! Hogwash! I think that a lot of
opposition to same-sex marriage is based upon the
mistaken idea that gays are getting a special right,
not afforded to everyone else. I just want equal
treatment, not special treatment. (Though, some gay
organizations do ask for special rights, like hate
crime or anti-discrimination laws, but generally you
won't hear that from gay libertarians.) Check out
this:
http://www.lpc.org/rel/20040619v3_LLEEA_hate_crimes.pdf
BTW, it sounds like you're the one envious of kids
and seniors>>Now your comment on testifying against a spouse
gave
me pause since I hadn't thought about that
specific
aspect. But my response would be - why should a
spouse
get spousal privilege? They don't get it in
divorce
court. In fact, aren't doctors and some attorneys
now
getting this privilege revoked?
http://www.uexpress.com/coveringthecourts/?uc_full_date=19990818<<
Well, I think it is very reasonable that a spouse
shouldn't be forced to testify against the other.
Since the two share secrets and probably property
(more than 'probably' in California), it would be
like testifying against oneself. Send your spouse
to jail -- live in poverty the rest of your life.It seems according to your reference that a spouse
MAY testify, but is not FORCED to. This seems
correct to me, since it is mainly the non-
self-incrimination aspect that I believe should be
protected. I don't believe in any "public"
interest.>>- I suspect some of the 'subtleties' of
singlehood vs.
marriage that you speak of are more from social
oppression than actual identifiable oppressions by
government.??<<I admit that social oppression also bothers me, but
I don't claim any rights there; it's not
intrinsically a political issue but a social one.That does not negate the fact that there are State
oppressions; and those I think should be fixed.>>-on your comment "is legal marriage a right if
you
have to pay for it?" I think you just strengthened
my
argument with this point. You DO have to pay for
marriage! In SF it costs $83!! More reasoning that
it's a privilege. <<That $83 is not a marriage tax, that's a fee to
record the marriage. Sure, in an anarcho-capitalist
society a private firm would record the marriage,
maybe for less. If 'recording services' were the
last thing left for governments to do, I think I
could live with it.Besides, the kind of lawyers fees we are talking
about to 'simulate marriage' amount to thousands of
dollars. I know. Hardly the same thing as an $83
recording fee. Throwing up an obstacle of that size
is effectively the same as an outright ban, and
hardly equal treatment under the law. Most of us
only pay for the most important of these papers to
be drawn up (e.g., a will, title to real estate,
etc.).>>- on the equality question overall... The
analogy I
want to make here is - Basically, imagine we are
all
in prison and very hungry. Finally the food comes
and
the guards give the redheads beef and the blondes
chicken. In your perspective, you want all the
prisoners to have the choice of chicken or beef.
In my
view - I want to bust everyone out of the joint so
we
can cook whatever we want! That's what I mean by
getting screwed equally. I'm not against the
people
who don't like chicken, I just want to escape. <<Wanting to escape is fine.
BTW, I have always said I would rather have the
State
=== message truncated ===
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
1. If something requires a license, it's a privilege.
I don't know what else to say here.
Sloppy logic, David. If the government required a license to speak, would
speaking suddenly become a privilege? Was driving a right before states
required drivers licenses, and a privilege after license laws were passed?
Is carrying a gun everywhere except Alaska and Vermont a privilege?
2. I'm disappointed that you've generally avoided
responding to my criticisms of egalitarianism. Maybe
you have an a priori assumption that egalitarianism is
a good thing??
I disagree - Richard did say that egalitarianism, as a social outcome, is a
bad thing. But equality before the law is a requirement.
Mike Denny is right that same-sex and opposite-sex relationships differ on
the key point of procreation. However, same-sex couples can still form a
family and raise adopted or artificially-inseminated kids with as much love
as any opposite-sex couple. But in some states, same-sex couples are
forbidden to adopt, and one argument used against them is that they're not
married.
Before marriage got tangled up with a big pile of government regulation,
from taxes and survivor benefits to adoption law and hospital visitation,
no one was worried about same-sex marriage. If a couple (of any gender)
lived together without benefit of clergy, tongues might wag, but it wasn't
a threat to society. But now that this alternate legal class has been
created, it excludes some people from membership. That is wrong.
As Richard said, if the guards gave beef to redheads and chicken to blonds,
that's one thing. But what if the inmates decided to share their food, and
the guards beat the blonds who ate beef? That's a better analogy - many
straights have no problem with gays getting married, but the government
forbids it. That is unacceptable.
~Chris
- --
Chris Maden, freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
Robin Hood didn't steal from the rich and give to the poor; he took
money from the tax collectors and gave it back to the taxpayers.
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA