Gays and Libertarians

In an earlier post, I made the following comment:

Libertarians are being used by the gay community to advocate non libertarian policies.

In the comments, Blue Devil Knight asked a very good question:

How is wanting gov't not to block gays from marrying against liberetarian principles. One of the key principles, from my limited understanding, is that the government's involvement in our economic and personal lives should be minimized. Since gays getting married doesn't hurt anybody, and opposition to it is typically motivated by religious arguments, and marriage is now a secular (state-sponsored) institution, why should libertarians not be against such marriage bans?

My response is complicated, so I wanted to make a whole new post out of my response. Rather than answering the question directly, I am going to answer it indirectly by providing what I feel the philosophical position of gay libertarians should be.

Gay libertarians should believe the following:

• Individuals should be free to make their own choices in life.
• Any law that restricts an individuals ability to freely make their own choices is immoral.
• Individuals who are gay should be free to make their own choices in life without any restriction from the government (just as long as those choices are between 2 or more consenting adults).
• Freedom should apply to all individuals no matter how repugnant some might find their choices to be (just as long as those choices are not violating other people's rights).
• If an individual chooses not to rent or sell his home to a gay individual, that individual should be free to do so without having laws criminalizing the behavior.
• If an individual chooses to fire or not hire an individual due to the person's sexual orientation, that individual should be free to do so.
• Marriage is essentially a contract of devotion between 2 (or more) individuals. The state should have no interest in such a contract except when to find an amicable dissolution of such a contract. A civil union, as some have suggested as an alternative for gay marriage, should be more than acceptable solution for such a contract. People who are not the party to the contract should be free to accept the terms of the contract at their own discretion without laws mandating their consent, and in some cases, mandating extra benefits (i.e., company provided health insurance, hospital visitation rights). Taxpayers should not be forced to provide extra benefits to individuals who enter into such a contract, and if they are forced to do so, they should have a say in it through their elected representatives rather than having a ruling imposed upon them through judicial fiat.
• The state should not finance public schools. If the state is going to finance public schools, parents should have as much freedom as possible in choosing the schools that best meet the needs of their children. The reason that is important is because some parents are being forced to pay for public schools through taxes, but then told if they want the benefit of public schools they must send their children to schools that specifically attempt to indoctrinate the children with the belief that the parents religious beliefs on creationism, sexual abstinence and gays is wrong. That has to be the single most offensive form of state coercion that exists today in America, and might very well violate the Separation of Church and State.
• The state should not finance public libraries. If the state is going to finance public libraries, the libraries belong to the citizens. As such, the citizens should have the right to decide, through their elected officials, the content for the library without being accused of censorship if they deem some material inappropriate. Anyone who objects, should take it upon themselves to buy the book or books in question without bemoaning censorship.

As far as I am aware, no gay libertarians are espousing the positions that I just presented. Until gay libertarians start promoting these views or convince me why I am an idiot for believing such, I am going to feel gays are using libertarians to promote non libertarian policies.

A Conservative Civil War

Paul Waldman is salivating over the impending conservative Civil War:

...all the pillars that have held up conservatism for so long are crumbling. When the dust settles, it will be difficult to know just what it means to be a conservative.

Unfortunately, if conservatives do not come together, Paul's words may be prophetic.

Is a conservative who doesn't proclaim the perfection of the free market and the evil of government still a conservative?

America has not had a truly free market economy since the late 1920's. Conservatives first must rally to save capitalism. Once the future of capitalism is safe and secure, conservatives must work to purge the perverse incentives that have precipitated this crisis and that continually confiscate wealth from the American people.

What about a conservative who thinks his comrades ought to quit yapping about gay marriage and get into the 21st century?

Libertarians are being used by the gay community to advocate non libertarian policies. It is the libertarians who need to wake up to this, and they need to stop letting the gay community use them. Libertarians should support gays but only where that support leads to an advancement of libertarian principles. Libertarians should be in alliance with paleocons on most policy issues that the gay community is trying to advance.

What about a conservative who wants to accede to the public's desire for a less bellicose foreign policy?

Due to the state that America's finances will be in for the foreseeable future, all conservatives should essentially advocate more or less an isolationist foreign policy.

The Death of Capitalism

Daniel Gross writes:

Just as happened in 1932, it's possible that the Republicans' incompetence and bullheadedness in managing a financial crisis could lead to Democrats controlling both the White House and Congress.

This sentiment should strike fear in the heart of every free market advocate who reads it. Before the Great Depression, America had a classical free market economy. America was almost a libertarian utopia. After the Great Depression, America slowly became a socialized paternalistic big government nanny state.

If the financial crisis gets worse, and the Democratic party increases its political control, capitalism as we know it may not be able to survive. Saving capitalism should be the goal of all those who ideologically believe in free markets. If that means a bailout needs to be passed, then so be it.

Update: Megan McArdle says it better than I do:

It is worth noting, in answer to the libertarians who are wary of government intervention in the economy, that if there is a serious crash, we will get even more government intervention in the economy--and intervention that is much less to our liking. That cost has to be weighed in your assessment.

Financial crisis resolved?

Hugh Hewitt writes:

If, as appears likely, the two parties which are on opposite sides of a deep ideological divide can work together to resolve a crisis and then immediately return to throwing hammers at each other for five weeks, this will be as great an example of the wonders of our system that can be imagined.

Now that the crisis has been resolved (hopefully), libertarians, conservatives and all those who embrace free markets need to work to save and restore capitalism in America. The stakes are now to high to allow the paternalistic socialist state to continue acquiring more control over the economy and the lives of American people.

Those who embrace free markets need to sell the concept to the American people that the cost of this bailout need not be equally borne by all members of society. Instead, it could more productively be borne by the least productive members of society (i.e., the do nothing civil servant bureaucrats, parasitic accountants and lawyers, upper middle class welfare king and queen college professors, wealthy foreign allies who do not adequately pay for their own defense, dead beat home owners that caused this crisis, monopolistic corporations who gain government induced economy of scale advantages through laws and regulations, etc).

These are tough arguments to make, and undoubtedly, free market advocates will be accused of having no compassion. However, free market advocates need to frame the debate around the concept of having compassion for the hard working Americans who are being asked to borne the cost of solving a problem that they did not create. Free market advocates can win these arguments and save and restore capitalism in America, but they need to get to work ASAP.

Milton Friedman on the Great Depression

http://reason.com/news/show/129017.html

...it is striking how free-market economics have no place in the current debate. They are not seen as a credible response to a Wall Street crisis, even by the presidential nominee of the Republican Party, who is angrily attacking the "greed of Wall Street." Contra Naomi Klein, an economic shock has sent Republicans skittering away from free-market theories; the last thing the party of small government seems interested in letting markets work.

Unfortunately, some libertarians and conservatives need to brush up on the teachings of Milton Friedman.




In case anyone misunderstands my point, Milton Friedman endorses the view that it is necessary for Federal Reserve to prevent contractions in the money supply. That is what financial crisis and negotiations over the bailout are all about.