Around this same time, Ron Paul came and spoke in Iowa City. I was intrigued by the doctrine of such massively limited government. Drug legalization made sense to me economically and on the basis of individual liberty and I was ready to "end the fed" and the IRS. Over the past few weeks, it has become obvious that Libertarianism is rooted in a Utopian view of politics that is unrealistic.
Watching the Republican debate in New Hampshire, nothing new surprised me. Bachmann was the standout and Cain and Gingrich's performance was impressive. Ron Paul made the blunder of the evening. When asked about his opinion on gay marriage, Dr. Paul said that government should simply be "out of the business of marriage." I was a bit taken aback by that statement, and my shock was reaffirmed as the pundits came out. Ann Coulter, who holds a law degree from the University of Michigan, pointed out that there are dozens of consequences to marriage--most of which require some form of government involvement. Adoption, inheritance, divorce, etc. are such drastic consequences of marriage, I cannot imagine enforcement of these contracts without government. Coming from a big family and having dealt with those issues, I like the reassurance that these contracts will be enforced.
What Ron Paul's answer said to me was that he didn't want to offend anybody. He, like so many libertarians, say "get the government out of it" to anything simply to avoid answering tough questions. "Get the government out of it" is a fantastic answer to most issues, but on big questions like abortion or gay marriage, a legitimate candidate better have an answer. A more ideal response on the issue of gay marriage would be, "As Federalists, we believe that the 50 states represent 50 separate laboratories for experimentation. Thus, if a state like Alabama wanted to ban gay marriage, they could, while the Massachusettses of the country could legalize it. Let's see which works better." A few of the candidates at the debate actually said something similar to that.
The doctrine of Libertarianism can be summed up in three words; all starting with "P." Pot, prostitution, and porn. I'm a big fan of small government. I, however, do not prioritize the legalization of everything above all else. We've got some work to do before we legalize all sorts of stuff. We need to reform welfare so I'm not paying for some drug addict who won't get a job. We need to flatten out the tax rate (around 17%) and make everyone a tax payer before we go off and legalize and privatize everything. We need to cut the Department of Education and return the role of education to the states. It's time to stop making up rights--the Supreme Court is becoming a Constitutional Convention. We need to look at entitlement programs and make sure soon-to-be retirees get their promised benefits--my generation can go without. I'm still opposed to the Patriot Act, I'm a supporter of the NRA, I still support legalizing some or all drugs once we get ourselves in order, and the 10th Amendment is great. As the Libertarians compete with each other--seeing who can get the best Facebook status bashing the military or Michele Bachmann, us Conservatives will work outside of bumper sticker language and cliches to improve society.
Tackling one of your arguments in particular, why should any government have the right to be involved in marriage in the first place? Put it this way: under the current system you have to apply to the government for a marriage license, which means that you are basically asking the government for permission to marry. Now, under ordinary circumstances, there's no reason for an application to be denied. But issues have come up in the past and continue to this day. In the case of interracial marriages, the government had the power to prevent marriages they arbitrarily deemed "wrong", and only after a prolonged civil rights movement were these couples allowed to be legally married. The same issue has come up in gay marriage today. Consider now that none of these issues would arise if the business of marriage were taken out of the hands of the government entirely. Take gay marriage, since you brought it up. Currently the only remotely logical argument against gay marriage would be that it might force disapproving institutions to perform marriages against their will. If the government was taken out of the equation, no one could force these institutions to do anything; couples could apply for the religious or secular service of their choice to honor their commitment, and it would be left ENTIRELY to the institution in question to decide. Now I don't pretend to be an expert on all of the marriage-related contracts you mentioned, but couldn't a system be set up whereby legal contracts between the couple (divorce agreements, inheritance, etc.) were enforced by the government just like any business agreement, but the marriage itself was simply an agreement between two consenting individuals?
ReplyDelete