Ron - Nice quote..completely agree. The fight for
equality is some Marxist type fantasy that cannot be
won. It just ensures that our freedoms are slowly
smothered while each person or group who _feels_
victimized tries to get their due against everyone
else.
Now I mean no disrespect to homosexuals in their new
found government privileges, but as a willful straight
man am I not now bottom of the heap on tax breaks? Who
will join me in my new cause? After all, it wasn't
that homosexuals were barred from government marriage
- only from marriage with other homosexuals. So if
this has only been about taxes and legal-ease, I beg
to differ.
As with environmentalism, I don't see how
egalitarianism has anything to do with the fight for
liberty. I think we already have enough work on our
hands in the LP fighting coercive government without
wasting time making sure everyone gets screwed
equally. Maybe that's why I'm not a left-libertarian.
David
--- Ronald Getty <tradergroupe@...> wrote:
Dear Jay and Richard and Everyone Else;
The Ludwig von Mises Institute has a multi-choice
test to help you determine whether you are a member
of the Austrian School of Economic thought. One of
the test choices is about equality and inequality.
As has been said the only time you can have true
equality is in mathematics when 2 + 2 = 4. Below is
the Libertarian Austrian School test choice.
" Equality is a term that properly relates to
mathematics but not to social science. Human beings
are unequal in their endowments, opportunities, and
will to achieve. Unequal does not mean inferior or
superior; it merely means different. Differences are
the very source of the division of labor, and,
within a market setting, lead not to conflict but
cooperation. While differences should be celebrated,
property owners have every right to treat people
unequally because it is owners that bear
responsibility. Legislators, however, should not
have any concern for bringing about equality of
result or opportunity, either between individuals or
groups of individuals classified according to any
criterion. The only place for equality concerns the
law, which should treat all individuals the same
without regard to their station in life. "
Prop. 22 was a violation of equality under the law
and it was rightfully declared unconstitutional
because it did not treat all individuals the same
without regard to their station in life.
This does not get into the question of The State
discovering issuing marriage licenses for revenue
purposes and enacting social engineering issues
through regulatory restrictions on obtaining a
marriage license. It does not address why The State
politicians decided at the time that they had to
enter the marriage license business in the first
place and couldn't leave well enough alone.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Jay Wilkinson <jaywilkinson@...> wrote:
Richard, Yes, like I stated before I am against the
government being
involved in our personal lives on all issues
including marriage. I am
also against laws that seem to claim equality. We
are only all equal
under a system that is impotent to make laws for or
against any one
group or another. I feel this applies to marriage as
much as anything
else.
This may not seem like real world politics and just
simple idealism but
the political game is how we arrived where we are
know instead of
keeping things minimal and simple. I think we need
to be taking hard
painful strides back to where we were not join in
the circus of unequal
"equality" that we currently reside in. In the end
the political game
you suggest ascribing to becomes a game of adding
laws to amend laws.
Jay
> Jay,
>
> It comes down to the same old Libertarian
conundrum: do you let the
> perfect stand in the way of the good?
>
> In this case, do you ONLY support the complete
abolition of state
> involvement in marriage, and so are opposed to
equality under the
> law? Hypothetically, would you be for reinstating
the miscegenation
> laws so that blacks (and their white partners)
could be forced to be
> "free" of state marriage? Why not anull their
marriages, as mine was
> on August 19th, last year. If you don't advocate
this, then why block
> gays from from rights already recognized for many
years for mixed-race
> couples?
>
> The issue on the table today is same sex marriage,
not the removal of
> state from marriage. So what side of THAT issue
do you stand on? If
> you were in Congress, and a same-sex marriage bill
came before you,
> how would you vote? Are you against equality or
for it? We don't
> always get to frame the question in the way that
suits us best,
> especially in real-world politics.
>
> Rich
>
>
>
>
> From: Jay Wilkinson
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 9:49 AM
> Subject: Re: RIGHT ON : [lpsf-discuss] TONIGHT:
Marriage Equality
> rally & march
>
> Great points Richard, There really do become so
many facts, issues and
> loop holes with any issue when the government gets
involved. I, like
> most of you, still feel that all of these
microscopic bonuses and
> discrepancies in current marriage law should be
abolished in general.
> We as Libertarians should be fighting against the
marriage "right",
> not for it. To me it seems similar to taxes. Tax
laws are huge sets of
> microscopic laws and ridiculous regulations that
hinder some more then
> others, but that in the end destroy all of our
economic freedoms. we
> should be fighting against them instead of
fighting for the entrance
> of another group or minority into tax slavery. Why
do the same thing
> with marriage?
>
> Best,
> Jay
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jay,
>
> http://richard.newell.org/misc/marriage_essay.html
>
>
> In addition, I have the following comments:
>
> I agree that it would be best to get government
out of marriage (as
> well as most/all? other activities). But I think
you overlook some
> facts.
>
> You seem to think that being (legally) single is a
preferred state,
> with a clear advantage. But, there are both legal
advantages and
> disadvantages of being married. There are
literally thousands of ways
> single and married people are treated differently,
not just divison of
> property as you point out. Some of these
advantages of being
> married can be obtained through the use of
expensive lawyers, filing
> wills, deeds, and etc., and others are completely
out of reach,
> legally (e.g., advantageous tax rates).
>
> In fact, being straight, one can use a prenuptial
agreement, as you
> point out, to retain some of the advantages of
being single,
> overriding community property laws, for instance.
Why doesn't
> everyone avail themselves of this option? One
reason is that it is
> expensive. Now, imagine being gay and having the
complimentary
> problem; being forced to be single and trying to
approximate legal
> marriage via dozens of such contracts and filings.
=== message truncated ===