Chris - Thanks for jumping in. Comments below.
--- "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@...> wrote:
>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?
I stand by my logic. Remember, we have been making a
distinction between the institution of marriage and
civil marriage. Or at least I've been trying to.
Government has attempted to co-opt the natural right
version by transforming it into licensed civil
marriage. However, they are fighting a ghost.
The legal attempts at criminalizing non-civil marriage
are actually done by criminalizing some of the common
ancillary aspects of marriage where they can -
anti-sodomy laws, anti-cohabitation, etc. But the
illegitimacy of these laws are not the discussion in
this thread. The fact that everyone _believes_ that
same-sex 'non-civil' marriage is banned is a powerful
force but it does not indicate direct individual
rights violations. And not giving something is not the
same as taking it away.
To exemplify this point -
http://www.uua.org/news/2004/freedomtomarry/040316.html
The interesting part for me is this quote-
District Attorney Don Williams said he was compelled
to prosecute Greenleaf and Sangrey because they
"publicly proclaimed their intent to perform civil
marriages under the authority invested in them by New
York State law, rather than performing purely
religious ceremonies."
So basically, they were only prosecuted for violating
state licensing laws, not for performing an illegal
ceremony.
So on your driving question, yes..and no.
Similar to my marriage argument, there is not an all
encompassing ban on unlicensed driving - either in
concept or in practice. For example, driving on
private property is still legal. So then it becomes a
question of jurisdiction and state control over public
property access. This is where the driving privilege
bit comes in. So just as you don't have the right to
violate someone else's property rights by driving on
their land, the same would apply to public land.
I haven't seen in any libertarian writings about any
such individual rights to parcels of public property,
yes? (where it wasn't privately owned previously and
taken)
Of course I can already hear the argument 'but we ALL
own the roads!' and 'what of the right of free
passage?'. To the first one, I don't see how
collective ownership can be warped in any way to look
like private property rights. To the second, I believe
the constitutional right implies not to be hindered in
one's passage by the state. I'm not condoning
I believe the same principle would apply to speech and
guns as well..I'll think about it. I'm not condoning
either however.
>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.
I stand corrected..must have missed that one. However,
my point was more focused on the impossibility of
attaining equality by the creation of laws, not so
much the social outcome.
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
With all due respect I think your version is wildly
overstated. None of couples who had their same-sex
marriage licenses revoked last year were beaten or
otherwise punished as far as I know.
Being denied a government privilege is not even on the
same level as incarceration for peaceful trading
between parties.