Friday, April 19, 2013

Speech in NZ Parliament on Gay Marriage

Pretty funny.  And a fine libertarian viewpoint.

Nod to Jackie Blue


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I don't get how supporting gay marriage can be defined as the libertarian point of view. I thought libertarians wanted government out of peoples' lives as much as possible. Getting married inserts the government into your life.

Anonymous said...

"allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognized by way of marriage"

That this could possibly be considered libertarian is laughable. Here's a libertarian argument: the government should not treat people differently regardless of what group they happen in which to fall, so government will enact policy that effects exclusively individuals and effects all the same.

Tell me what is so libertarian about treating one group of people differently from another? Why partition the population into two groups, married and not married, then structure a tax code for the not married group to heavily subsidize the married group.

If you think the forcible change of definition of the word marriage using the police state to enforce that change of definition, then you have clearly forgotten what it means to be a libertarian. And most importantly, as an economist, you have certainly forgotten what spontaneous order actually is and how language is one of the clearest examples.

Thomas Dallaire said...

"...That this could possibly be considered libertarian is laughable."

What's so laughable about it? The people wanted the government to remove a restriction it had unduly placed on their personal lives... libertarian.

"Tell me what is so libertarian about treating one group of people differently from another?"

The government has no place in the bedroom. It should have no say in who can and cannot be married. That should fall to which ever religion the couple wants to be married under. It SHOULD treat people equally. That being said, most tax systems will always treat married and unmarried differently. In which case removing personal restrictions is the most "libertarian" thing they can do.

" an economist, you have certainly forgotten what spontaneous order actually is and how language is one of the clearest examples."

As an economist you should recognize spontaneous order when it hits you in the face. People have come to accept the love between same sex couples as legitimate, all the government has to do is tax them the same as they do married and common law couples.

Great video btw!

kebko said...

Re the previous comments...If people are going to form pairs for the purpose of family building, the government is going to have to be involved somehow in the notion of what a family is. Who is responsible for a child? Who is next of kin? etc. Basic personal rights require some set of pre-conceived state-recognized pairing standards.

Mungowitz said...

Um...if I may.

For same sex couples, there is NO CHANCE of there being children. They would either have to adopt, or use some medically assisted means of creating children.

That's an interesting issue, but it has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

Further, if you want to say that the state SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED, I'm with you. But the state is involved. If the state is going to offer the contract to ANY couples, it must to all couples that meet the standards for a valid contract.

If you don't understand why that is a libertarian understanding, then you should just admit you don't understand what it means to be a libertarian. Christian Taliban are NOT libertarians, to the extent that they impose their narrow religious views on others at gunpoint.

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that you the phrase "ANY couple" instead of "ANY person". I think liberties and freedoms accrue to individuals and not to groups of people. The marriage contract is available to ANY person (with a few exceptions). What you are suggesting is that the standard marriage contract be changed but in only one respect. How can that possibly be the libertarian view?

I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to understand the libertarian thought process used in which it is O.K. that the traditional definition of the standard marriage contract can be changed in one aspect but not another.

Angry Alex said...

It actually does have to do with children. that's the function of marriage. It's an economic contract where two parties with a surplus of a given item, men having a surplus of labor and women having surplus of reproductive capacity, exchange. In that sense gay marriage can never be or ever will be the same.

What business do you have, at gunpoint, restricting it to only two people? Don't you and I'm paraphrasing here, stipulate that the contract be absent ceorcion or fraud and there exist no uncompensated negative externalities? Surely a polygamous arrangement can easily meet those criteria.

That being said, with the degree of intrusiveness that currently exists wiht the government, How do you figure this will lead to anything other than suppression of religious freedom. Look at what HHS did with the birth control mandate and what the State od Massetschusetts did with the adoptions by same sex couples. Tell me how given the current environment how that's not going to occur here with same sex marriage.

Anonymous said...

I think we can now link to this whenever these issues come up:

Bryce Thomason said...

It is not my purpose to get into a religious discussion here, I only site the on top of because it tends to illustrate my earlier point of a gay lobby and a strong "gay agenda.