MAJeff here, getting all gay and stuff. It’s been a pretty big year for LGBT folks in the U.S. A couple weeks ago, the state in which I live repealed a law enacted during the height of anti-miscegination activity, and is now allowing same-sex couples from anywhere to marry here. Prior to that, California joined us in offering full equality to same-sex couples. That victory may be short-lived, though. There is an effort underway to take away the right to marry. Folks here can help out by contributing to Equality California who are leading the NO ON 8 campaign.
I had to chuckle the other day when I came across this post at an LA Times blog about their meeting with the folks trying to make life worse for queer people:
The measure’s supporters are generally careful to avoid appearing anti-gay, probably because they realize that, for all the voter split on same-sex marriage, Californians generally support gay rights. They professed in our meeting to have no ill will toward gay people…until the talk went deeper.
Wait, you mean they’re lying when they say they have no problems with gay people? I’m shocked! Shocked, I say!
The LA Times writer continues:
one Prop. 8 supporter said, gay rights are not as important as children’s rights, and it’s obvious that same-sex couples who married would “recruit” their children toward homosexuality because otherwise, unable to procreate themselves, they would have no way to replenish their numbers. Even editorial writers can be left momentarily speechless, and this was one of those moments
Ah, the recruitment line, code for “They’re coming to rape your children.”
The Times blogger is right: the anti-gay folks are careful to avoid showing their true colors; they work very hard to hide the anti-gay animus that drives them. But, lurking beneath the surface of their “We only want to protect marriage” lie is a deep and abiding hatred of queer folks and our communities. Their problem isn’t that we want equal access to the same rights our heterosexual counterparts have. No, their problem is that we exist at all.
That was brought home pretty clearly in a recentletter-to-the-editor in the Boston Globe:
ENOUGH ALREADY with the Globe’s gay agenda. How many front-page stories do we have to see to know that your agenda is to promote the gay/lesbian lifestyle? The July 21 article “Bloom’s off the brick row house: Buyers picking modern high-rise over classic style” could and should have been written from the heterosexual perspective. What you’re writing about is not a gay issue, it’s a human issue, and casting the story in a manner to feature gays is inappropriate. It’s time to straighten out, and I mean that in all senses of the word.
I have my own problems with such stories–namely that they continue to put forth an image of gay men as wealthier than the general public, when there’s actually a wage-penalty attached to those of us who aren’t hetero, and, regarding marriage issues, gay parents are getting by with fewer resources than their straight counterparts (that report is specifically for CA)–but that’s not the point. The bigoted letter writer isn’t concerned with accurate presentations, he’s concerned that there are gay presentations at all. Housing issues may be universal, but the universal is particular–and it’s straight.
I’m sure some folks will trot out the, “Just because I’m against gay marriage doesn’t mean I’m anti-gay” or “just because I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle doesn’t make me a bigot.” Well, it does. What they’re saying is that they want us gone. They want us to disappear. They want gay life to cease.
When folks come out and say they’re opposed to discrimination against people but actively foster such discrimination, they’re lying. They are pro-discrimination. That goes for John McCain, too, who recently said a pro-choice running mate would be acceptable, but not a pro-gay one. He has opposed every effort at including gay people in the institutions of American life. He may not be one of the crazy-ass-type fundies, but he’s also no social moderate. He’s just a “nicer” version of the “agents of intolerance” he “denounced” 8 years ago. His policy preferences on issues related to sexuality are very similar to those of Pat Robertson and John Hagee and Pope Nazinger.
McCain, Robertson, Hagge, Nazinger, McConnell…. These folks and the organizations they lead aren’t just opponents of gay rights, but enemies of gay people. They are all pushing for a return of the institutional closet. They want us neither seen nor heard. And, as ACT-UP so accurately put it, Silence=Death. They may not always want individual gay people to die, but they want our communities to do so.
I take that back, by attempting to push us back into the closet, they do want us to die. There is no life in that miserable space.
Michael @ # 485: I suggest you leave the judging and the hypocrisy to the Christians.
So only Christians get to point out judgmentalism & hypocrisy?
Only fascists get to call out fascist collaborators?
Pfft!
“remove certain obligations from the government…”
Let me get this straight… You claim the government imposes over a thousand rules and regs for married folks in order to protect the unmarried from having to pay for the marriages that did not work out by demanding that the unmarried pay for the social dysfunction of the married and then granting the married a list of do’s and don’ts?
Are you for real?
How about those who want to marry simply make a contract between themselves, whereby if the marriage doesn’t work out, the spouse and children are protected by the original agreement? Where is it necessary for the gubmint to be involved other than a court to square up contracts?
Look, if you wanna kiss up to the man and try and get on his good side, you go right ahead. If I still lived in California I’d even support you in vote there.
But I still have no clue why you want gubmint to have that say over you to begin with? Seems masochistic to me. Maybe you are like those Christians kids who grew up confused by reality, only you are encased in liberalism so severely you just can’t fathom a simpler set of mechanisms?
Who knows?
The mind boggles.
Not to repeat myself, but oh well –
FUCK
YOU
Pierce R. Butler,
I was merely a suggesting that you leave the hypocrisy to those who are better trained in it.
Unless you have evidence that in the middle of sea of blood made up of 72 million pointless deaths you stood up against a regime that annihilated its critics without mercy you are just another hypocrite when you are judging B16 from the safety of your armchair for doing what the majority did, trying to survive.
Unless you have evidence that, in a regime that took power when you were 6 years old and then relentlessly brainwashed your mind in every aspect of your life, you made the “morally correct” choice, you are just a hypocrite.
These silly Nazi arguments just expose your superficial black&white view of complex historical processes and distract from the valid damning criticism of B16’s actions as an adult.
Michael @ # 504 – I’m not trying to pick an argument with you.
I’m trying to pick an argument with the standard apologia for young Ratzinger, who is now held up to be better than the rest of us, and who (sfaik – got any info on this?) has never made any public acknowledgment that, under coercion or otherwise, what he did when he was wearing that other cross (the hakenkreuz) over sixty years ago was kinda, like, y’know, wrong.
Scott: I apologize for mistaking you for another Scott, the one who plagued Slacktivist for so long. That said:
How, IN IMMEDIATE AND PRACTICAL TERMS, would a cry of “The federal government has and should have no right to determine who can and cannot get married! I reject the government’s “institutional” right to dictate ANY aspect of marriage!” benefit a person who’s (say) being prohibited from visiting a same-sex partner in the hospital, by fiat of the partner’s parents?
Instance: Joanna and Maggie have been lovers for twenty years and cohabitants for fifteen. They have never married, because legally they could not.
Now Joanna is in the hospital, and Maggie wants to come and visit her. But Joanna’s parents think Joanna and Maggie’s relationship is “sinful” and will not allow the visits.
How, exactly, does the shout of “The federal government has and should have no right to determine who can and cannot get married! I reject the government’s “institutional” right to dictate ANY aspect of marriage!” benefit either Joanna or Maggie in this circumstance?
Pierce R. Butler,
I haven’t heard someone claim that B16 is better than “the rest of us”. He has all his imaginary friends to derive authority from.
I find his speeches particularly weak because he personally doesn’t bring any charisma or anything to the table that would distract from the garbage that is his religious reasoning. He has the likability of Senator Palpatine. Vaguely attacking his character when you can attack his and his church’s policies head on seems like wasting ammunition.
P.S. Congratulations that you were born into a country where you would have been automatically right on the Hakenkreuz issue.
Germany 1933-45 has many lessons about the systematic dismantling of a democracy and a civil society to offer, all of them obscured by the silly and besides the point good vs. evil, right vs. wrong caricature that you and many other people are perpetrating. This whole “Hitler/Nazis was/were evil, case closed”, view of history that is implied in your reasoning explains exactly as much as the goddidit argument of creationists.
“Instance: Joanna and Maggie have been lovers for twenty years and cohabitants for fifteen. They have never married, because legally they could not.
Now Joanna is in the hospital, and Maggie wants to come and visit her. But Joanna’s parents think Joanna and Maggie’s relationship is “sinful” and will not allow the visits”.
Good question. The question I ask, is, WHO came up with the idea that only family and spouse’s could get access to patients? Isn’t it directly up to the patient? Or shouldn’t it be directly up to the patient? If I were a patient denied access, I would ask to see the hospital administrators and inform them that no payment will be authorized until those rights were granted.
I can’t immediately solve all problems with a cry for common sense government, but as you can see here, there are so many rules and regulations in place that defy common sense (why should a patient not have visitors that they ask for? for example?)and just make everything more complicated and less fair.
I mean, where is the freedom in those fries?
Michael @ # 507: I read a fair amount of Catholic propaganda, but I’ll admit I haven’t found anything in my archives declaring Benny16 as “better than the rest of us” in so many words.
Given the general volume of analingual exaltation, however (from Rev. T.J. Euteneuer, Human Life International newsletter Vol 1, Nr 75, 7/13/07: Friends, we need to pray for our dear Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, and thank God for the gift that he is to the Church! He has not left us to dangle in the errant winds of the most recent fad or breathe the noxious fumes of doctrinal dissent. He has revitalized us with the fresh air of truth.), I hope my false impression can be forgiven by performance of no more than 13,945 Hail Marys.
As to whether it’s more effective to focus on Ratzinger as a person or his church as an institution, I’m reminded of similar admonishments when I (as an American) would badmouth our current Decider. Though the individual’s peccadilloes are secondary to the Big Picture, by now very few bother to assert that criticizing Dubious himself is beside the point.
Moreover, when the focus is on the Holy Mother Church’s growing fascistic tendencies, the presence of an unrepentant Hitler Youth’s butt on the Throne of St. Peter is such a perfect illustration of the thesis that it would be positively sinful to omit it.
As for the historical lessons to be learned, we agree that there are many which pertain very uncomfortably to the present day. (My personal take is that the US at present has more in common with Germany of WWI and the Weimar Republic than with Reich v.3, but that’s a little too tangential for the present thread.) Nonetheless, I hope you don’t disagree that a conclusion of WRONG is undeniable, and that the Church’s half-hearted regrets about that whole 1933-45 episode are particularly telling in light of their own self-proclaimed mandate as universal moral arbiters.
Religious people fear gay marriage because they believe it will lead to more people being gay. In a way it will. Their fear is accurate. As society lets go of the stigma, more people will feel free to be who they want to be, and therefor less people will be in the closet. It will look as though the numbers of gay people rose, but it will be misleading.
I feel that more people are gay or bi than is reflected in current society. It is my belief that millions of people fight their desires due to religious brainwashing, which is tragic. I feel sad for them. I think many Christians fear gayness and gay marraige because they know that if there were no stigma, they too just might have a bit’o the gay. They fear facing themselves.
I haven’t read all the comments yet,so if someone mentioned this already, just ignore me.
I think some of you are confusing polygamy with polyamory.
Polygamy is almost always religious, it’s one man with multiple wives and in most cases it is an abusive arrangement. Polyamory is totally different. It is based on mutual respect and freedom, not control.
Nice post MAJeff – I think it’s a kind of progress that many anti-Gay bigots now go to some lengths to pretend not to be.
Sweet FSM, aren’t these “libertarians” tedious, with their one-note anthem? Guys, in the real world, strengthening a government’s powers sometimes benefits those being bullied – even though governments are mostly at the beck and call of big business. Reality is a little more complicated than your fantasy of a pristine libertarian America, which never really existed, and never could. I shall henceforth refer to you by the more appropriate name of “propertarians”, since it’s actually property, not liberty, that is your central concern.
On Pope Ratfinger, the point is not that he was in the Hitler Youth and the armed forces of Nazi Germany, but that he hasn’t admitted that, young as he was, he made choices, and could have chosen otherwise – some who were as young as he was did so. Follow SC’s link:http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/i/RatzingerNazi.htm .
“Sweet FSM, aren’t these “libertarians” tedious, with their one-note anthem? Guys, in the real world, strengthening a government’s powers sometimes benefits those being bullied… Reality is a little more complicated than your fantasy of a pristine libertarian America, which never really existed, and never could”.
Don’t see a single Libertarian on this thread, but that doesn’t stop the base generalizations, does it?
Interesting that on National television, in front of the entire nation, two presidential candidates BOTH looked squarely into the cameras and told gay America that it is allowed to legislate and discriminate against you.
It got the biggest cheers from the audience, too.
I simply ask, WHO gives them the right? And WHY do they have that right?
And why do you support that right?
Why feed that right?
And so on…
It seems highly masochistic to me.
Scott from Oregon,
John C. Randolph is a self-described “libertarian”. Andrew N.P. appears to be another and you, despite saying you are “not a Libertarian” have been bleating on the same note in every comment you’ve made, here or in other threads: “Market gooood, gubmint baaaaaad”.
Good question. The question I ask, is, WHO came up with the idea that only family and spouse’s could get access to patients? Isn’t it directly up to the patient? Or shouldn’t it be directly up to the patient?
Maybe the patient is unconscious, you fucking piece of shit. We let in family members during that time because they can often be trusted by default, but a random member of the public is not so trusted.
It’s disgusting to hear you put your ideology above families. I hope no one dear to you is taken away in a tragic accident.
“Maybe the patient is unconscious, you fucking piece of shit”.
And???
“It’s disgusting to hear you put your ideology above families. I hope no one dear to you is taken away in a tragic accident”.
Have we found an unhinged one?
Ummm, what ideology that supercedes whose family?
“We let in family members during that time because they can often be trusted by default, but a random member of the public is not so trusted”.
Random member of the public?
The mind boggles.
Probably 90% of all close relationships are not familial in America. But suddenly, I am a piece of shit…
Weird…
“have been bleating on the same note in every comment you’ve made, here or in other threads: “Market gooood, gubmint baaaaaad”.”
Actually, I never once made that implication. I simply maintain government, especially federal, has gotten too big and too “attached” to society, and, in case no one is looking, too dictatorial and too in everybody’s business.
From gay marriage to pot as meds to roads and bridges to housing to schooling… and so on and so forth…
The feds have taken control.
Granted, there is nothing exciting about peeling back these assertions (insertions?)nor anything spectacular in the basic idea that simple is better. (Remember KISS?).
If you don’t want to be dictated to by a small Washington cabal, I’d suggest you join in and help put the kaibash on federal assumptions of control…
I can’t believe no one’s pointed this out – maybe I just missed it. I’m not choosing a side on the nature/nurture debate but:
Like,say, atheists?
And thank you, Rayven at #511, for pointing out the polygamy/polyamory difference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory
Scott from Oregon@517,
Believe it or not, there are people who don’t live in the USA – and I’m one of them. Your evident belief that nothing outside the USA could possibly be of any relevance or significance is one of the things that is most tedious in your comments.
“Your evident belief that nothing outside the USA could possibly be of any relevance or significance…”
Ummmm, again, you make huge assumptions.If I told you where I’ve both lived and been, you’d call me a liar.
Also, I am unimpressed by the fact that the gay marriage issue seems important to you (here in the US) but the ways to repair it don’t…
Or do you just like to poke your nose into things that don’t include you and then complain about those who it does matter to?
Odd, that…
Or do you just like to poke your nose into things that don’t include you – Scott from Oregon
I regard oppression and unnecessary suffering as my concern wherever they occur. I object to your ludicrous nostrums because they are based on fantasies about how the world works, and in many cases would tend to increase rather than decrease these things.
“I regard oppression and unnecessary suffering as my concern wherever they occur. I object to your ludicrous nostrums because they are based on fantasies about how the world works, and in many cases would tend to increase rather than decrease these things”.
I see… You know how the world works, and I… oh so silly me… am full of fantasies…
Funny.
Here we have a classic case where a group of people– gay men and women– are being oppressed by society AND the government, with the society USING the government as a blunt tool for this oppression; and government, using the oppression as a selling point for its wannabe members…
And YOU tell me that the government NEEDS to be involved in this oppression, because YOU know how the world works and don’t like to see opression…
I don’t know whether to laugh at you or just finish vaccuming without incident…
The mind indeed boggles…
mandrake @ 518
What? I can only speak for myself, but I tried for years during my childhood to believe in a god and wished sincerely that I could. My only choice in “becoming” an atheist was to resign myself to what I had always known to be true.
Scott,
The thing with the unconscious patient is that the patient wouldn’t be able to vouch for visitors, so the hospital would have to default to keeping everybody out for privacy’s sake. Unless, that is, they have a legally-recognized relationship with the patient. So, the nonexistence of such a relationship for partners would be directly causing people to not be able to be in their loved one’s presence.
Perhaps it could still be “up to the patient”, as you say, if they produced a living will beforehand… although that has its drawbacks and most people won’t think to do it. The point is, the institution of a legal, government-recognized union actually has quite a few good reasons for existing.
“Unless, that is, they have a legally-recognized relationship with the patient. So, the nonexistence of such a relationship for partners would be directly causing people to not be able to be in their loved one’s presence”.
YOU DON’T NEED GOVERMENT TO MAKE SOMETHING LEGAL, LIKE MARRIAGE!!!!!
A marriage is a contract. Contracts occur all day everyday without government consent.
The government does not need to validate any contract.
Isn’t that simple enough?
Get married, or get “contracted”, or whatever you want, with whomever you please.
No nanny state necessary.
It is the government that has you convinced you NEED it, and it has made laws to ENSURE that you do. Get rid of those laws. Get government consent out of the equation.
They are not necessary laws, and they are not hyper-beneficial laws.
Most of the time, they are simply laws aimed at maintaining control.
And they don’t like gay people because to stay in government, you need the votes of the bigots and the Christians…
Scott@508: “fuck you” and Falyne are on the right track. In the real-life case I based my example on, “Joanna” was unconscious, possibly comatose (I don’t remember right now). Her parents were granted legal guardianship, and decided who could and could not visit her — and “Maggie” was on the “could not” list.
Now, I repeat: how will Maggie’s standing outside the hospital and shouting “The federal government has and should have no right to determine who can and cannot get married! I reject the government’s “institutional” right to dictate ANY aspect of marriage!” benefit either her or Joanna IN REAL AND IMMEDIATE AND PRACTICAL TERMS?
DCN@524-
hm. Good point. Atheism may not be innate, but it certainly doesn’t *feel* like a choice. If I don’t have “faith”, well, then I don’t, and how can I change that?
OTOH, Mark Twain said “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so”, which implies that *some* people can do it.
Scott from Oregon,
You are truly an idiot. Often, as you say, governments are oppressive. They are not, however, the tools of “society”, because “society” does not have anything even approaching a unified point of view, or a means of exerting it if it had. And sometimes, sometimes Scott, they can be used by organised groups within society to oppose oppression and unnecessary suffering. To simply remove the government, without having in place alternative institutions for preventing the strong bullying the weak, would be a disaster for the latter. I suspect, in fact, that that is precisely what a lot of “libertarians” want (not you, I think you’re just stupid). In the case of the USA, you would find plenty of localities, and even states, where minorities, or for that matter unarmed majorities, would be oppressed, driven out, enslaved or slaughtered. If you want to live in a paradise free of government, Somalia and parts of Afghanistan are at present your best chances. Contracts, of course, will not suffice. Who enforces the contracts, Scott, if one side reneges? Who decides what exactly the contract means if the two sides disagree? Who decides whether a contract is permissible – can a person sell themselves into slavery? Can a 15 year-old consent to sex? To elective surgery? Can untested “cures” for cancer be sold to the desperate? If A has contracts with B and C, and the two clash, who determines which has priority? In the case of Maggie and Joanna, suppose Joanna was visiting her parents when she fell ill, and they take her to a hospital that considers gay partners the tools of Satan? Maggie can wave her contract with Joanna all she likes, but who’s going to make the hospital let her in? As I said, the real world is more complicated than your fantasies – and they seem to be all you care about.
The fans of Mr. Potcosyhead are saying that it wasn’t possible to resist. Don’t you think that’s disrespectful to the people who resisted and got executed?
In case someone missed the letter from the Irish senator that I linked to in #133, here’s the part that was relevant to this thread:
Sastra (@488):
You know, it’s getting pretty obvious that we don’t just hand out Mollies for no reason: Your analysis…
…on the point of identity politics is brilliant. But while I like your optimism, I’m concerned that it’s a bit too hopeful to assume that identity politics precludes actual animus. That is, I agree that many of the “‘protect marriage’ crowd” may not have had an a priori animus against homosexuality, but I’m concerned that their pseudo-rational justifications for identifying “them” almost inevitably morph into at least animus, if not outright hatred. Once you’ve decided to discriminate against another group, don’t you really require some sort of animus as an emotional self-justification for your prejudice?
I lived through a real-world example of this when I was growing up in the Houston area: Just down the road in Galveston, a large contingent of war refugees from Southeast Asia[1] — the so-called Boat People — settled and, consistent with their skills and former life, took up shrimp fishing. It turned out they were good at it… exceptionally good… and extremely hardworking. The existing (overwhelmingly white, ‘Murrican) shrimp fleet was understandably (and not irrationally) concerned about this new competition for the limited resource that defined their livelihood. It all started out as relatively genial competition, but quickly escalated into first claims (not necessarily incorrect ones) of poaching, then racist namecalling, and finally to the burning of several of the “foreign” boats. (I’ve been away from that area for decades now, BTW; I’m not aware of the current state of relations in the shrimp fleet.) It seemed to me that the white shrimpers started out with a rational, arguably legitimate reason for defining the newcomers as “other,” but quickly devolved into actual racist hatred, no doubt in order to justify their fears to themselves.
I’m afraid that pattern might be inherent in the human condition: I have often thought (and this is a gut feel, based on no background whatsoever in psychology or neurobiology, so y’all can feel free to rip me up on this) that humans are inherently inclined (and deeply so) to split things in two. This, IMHO, accounts for our addiction to dichotomy (even when false), and for the tendency of human societies to divide into us and them, whether according to the flag we march under or the god(s) we worship or the shape of our genitals or the color of our skins. The thing is, having decided that they deserve less guns, food, money, and freedom than we do, we must construct justifying reasons for that inequality… and while those reasons may start out as at least ostensibly analytical and rational, they seem always to slide into fear and its inevitable byproduct, hatred.
[1] IIRC, these were mostly Vietnamese folks… but I was sufficiently unsure of national origins that I wimped out with the more generic geographical reference.
Thank you for that, windy.
By the way, I recommend the film Sophie Scholl (out on DVD) to anyone who hasn’t yet seen it:
http://www.sophieschollmovie.com/
Weighing in on the Pope deal… I don’t think people are saying that it was impossible to resist, just that it’s unreasonable to expect someone to have existed. Most people don’t actually respond ‘properly’ when the threat of utter ruination is so very present. It’s quite possible to honor those who ARE honorable to the point of greatest loss, yet still recognize that many fundamentally good people will, by the facts of human psychology, be taken in during such events.
(Side note: I watched Phil Zimbardo’s Human Psychology series during my AP Psych class, heard him talk at my college, and want to plug his “Lucifer Effect” book on the subject of humans and evil. Given that after the prison experiment, this guy *knows* that *he himself* is capable of evil, he’s got a lot of interesting takes on the subject.)
So, I for one would be willing to give the pope a reasonable pass for his pretty-darn-expected behavior in Germany. Now, the fact that he hasn’t apologized for it in the years since is quite, quite worrisome. Add in his somewhat traditional and even draconian views, and we may have ourselves a situation, but the young nazi thing needn’t be a contributing part of it. This particular liberal atheist feminist has enough annoyance with him due to his recent history, anyway. ;-)
“just that it’s unreasonable to expect someone to have existed.”
existed => resisted. D’oh!
SC, here’s a really cute specimen, like straight out of the Vatican. (In case I confused any Americans, I didn’t mean one of those aluminum foil contraptions. Although on second thought…)
windy, my first reaction (as an American) was indeed “lolwut?”.
Then again, I wasn’t quite sure how to parse “potcozyhead”. I mean, I know what a “pothead” is, so I thought it was something along those lines, but that didn’t make much sense….. then I saw the picture, looked at your previous statement, and figured out what the devil a “pot cozy” was. Surprising it took that long, since I know a bunch of knitters and *have* run across the term “cozy” in that context before. Ah well.
And yes, that does look surprisingly like his hat, only slightly LESS kitschy ;-)
“””To simply remove the government, without having in place alternative institutions for preventing the strong bullying the weak, would be a disaster for the latter. I suspect, in fact, that that is precisely what a lot of “libertarians” want (not you, I think you’re just stupid). In the case of the USA, you would find plenty of localities, and even states, where minorities, or for that matter unarmed majorities, would be oppressed, driven out, enslaved or slaughtered.”””
Oh, I see. Slaughtered! If you remove the government’s right to dictate who can and cannot get married, there will be slaughter in the sreets. (And you call me stupid?)
In the US, (that place you aren’t interested in) the Constitution actually spells out the role and function of government.
If you are interested in understanding what level of federal government I am talking about, I suggest you read it.
Scott from Oregon:
I am increasingly sure that responding to you is pointless, at least in terms of changing your mind… but your libertarian ideas (and that’s what they are, regardless of your insistence that you’re not a large-L Libertarian) can be seductive, and so require refutation for the benefit of credulous lurkers, who might more amenable to listening to the other side than you appear to be.
Two points: First, you seem incapable of making distinctions between the acts of a representative government and the dictates of a king. The “thousand rules and regs” you reference are agreements amongst ourselves, not arbitrary whims imposed from above.
Second, you don’t seem to realize that we, as a society, aren’t consitutionally inclined to submit ourselves to the impersonal cruelty of “the market”: We will not willingly allow abandoned spouses and children to sicken and starve in the streets, but instead we will care for and feed and shelter them, inevitably at greater cost and with poorer effectiveness than if their partners had kept faith with them in the first place.
Every culture that has marriage recognizes that it entails a system of rights and obligations between the partners; the laws that establish or refer to marriage don’t create those rights and obligations, they merely codify and enforce them. It’s better for all of us if the rights and obligations of married people are formally defined, and it’s cheaper for all of us (in the long run) if the law works to try to ensure married people live up to their obligations, so that we don’t have to.
Marriage, like any other legal partnership, is a contract between the parties already… but who enforces the contract? Any two groups of 5 or more people can agree to play basketball, which is theoretically a noncontact sport… but without refs to call fouls and manage the game, odds are good it’s going to get bloody. The refs are there not to make up arbitrary rules, but to define and enforce the rules the parties have previously ostensibly agreed to in principle.
Well, in addition to attempting to ensure individuals live up to the obligations they’ve taken on, we have a mutual cooperative interest in encouraging people to organize themselves into groupings that help make the larger society function better. So if we all agree that folks living together for the sake of mutual material and emotional support is a generally beneficial thing, we make rules that encourage (but do not require) folks to do so. To continue my basketball analogy, this is the equivalent of tweaking the shot clock and the size of the lane and the rules about zone defense in order to make the game more appealing. Since it’s the stakeholders making those tweaks, and not some external oppressor, that seems perfectly legitimate to me.
What would be masochistic would be to passively submit to whoever happened along with more economic or physical power, without even asking one’s neighbors to help defend one’s rights. Marriage equality advocates are only asking the neighbors to defend everybody’s rights in the same way they already defend most folks’.
To achieve this essential fairness in supporting the “marriage” contract, we must remove from its definition all arbritrary references to private sexual behavior. It does not follow that we should therefore completely rescind government’s (mostly positive) role in definitizing and enforcing contracts.
“The “thousand rules and regs” you reference are agreements amongst ourselves, not arbitrary whims imposed from above”.
Ummm, technically, yes, but actually, no. Many of them have grown out of government, as government legislates to simply legislate. More than half, I am guessing, could easily be removed from the books altogether with zero negative societal impact, especially if you removed the income tax and the grotesque and convoluted tax laws that accompany it.
“Well, in addition to attempting to ensure individuals live up to the obligations they’ve taken on, we have a mutual cooperative interest in encouraging people to organize themselves into groupings that help make the larger society function better. So if we all agree that folks living together for the sake of mutual material and emotional support is a generally beneficial thing, we make rules that encourage (but do not require) folks to do so”.
Ummm, this just tells me you are fine with the majority using government to oppress the minority if the minority doesn’t agree with what the majority deems beneficial. Gay marriage is just one example of this. If you think this type of social engineering is fine, tell all gays and lesbians that you think the majority should be able to use the government to oppress them, becomes the majority thinks gays and lesbians marrying is not good for society…
“What would be masochistic would be to passively submit to whoever happened along with more economic or physical power, without even asking one’s neighbors to help defend one’s rights. Marriage equality advocates are only asking the neighbors to defend everybody’s rights in the same way they already defend most folks'”.
What is it with you big gubmint types that make ya wanna use these hugely disproportionate arguments to justify the need for government meddling?
How does removing the government’s jurisdiction over who gets to make a contract between consenting adults suddenly turn into “submitting masochistically to whomever came along”?
The mind boggles.
windy @ #535,
You have now made my day.
Scott from Oregon,
What have paragraphs ever done to you, that you hate them so?
Bill Dauphin,
Please don’t join any pickup games anytime soon, Bill. “Blood on the playground,…” :)
Nick,
just wanted to say that I found “Scott from Oregon” far more interesting than the average “Libertarian”.
He’s made me think about a few things, and without saying that I agree with what he writes, there is one important question that ‘m starting to ask myself.
Is the United States, as one nation, with one central government, simply not too big ?
I’ve always been more or less a social-democrat, always pro European, but when I see the resistance, within Europe, to move to an even more centralised form of government, which would become quite similar to the United States, with one head of the Union, an army, a common foreign policy etc…, I really wonder if it’s not going to far, and in that case, if the United States as it is, is itself not sustainable.
Wouldn’t it be better for the USA, to split itself into 10-20 independent countries that share a structure above but without the huge expense budget, in the same way as we do it currently in the European Union ?
I think it becomes a question of wether there is a limit to the kind of budget that politicians should manage, and still do it efficiently.
Bill Dauphin,
You may be interested in a study I did as an undergrad. I compared two systems for managing pool-table use in bars: putting down quarters on the edge of the table and signing names to a chalkboard. (My boyfriend at the time and I played a lot of pool and hung out in a lot of bars, so it was the perfect research project for me – didn’t even interfere with my leisure :).) I found that the quarters system was a disaster – arguments or physical fights broke out in almost every place that used it, just in the time that I was watching. The chalkboard system, in contrast, worked like a charm. I don’t think I ever witnessed a single instance of conflict, despite the fact that there was no authority managing the allocation of tables. Take from that what you will.
SfO:
Yes, stupid. Precisely the right word. Admittedly even removing all government regulation of marriage would probably result “only” in a sigificant uptick in domestic violence, rather than widespread slaughter in the streets… but you’re arguing for such removal based on principle, and the principle you’re articulating — that it’s generally inappropriate for government to have a role in enforcing the rights and obligations embodied in contracts — would, if broadly accepted, have vast implications for the structure of our society. When you argue for a change in law based on principle rather than pragmatism (i.e., when you say not “this law is bad because it doesn’t work,” but rather “this law is bad because it’s philosophically wrong.”), you must consider the effect of applying that principle universally.
In this case, the principle you espouse would eliminate all governmental protection of weak individuals against those more powerful. Deprived of legitimate protection against exploitation and destruction, the weak would have no choice but to avail themselves of illegitimate protection: armed insurrection. Since their desperation would not magically make them less weak (and since the already-strong almost certainly have more guns), the inevitable result would be their literal slaughter in the streets, just as Nick points out.
As others have mentioned to you, for real-world instruction in the glories of societies with weak or nonexistent central governments, you should familiarize yourself with places like Somalia or Afghanistan… places where “slaughter in the streets” is quite clearly not theoretical hyperbole.
Scott, DUDE.
No one said that lack of marriage leads to slaughter. What was said is that lack of government control over the populace, and that the lack of protection for minorities, leads to slaughter.
There are very very many very very angry people with lots and lots of guns that want very very much to literally kill all gays, blacks, hispanics, etc., etc.
Even if the literally murderous impulses are turned aside through criminal prosecution (although if it’s an all-white town with a white sheriff and an all-white jury presiding over a lynching trial, for example, such deterrence is QUITE incomplete) there’s still a lot of folks that would be hurt by a lack of government meddling. Anti-discrimination laws come immediately to mind.
The upshot is, the majority doesn’t need government support to fend off oppression by minority groups, as the majority could enforce its own rules. However, the minority groups DO need protection from the majority, and it is to America’s benefit that this is provided. This is why we have checks and balances and judicial overview, as well as federal overview of the states.
Also, with the size of the USA, it really becomes a question wehter it’s possible to change anything.
If the USA today were a union of 10-20 independent countries, say for example “Pacifica” = California + Oregon + Washngton, Pacifica would already be on its way to solving a lot of issues with regards to separation of church and State or healthcare, or even its educational system. But instead, it has to endure the slow responsiveness of some other areas within the USA. Why should Pacifica be penalised by Texas ?
As far as defense is concerned, Pacifica could have its own army, similar to the size of the British or French army, it would avoid these bad reflexes of wanting to be the world’s central policeman, and for internatonal stability, would be a member of NATO, which we already have.
So what benefit would the inhabitants of Pacifica lose compare with current situation ? The American Union could still agree on a common economic market, the right to live and move accross this Union as we have it within the European Union, so why the need for a central federal government ?
“In this case, the principle you espouse would eliminate all governmental protection of weak individuals against those more powerful”.
Actually, no. The strict Libertarian view is that government protect all incursions of violence. I agree with that view, but what where I differ is that I also agree communities have a right to legislate morals and dictate land usage through local governments.
“…that it’s generally inappropriate for government to have a role in enforcing the rights and obligations embodied in contracts…”
Again, No. You’re wrong. THAT is THE ESSENTIAL role of government. But enforcing contracts is NOT THE SAME as dictating what the terms of those contracts are based on “moral principles” instead of simply testing if the contract is harmful.
What is harmful about gay marriage? Nothing.
Is it a moral question? To me, no. But apparently, to many, yes. Why are the morals of many being used through government to dictate this morality?
“Nick,
just wanted to say that I found “Scott from Oregon” far more interesting than the average “Libertarian”.
He’s made me think about a few things, and without saying that I agree with what he writes, there is one important question that ‘m starting to ask myself.
Is the United States, as one nation, with one central government, simply not too big “?
My answer to that is YES. It is too big for top down government, and yet, so many people have been hoodwinked into accepting the reeming from above.
And you are right, if states took it upon themselves to provide things like health care, you would already have good systems in place in many of the “blue” states.
Instead, the whole country gridlocks over what the feds are dictating.
And your analogy about the EU is spot on. If you give control upward to an ever centralized government, you get homogeniety, one-size-fits all legislation that is often inappropriate, a magnification of mistakes, greater abuses of power… etc…
The closer government is to your front door, the more acessible it is to the people it governs, and the more the people it govern can ensure that what they are paying for is what they are getting.
And speaking of theoretical hyperbole, we return to Hobbes… C’mon, Bill. You think New England towns are prevented from devolving into chaos and violence because of the existence of a strong central government? I think people in your state have shown themselves quite capable of organizing their own affairs, for quite some time. Federations of locally-self-governing units are entirely feasible. That’s not the problem with SfO’s “argument.”
Speaking of local governance in New England, I would be interested to hear Scott from Oregon’s thoughts on developments like this:
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?id=1828
“As others have mentioned to you, for real-world instruction in the glories of societies with weak or nonexistent central governments, you should familiarize yourself with places like Somalia or Afghanistan… places where “slaughter in the streets” is quite clearly not theoretical hyperbole”.
Once again, nonsense. I could easily suggest the opposite and say North Korea, East Germany (when it existed), China (for personal liberty), Egypt (for a religously embattled democracy) Every old Russian satellite state, Russia herself… (And then we can look at Cuba, South America…)
Nobody said anything about “non-existent”. The Constitution outlines what the role of the central government SHOULD BE.
It does a pretty good job of it too. You should read it sometime.
“Speaking of local governance in New England, I would be interested to hear Scott from Oregon’s thoughts on developments like this:”
From the article–
“The problem is that the system isn’t set up to protect the rights or interests of the average human. Rick Smith of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) says that when people realize that corporate rights override community rights it’s “shocking to them.”
That the rights of a legal fiction, the corporation, trump the rights of human beings is the result of years of work by corporations to bend legislation and court rulings in their favor. Since the Supreme Court first cracked the constitutional door in 1819, it has steadily opened it wider, giving corporations virtually every protection in the Bill of Rights”.
Ummm, you want MY view? The locals have the right (should have the right) through local ordinances to control their own environment.
It reminds me of something I ran into while riding a bicycle across Australia years back. Before the Japanese bubble burst, they were all hot to buy cheap coastal land in Australia and build huge retirement and vacation “villages” along Austrlia’s north east coastline. They bought up forty miles of beach front sugar cane farms and then drew up massive plans, which they took to the local shire council for approval. The locals looked over the plans and said “No, sorry mates. You can’t build that here.”
Local government at its finest…
Scott from Oregon,
Everyone has heard your general criticisms of others’ views (including your strawman versions of them). What are you proposing, in practical terms? If you were joining the movements for sexual/reproductive rights, what actions would you propose, say, at a local meeting in California? Have you studied or been involved with these movements, as MAJeff, for example, has? Would your proposed course of action be entirely incompatible with what people are doing on the ground now, and if so how?
SfO @ #550,
Thank you for your response to my earlier question.
SC– I come from California, in fact, from near Guerneville, which should be known to all as a “gay safe” zone in a country full of bigots. I also have relatives who come from Jackson Mississipi…
The point being, I “get” the struggle. Gay, to me, is a normal minority element in society.
Like I said, if I lived in California, I would support the gay cause for equality and even proselytize it.
I just look at the issue in a larger framework.
The day a George Jesus Saved My Liver Bush stood up and stated “I am the decider” and Dick Cheney, when told his views differed from the American consensus view said “So?”, I realized that the sytsem had gotten out of whack.
Power needed to be inverted, from top down to bottom up.
I have a sister in chemo in California who is able to get THC for medication because California went against federal moral dictation, but the feds could arrest her because the feds think they have the right.
The way power is being lifted upward to a central place IS a big deal, and affects all. I think gays, having felt the brunt of the words of the closest thing to liberal governance (Obama) “Marriage is between a man and a woman”,
would “get” that the feds assume far too much.
Scott, what happens when the local government, in much the same vein of keeping out “undesirable elements”, sets up a sundown town? Or enacts various Jim Crow laws?
Local government isn’t *inherently* more just than national government. In many ways, it’s more vulnerable to demagoguery and the tyranny of the majority, especially since the local judges are likely to be drawn from the same good ol’ boys clubs as local officials are, and thus be less effective in performing judicial oversight.
I consider myself a small-l libertarian, but my focus is on *individual* liberties. If state’s rights or community rights infringe on individual rights, I am in that moment a Federalist.
Pardon my rudeness, but it appears you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about! This trope of legislative masturbation is popular among people who loathe government; less so among people who actually have a clue. I’ve never seen the slightest shred of actual evidence that legislators pass meaningless laws just for the sake of passing laws, and now that I have (recently and for the first time in my life) gotten to know both my congressman and my state rep personally, I have some personal evidence to the contrary. It’s hard to pass a law. It takes real investment, in terms of both labor and political capital, and nobody does it for no reason. You’re just wrong.
Pay attention much? My position in this thread has been to oppose just such “oppression.” Indeed, the whole structure of the government you’re so eager to undermine is designed to protect minorities (however defined) and less powerful individuals against the tyranny of those more powerful (whether because of numbers or sheer main strength). The difference between you and me is that even when I’m concerned about redressing majoritarian excesses, I still recognize that a general castration of government would harm the interests of minorities and the weak, not help them.
BTW, in case you’ve mislaid your scorecard, gay marriage is not specfically banned in most states. What happened in MA and CA is that courts examined those states’ existing law and determined that there was no basis for denying the existing protections of marriage based on sexual orientation. It’s not the liberals and marriage equality advocates who are trying to expand government’s mandate in this case; it’s the right-wingers and so-called “defenders of marriage” who want to create new legal restrictions.
You’ll note that I’ve been arguing for less restriction over who can enter into these contracts… but your “fix” would not only achieve my end, but also destroy the goverment’s ability to mediate and enforce said contracts. Ask any divorced parent who’s having trouble collecting child support payments whether s/he needs less help; ask any battered wife… but ask quick, while she can still actually speak. The government’s role in protecting those who cannot protect themselves is not some poli-sci essay question; it has real-world ramifications.
Indeed it does.
The point being, I “get” the struggle. Gay, to me, is a normal minority element in society.
Like I said, if I lived in California, I would support the gay cause for equality and even proselytize it.
I just look at the issue in a larger framework.
See, Scott, this is exactly the sort of response I expected (thank you again for answering, though). I’m an anarchist, and have long appreciated that these questions must be viewed from a “larger framework.” However, if the insights gained from that vision do not translate into concrete action in these struggles, they are essentially worthless. Progress can only be made where ideas meet practice. I’m sure you could support this cause where you are, and would come up against some of the complexities involved in the process, as activists do every day. It’s about making real choices about how to proceed, and an abstract, merely critical view adds little unless it can inform those choices.
Here’s an article from one of the groups I mentioned above from a few months back that gets at some of these complexities in action on the ground:
http://www.anarkismo.net/article/7738
What I’m saying is that confronting these complexities requires more than antistatist platitudes. It requires creative and organized approaches to human rights struggles.
“Pardon my rudeness, but it appears you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about! This trope of legislative masturbation is popular among people who loathe government; less so among people who actually have a clue. I’ve never seen the slightest shred of actual evidence that legislators pass meaningless laws just for the sake of passing laws”…
Actually, these days, the legislation is being written by the beneficiaries of that legislation. Take, for example, the new “bail-out” package written by the banks. 600 pages and there is no way it was read by the legislators who passed it or the president who signed it into law. In it, the tax payer is being obliged to pay for the mistakes the banks made, while the CEO’s of those banks still rake in their huge profit bonuses.
The federal government has increased in size by 60 % in the last eight years. Who did that? Not the populace.
“Progress can only be made where ideas meet practice. I’m sure you could support this cause where you are, and would come up against some of the complexities involved in the process, as activists do every day. It’s about making real choices about how to proceed, and an abstract, merely critical view adds little unless it can inform those choices…”
I agree with this.
Since I am not gay, though, the marriage issue is abstract to me, while I realize it has consequences to those it affects.
Therefore, I can only toss in an abstract opinion on the topic, hoping to get people to take a harder look at what we, as Americans, are doing to ourselves.
“You’ll note that I’ve been arguing for less restriction over who can enter into these contracts… but your “fix” would not only achieve my end, but also destroy the goverment’s ability to mediate and enforce said contracts. Ask any divorced parent who’s having trouble collecting child support payments whether s/he needs less help; ask any battered wife… but ask quick, while she can still actually speak”.
Ummm, no. The libertarian view would be that government’s obligation is to enforce contracts and prohibit violence of any kind. I agree with that view. It IS NOT a purveyor of morality, though, and should not be used as a tool to enforce moral differences between consenting parties, (and in cases where there is ambiguity, it should only be done on a state or local basis, as morals differ regionally).
Since I am not gay, though, the marriage issue is abstract to me, while I realize it has consequences to those it affects.
The fact that you’re not gay is no excuse for not trying to learn about these concrete battles and appreciate the question from a practical point of view.
Therefore, I can only toss in an abstract opinion on the topic, hoping to get people to take a harder look at what we, as Americans, are doing to ourselves.
Again, these uninformed, broad, abstract opinions are of little value in general and no practical value in particular, and, after much repetition without any real engagement with the questions faced by grounded movements, become extremely tedious to people – gay or straight – who are actually involved in fighting for these rights.
negentropyeater@541,
Different scales are appropriate for different kinds of decision or regulation; and also under different historical circumstances, technological resources, etc. Currently, the most crucial problems we face are global in scale – they need regulations, and/or agreements, at a global scale. A clear case in the near future is control of greenhouse gas emissions: without an international agreement between the major emitters in the next decade or so, our civilisation’s goose is probably cooked – at best, there will be suffering and premature death on a vast scale. A clear case in the recent past is that of damage to the ozone layer: without the Montreal Protocol of 1989 we would by now be in desperate trouble. These are extremely difficult cases for all decentralists – the fewer the independent parties who need to agree, the better the chances of agreement. They are especially different for “libertarians” – after all, the individual or corporate emitter of CFCs or GHGs is not being violent, and each individual’s or even corporation’s own contribution to the problem is small: it’s a classic social dilemma – where each of a set of agents is better off behaving in one way, but unless they can all agree, or be coerced, to behave in another, all will suffer. This is why, typically, “libertarians” deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change – and even that CFCs damage the ozone layer: their fantasies crumble if they admit these realities. On many other issues, decentralisation is indeed beneficial – but it’s not a panacea. If SfO had his way, there would be plenty of local tyrannies in the USA – run by the FLDS, the Scientologists, the Aryan Nations, the Black Muslims and many others. There would also be even greater inequality than now, with rich regions excluding immigrants from poor ones just as happens now among independent states. It is true that there is a very significant risk of the USA becoming one big tyranny instead, and that no individual should have the power the POTUS does – but if this can be prevented, it’s by reforming, extending and deepening democracy at all levels, from local to global (and incidentally, not by pretending that a constitution drawn up by a group of rich, predominantly slaveholding racists and sexists two centuries ago can solve the problems the world, or even the USA, faces now). We are also approaching the technological level at which much of this democracy could be direct rather than representative, which would itself greatly diffuse power. The “libertarian” approach would, in practice, lead to a power struggle between gangs followed by tyranny; the partial and precarious gains of popular control over concentrations of power which capitalist democracy represents would be lost. I’d love to see SC’s anarchist communism tried – if we had a spare planet to try it on (see Ursula Le Guin’s The Dispossessed). We don’t, and over the next century or two at least, I don’t see how we can do without coercion toward environmentally responsible behaviour if we are to avoid catastrophe. I want that coercion to be as democratic as possible – for it to be mutual and egalitarian, not unilateral and hierarchical.
First, let me note that we’re suffering from a bit of comm lag in this conversation!
SC:
In the extreme, yes… but that’s the whole point: My argument (and Nick’s, I think, though I’m reluctant to put words in his mouth) was that if we take SfO’s argument (or his apparent argument; more on that below) to its logical extreme we can predict extreme outcomes… not necessarily that those outcomes are likely in the real world, where the logical extremes of SfO’s argument are not likely to be realized.
The strong are naturally inclined to exploit and oppress the weak, not because they are evil, but simply because they can, and self-interest is a fundamental imperative. It requires the moderating influence of society for us to live together in peace. The difference between my position and what I thought was SfO’s is that I believe that moderating influence needs to be formalized as a clear compact between society’s members (aka government), and he appears to think it can happen as a sum of transactions between individuals, with very little formal structure.
I actually do think places like Somalia present an object lesson in what can happen when the fundamental moderating influence of society breaks down: Absent external controls, the strong will act in their self interest, and the strong-and-ruthless will sooner or later gain primacy over the strong-but-compassionate, and eventually the weak are faced with the choice of fighting and dying… or just dying. It’s not as if warlords and thugs are rare in places without functioning central government, nor starvation, disease, and violent death. I’m not suggesting I think it’s likely New England will turn into Somalia anytime soon… but it’s not as if the Somalias of the world aren’t real; IMHO, we ignore them at our peril.
BTW, re basketball and pool halls: I confess I was a middle-class suburban white nerd-boy, and no sort of athlete, so I don’t have much direct knowledge of pickup basketball games. My understanding is that they tend to be pretty rough, and I gather there’s often a crowd of spectators who might serve as a kind of de facto “government,” but if at the end of the day the analogy is flawed, so be it. IMHO the fault is in the analogy, not the underlying argument; I’m always willing to abandon an analogy or metaphor that isn’t working. And I’d love to read your analysis of “next up” systems in bar pool games. At first blush it seems to support my thesis: The quarters system is effectively an unrefereed contract between two individuals, analogous to SfO’s social model, while the blackboard system seems more like a formalized consensus rule, which not only controls but also represents the whole “community.” Of course, that is just a first blush based on a very brief summary of your work.
Now, I’ve hedged when characterizing SfO’s argument, because it appears to be a bit of a moving target:
Scott:
Curious. Leaving aside your condescending tone, if you really mean this, and if you’re fine with our current government so long as it allows gay marriage, perhaps we don’t have that much to argue about. However, the Constitution — which I have read, and which I take to include not only the Amendments but the accumulated federal case law — does not seem to describe a federal government that could reasonably be characterized as “barely there.” You make arguments that sound like typical right-wing/libertarian anti-government cant, but then disavow them when other’s argue against that position. If you’re truly not anti-government, I’m pleased, because I think that ideology has real power to do harm in the world… but if that’s the case, I don’t understand why you keep firing back at me and others when we make the anti-anti-government case. ‘Tis a puzzlement!
OK. I say the power vacuum left by nonexistent or failed central government is A Very Bad Thing™. You say tyranny is A Very Bad Thing™. How does what you say in any way contradict or conflict with or refute what I say? I reject the implicit suggestion that national government is a near-binary choice between “barely there” and tyranny. In fact, as you point out, the moderately strong representative federal government described in our Constitution seems to work pretty well. Fixing its nearsightedness WRT gay marriage or the denial of THC to cancer patients does not require that we radically change what we’re doing now. Even my proposed constitutional guarantee of personal sexual liberty (which I recently described in detail in another thread), while perhaps socially radical, requires no structural change in our form of government.
(As an aside, my sympathies on your sister’s illness. My daughter is a cancer survivor, so I quite literally feel your pain. As for her access to THC, though… wouldn’t you like to see all cancer patients have the same access? IMHO, the way to accomplish that is to work to change federal drug laws to guarantee legitimate compassionate uses to all Americans, rather than to fight the same battle 50 or more times, each time only addressing the needs of a relative few.)
I was going to comment on your preference for local and state governments, but Falyne has said it very well:
In theory, I suppose, smaller-scale governments that represent smaller numbers of consituents ought to be more democratic. In practice, in my experience, they are actually more parochial, more susceptible to corruption, and less efficient than the federal government. And in an age when not only people but capital and information are all increasingly mobile and unbound by state and local borders, those governments also strike me as increasingly less relevant than the federal government. I’m passionately involved in local government (just ask my wife about the time I devoted to the last municipal election campaign in my town), but the federal government has much greater ability to secure and defend my rights… which is why (according to that document you urged me to read) it was established in the first place.
negentropyeater (@various):
I don’t know enough about European politics to comment intelligently, but to this outsider it appears that Europe is moving (however gradually) in the direction of American federalism, rather than the other way ’round. For good or ill… ;^)
especially different for “libertarians” -> especially difficult for “libertarians”@561. Even when I use preview, I can still screw up!
Nick Gotts:
I think we may (partially) disagree! Heddle’s right – miracles can happen! :)
Allow me to clarify: Anarchist communism, as you should know and as my links above should make clear, is not a social experiment or science fiction, and it’s not the same as SfO’s non-project for social transformation. Anarchists are involved with movements at all scales. What we think, though, is that the best means of constructing and entrenching rights (and this is, of course, never accomplished once and for all, but will always require struggles) is to ground them in local democratic practice. I don’t oppose transnational agreements, but see these as being toothless and counterproductive to the extent that they aren’t based on genuine public participation. I’m happy with the provision of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child* that provides for mechanisms of reporting from local NGOs and an online news-sharing system; I’m also happy with the emergence of the “Human Rights Cities” movement, which is largely independent of the state system (though not entirely unproblematic itself). The fact that global agreements at this historical juncture generally involve national governments or international institutions offers complications and very real dangers when it comes to ground-up organizing, but it doesn’t take them off the anarchist table (for me, at least). As I see it, it’s a matter of finding the right practical approaches that will engage with the political realities while preserving popular control, strengthening self-organization, and promoting decentralization. It’s not easy (and perhaps not entirely possible in some contexts), but it’s not the same thing as seeking to tear down without building up.
I also think that the struggles of women, farmers, workers, users of public transportation and public water systems, etc., around the world are central to our environmental future, and that this shouldn’t be forgotten when talking about international treaties and deals.
(And I think we are at the stage already at which direct democracy is a technological possibility.)
*I’ll remind everyone once again that the US government is the only one not to ratify this convention. (Somalia, which has also not ratified, as pointed out above, lacks a functioning government.)
And yet, your bald assertion fails to make this true. I’m not arguing that the legislative process is perfect (what human endeavor is?), and I’m quite sure there are cases where vested interests gain more influence over legislation than we, the people, would prefer. But it’s not at all clear that that’s the predominant case, and even if it were, that’s not the same thing as saying (as you did previously) that government makes laws just for the sake of making laws… presumably (though you didn’t make this part explicit) in service of nothing other than simply perpetuating itself. This is the government-as-virus model, which I deny and for which I have seen no evidence in my own experience. And against which I have seen evidence. YMMV.
Even if I agreed with your implicit suggestion that government’s proper mission is limited to this scope, it’s the polar opposite of clear to me how you imagine a government that is “barely there” could accomplish this.
Well, first, I haven’t been calling for government to enforce anything regarding private morality (i.e., in this particular conversation, private expressions of sexuality); rather the precise opposite. But that last bit — the notion that “morals differ regionally” — baffles me. Prejudices differ regionally, to be sure, but I don’t elevate them to the status of “morals.” I’ve always wondered, when contemplating states’ rights arguments, who actually thinks, for instance, that it makes sense for two neighboring states to have different definitions of first-degree murder: Does the moral value of a particular killing really change when you cross the state line?
I promise I’m not accusing you personally of racism (and in fact I have no way of even knowing what race you are), but the history of the states’ rights movement is hopelessly entangled with that of slavery in this country. I think certain states, at various times in their histories, really did want to evaluate the moral value of certain types of killing differently from their neighbors… or, more precisely, they didn’t want to be forced to accept their neighbors’ moral judgment that “Negroes” actually were human beings.
Call me crazy, but I always have trouble wrapping my head around the notion that a question like that — or any question of our “inalienable rights” (arguably a moral concern) — should be subject to the whim of the cartographer’s pen.
I want that coercion to be as democratic as possible – for it to be mutual and egalitarian, not unilateral and hierarchical.
Nick,
Reading your comment again, I have the sense that we’re not so much in disagreement about what is desirable – where we differ seems to be more on the question of where efforts should be focused and which practices/tactics should predominate in struggles for social change. While I think we would possibly part company (amicably) in some specific instances and take different paths, I suspect that in general we would be fairly close in practice as well as in our thinking. What I want to emphasize, and tried to stress far above, is that anarchists are as engaged as socialists in practical actions and ongoing movements, including those for shorter-term improvements. There are tensions there, but please don’t present anarchists as unconstructive, unpragmatic dreamers.
I’ll get back to you shortly, Bill. :)
(Sorry for all of the extraneous smiley faces and such. MAJeff told me I’m not as “bubbly” online as I am in person; I’m trying to bring out that side of my personality here, but I fear it’s just coming across as a bunch of dumb emoticons. :()
Well, first, I haven’t been calling for government to enforce anything regarding private morality (i.e., in this particular conversation, private expressions of sexuality); rather the precise opposite. But that last bit — the notion that “morals differ regionally” — baffles me.
To your other points, I’ll just say that “government” should be a people’s method of making society function. It should stem or spring up from societal needs. Almost every need a human has is a local one.
That is why I say local government first, then state, then federal. It has been inverted over time and I argue that a reversal is in order.
As for the racial thing, sure, the federal government did the right thing and stepped in BECAUSE of the CONSTITUTION and the simple statement by its founders that all men etc…
But then they didn’t relinquish the power they took, and THAT, in a nutshell, is why federal officers are raiding California pot clinics and harrassing gay married couples…
Power is accumulated like scale in a pipe, and after awhile, the pipe stops being functional.
As for morals, I accept that Californians, for example have a different moral frame than someone from Mississippi, for example.
In matters of art and censorship, drugs, homosexuality… etc…
Trying to get a one-size fits all standard into place is impossible.
But as we try, we all find ourselves less and less satisfied…
No worries. Dumb Emoticons ‘Я’ Us!
:-)
please don’t present anarchists as unconstructive, unpragmatic dreamers. – SC@566
Apologies – this was not my intention (although this charge might justly have been leveled at me when I was an anarchist), but I see that what I said could be read that way. I do think the anarchist (and green) emphasis on localism is excessive, given the current state of communications technology, and the prominence of truly global problems; likewise the emphasis on spontaneity and consensus rather than formal rules and majority decisions, which can lead to the rule of those prepared to keep the meeting going longest! I must call it a night unfortunately – one problem with Pharyngula is that the time difference encourages me to stay up absurdly late!
Scott:
This is almost exactly what I’ve been saying (except that some of your other comments suggest you take a more strictly concrete view of “need” than I). However…
…this, I deny: My need to be protected against foreign enemies is (somewhat obviously) national; my need to have my freedom of speech, religion, and assembly protected exceeds the scope of my state legislature; the Town Council has neither the legal authority nor the practical wherewithal to adequately protect me against the theft of my identity by some skell in Florida; my town’s Board of Education can do precious little to slow global warming.
My needs to have fires put out and streets snowplowed and my children educated and clean water delivered to my tap all are local, and I’m perfectly happy to have the Town Council provide for those needs (and, BTW, I’m happy to pay local taxes to pay for them, and to be involved in the electoral process to help ensure the Town Council are people I can trust)… but the most fundamentally vital things I need from government can only be provided holistically, at the federal level.
Absent specific analysis or evidence, I can only read this as an expression of ideological dogma.
I accept that individuals have different opinions about moral concerns, but I deny that those opinions are geographically determined.
I accept that communities — which are (in part, at least) geographically determined — have different customs regarding things (such as sexual behavior) to which the term “moral” is sometimes rather carelessly applied.
But I emphatically deny that anything that is both a broadly shared “moral” value and the proper concern of government at all should be handled differently by different governments based on geography.
Or put another way, if opinions on a so-called “moral” issue truly vary from town to town and state to state, then that issue is almost certainly not the proper province of government at any level.
(Note that purely practical matters that are objectively connected to geography [e.g., land use or water rights] are a whole ‘nother kettle of horses of another color.)
In particular…
…surely you are not suggesting that any government ought to be regulating art or homosexuality? Surely you’re not advocating censorship at any level of government? If you’re suggesting that it’s perfectly alright with you for folks in Alabama to persecute gays and “radical” artists, or to ban Mark Twain or D.H. Lawrence from public libraries, just as long as your neighbors don’t… well, in that case you and I really do disagree.
And while I suspect you and I would agree (!!) that “moralistic” regulation of recreational drugs should be drastically less than it is, I can’t imagine you really think that whatever regulation is proper of drugs (including prescription drugs) should be, or could possibly be, carried out at the local level? Nothing about the quoted text seems even vaguely consistent with your prior comments; I’m shocked you could even get your fingers to type the words!
Sigh. I started to compose a response to Bill and Nick. Then I went for a perfect sunset walk on the beach, which sucked every last drop of argumentativeness out of me. Since “You’re wrong, wrong, wrong” does not a case make, I’ll leave you guys with the last word for today. If I return later, I’ll be sure to let you know.
Oh, and :-). (My online self will never be as kind as Kseniya’s, but I’ll keep trying. Perhaps I should just accept that I’m an otherwise-bubbly internet thug and embrace the complexity of my nature.)
Great posting! Good one MaJeff.