TheAgitator.com
For My Next Trick…
Tuesday, May 4th, 2004According to Stanley Kurtz, Stanley Kurtz has quickly become the world’s, nay, the universe’s leading critic of gay marriage. If you don’t believe him, just ask him.
Now that I have had a chance to present my case that gay marriage is undermining marriage in Europe to the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, a chorus of critics has risen to challenge my argument. The hearing featured strenuous efforts by Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) and other Democrats to discredit my claims. Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.) staged a bit of an ambush â?? cross-examining me using an (at the time) unpublished article from The New Republic that attacks my work on Scandinavian marriage. As far as I’m concerned, the Democrats failed to shake or rebut my case. But you can judge for yourself by viewing the webcast. (There’s a sound problem toward the end.) You can also consider my testimony, which previews my upcoming work on gay marriage in the Netherlands. That work is important because Holland now has formal gay marriage, and because in the Netherlands it’s particularly easy to isolate the causal effects of gay marriage.
More on Kurtz here.
“…and because in the Netherlands it’s particularly easy to isolate the causal effects of gay marriage.”
The Netherlands tends to be pretty liberal, so one could expect that they would have a liberal view of traditional marriage. However, this liberal attitude could easily be the cause of, not the result of, recognizing gay marriage.
Additionally, if recent trends hold, approximately 2.5% of all marriages in the Netherlands will be between same sex couples. I’d like to see how Mr. Kurtz intends to easily divine a causal relationship from a sample that is smaller than most margins of error.
Notice that both Kurtz and his opponents accept collective welfare as a valid basis upon which to decide matters?
John, I think everyone does that. We just differ in the balance we set between collective welfare and individual freedom.
Few of us, I hope, move the bar too far past a collective imperative to avoid harm to others or their property, but that still means that we accept collective welfare as a basis for decision making to a certain degree.
On the gay marriage stuff. It baffles me what people who are hot under the collar about this must spend their time thinking about.
“Few of us, I hope, move the bar too far past a collective imperative to avoid harm to others or their property,…”
Why wouldn’t that be a matter of individual rights rather than collective welfare?
Flip sides of the same coin.
What exactly is Kurtz problem with “diverse family structures”? He only says that they are bad. According to whom? The argument is not made.
He goes on to decry the potential move to multiple parent families. Is this not natural for collective and communal societies such as those in Scandinavia?
John, apologies. My answer was flippant and unclear. The point I meant to highlight was that in declaring and enforcing personal and property rights the state is limiting the actions which may be undertaken by others without reprisal. The decision to organise a collectively funded body which will defend personal and property rights is taken with the welfare of the collective in mind. The difference, imo, between a libertarian and anyone more statist, is that we believe that a higher degree of individual freedom is beneficial to society as a whole.
Any declared individual right creates an obligation for the collective (which must be funded through taxation), while any declared collective right bestows an obligation for the individual (eg. conscription, taxation). That’s why any discussion of social policy will necessarily touch on the issue of collective welfare.
Maybe it’s because I’ve been working all day and I’m tired but…
I see no point to that very long winded “article” by Kurtz except that a) he likes that people are paying attention to him
and
b) he believes that the only purpose of marriage is to procreate
He makes no point that is backed up anything except his own opinion and “proves” his point by telling you basically “because I said so.”
Is anyone really listening to this bozo?
“The decision to organise a collectively funded body which will defend personal and property rights is taken with the welfare of the collective in mind. “
Who decided to do that?
“The difference, imo, between a libertarian and anyone more statist, is that we believe that a higher degree of individual freedom is beneficial to society as a whole.”
Collectivist libertarians hold collective welfare as the standard, as all collectivists do. Individualist libertarians hold that individuals are primary and sovereign by nature and that no collective interest entitles anyone to authority over another.
“Any declared individual right creates an obligation for the collective (which must be funded through taxation), while any declared collective right bestows an obligation for the individual (eg. conscription, taxation).”
The fact that I recognize and affirm you have a right to your person and property, as I do to mine, does not entail any positive obligation on my part to assist you or society in securing your rights.
‘Who decided to do that?’
Ongoing decision. People decide whether and how to participate, and this shapes the structure going forward.
‘Collectivist libertarians hold collective welfare as the standard, as all collectivists do. Individualist libertarians hold that individuals are primary and sovereign by nature and that no collective interest entitles anyone to authority over another.’
In which case the identification of distinct rights, including property rights, is erroneous. People have the option to do whatever is within their power at any given moment. A right without a corresponding obligation has no power.
‘The fact that I recognize and affirm you have a right to your person and property, as I do to mine, does not entail any positive obligation on my part to assist you or society in securing your rights.’
What practical purpose, then, is served in your identification of distinct rights?
Anyone that claims they can prove absolute causality in social situations can be dimissed without reading any further.
DougB nailed it.
Bernard,
Who decided to organise a collectively funded body to defend personal and property rights?
” A right without a corresponding obligation has no power.”
Individuals can produce or purchase power to secure their rights.
John,
‘Who decided to organise a collectively funded body to defend personal and property rights?’
Individuals decided it over a long period of time, and the ongoing decisions of individuals now on whether and how to participate sustain and define the body.
‘Individuals can produce or purchase power to secure their rights.’
You missed the point. In your model, individuals may do whatever they have power to do, and they cannot do anything they lack the power for.
In this context, identification of anything as a right is irrelevant.
Which leads back to my question:
What practical purpose is served in your identification of distinct rights?
John Kennedy: The fact that I recognize and affirm you have a right to your person and property, as I do to mine, does not entail any positive obligation on my part to assist you or society in securing your rights.
Either you are attesting that you recognize their right, or you are not. You canâ??t have it both ways at the same time.
If a person claims that you have a â??rightâ?, but they are unwilling to behave as if you possess that â??rightâ? then they never really (genuinely) believed that you had the â??rightâ? to begin with.
Belief manifest (most purely) in Action.
You are interested in your own â??rightsâ?, but you arenâ??t interested in anyone elseâ??s. Consequently you shouldnâ??t really expect anyone to be concerned with your â??rightsâ?.
Your problem is that you (naively) believe â??free tradeâ? is actually â??freeâ?.
In that last sentence I meant “free” as in “without cost” (without consequences).