Here’s the measure of an honest politician: When he claims the government is spending too much money, he then shows you a list of laws he’d like to repeal.
Government never, in any single instance I can think of, ever saved any money by passing a law. Quite the opposite. In fact, if you look back through American history, about the only time government ever did any good is when it stopped doing something. Usually, something heinous and awful and bad. I’ve even prepared a few examples.
With the Bill of Rights, the government lost the ability to stop people from speaking out, from assembling freely, from owning guns, from violating homes and papers, from bossing around the states, etc.
After the Civil War, the government stopped telling some people that they were the property of other people. The government didn’t free the slaves — it finally recognized that all men are already free.
With the passage of the 19th Amendment, the government finally stopped telling women their votes weren’t welcome.
With the Civil Rights movement, the state governments finally lost the ability to tell some people that they couldn’t go places other people could already go.
Eventually, perhaps the government will even get out of the marriage business. And any two people who want to get married will be able to do so, and any other people who don’t want to recognize that marriage, won’t have to.
I could go on, but you get the point. Every advance in liberty is met with — isn’t possible without — a proportionate retreat in government power.
And none of it costs a dime in taxpayer money.
So if you’re lucky enough to ever find one of these honest politicians, give him your vote.
“Every advance in liberty is met with — isn’t possible without — a proportionate retreat in government power.” You were channeling Reagan on that one. Great quote.
After this November’s elections, the Republicans will have a chance to show that they’re worth the TP to wipe them off the bottom of my shoe. Of course they’ll have trouble overriding vetoes, but they’d damn well better make the effort, and have something to show by the time 2012 comes around.
Last chance for the Party of Reagan.
I assume that effective repealing of laws is pretty much a political no-go. Having said that I have been wondering; is there any chance that “reconciliation” measures could be employed to defund O-care in future Congresses? Is there a chance of doing so to other budgetary boondoggles as well?
“about the only time government ever did any good is when it stopped doing something.”
I disagree. Anti-trust law probably saved free markets from “progressive” fascism (or worse) in the early years of the 20th century. The FDA and other consumer protections were probably necessary from the 1930′s until recently–the market showed no signs of providing this service at the time. Just because we now have information systems that should enable us to be successful with fewer such regulations does not mean they were never necessary.
Neil, I have yet to see a solid case made for anti-trust. Ayn Rand & Alan Greenspan (I think that was a Greenspan essay; memory might be failing tho) pretty much devastated it, writing in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.
And your other example demonstrated an advance in safety not liberty — which one old Founding Father would tell you is quite a different thing.
“Eventually, perhaps the government will even get out of the marriage business. And any two people who want to get married will be able to do so, and any other people who don’t want to recognize that marriage, won’t have to.”
And, pray tell, what happens when that clashes with this:
“With the Bill of Rights, the government lost the ability to stop people from speaking out, from assembling freely, from owning guns, from violating homes and papers, from bossing around the states, etc.”
? Methinks it won’t be a pretty picture.
Chris –
Where’s the conflict?
What to do when gay marriage becomes legalized yet associations and religious groups speak out against it? It might not matter, but tell that to some of the Dioceses in Massachusetts and D.C.
Chris –
If government is no longer sanctioning marriage, the Church need only recognize the marriages it considers legitimate. Getting government out reduces conflicts, it doesn’t create them.
Has nothing to do with recognizing marriages.
BTW, read his statement again. There’s a key word in there that ensures that government still does stay in the marriage business, but only marriages that involves two people.
BTW again, government got out of the business of outlawing abortions. That went really well for us, didn’t it?
It’s my statement; I’ve read it.
And on the second thing: the process was wrong, but overall I approve of the result. Make of that what you will.
I apologize if I sounded crass there. Yes, the process was wrong, which is why it went really well. Do you think the feds should’ve made a determination to outlaw abortion for all 50 states and not allow some states to have it legal and others ban it?
That’s why I am ambivalent to some states having gay marriages and others not. However, I think it would be entirely different if the feds decided that ALL states should recognize gay marriage. That would set up a Constitutional nightmare. Who’s rights should be afforded more muster: those who have a Constitutional right to assembly, religion, expression or speech or those who have a Constitutional right to equal protection under the law? I’m not a constitutional scholar or anything, but I would think that those are two questions at minimum that would arise. Then again, maybe it doesn’t matter anymore: after all our “king” has decided that we need Obamacare even though we told him we didn’t want it.
Chris –
I didn’t say the federal government should get out of the marriage business, but rather “government,” period, at all levels.
Removes a lot of conflict when your taxes aren’t going to things you don’t approve of.
But that still doesn’t remove the conflict of which should be given more muster. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that point because this is one of those topics that can expand over several hundred posts.
I do agree, however, that other than being viewed as one economic unit for purposes of taxation no additional tax advantages should be afforded married couples, or anyone, for that matter.
Chris. I guess I’m with Steve here. Where’s the conflict? If all levels of government are out of the picture, sanctioning through tax breaks, etc, of determining what “marriage” is, then it becomes a strictly private matter. Churches/synagogues/wiccin patches of grass/etc. can sanction marriage in any way they see fit. Hospitals (private) can afford visiting privileges according to how they see fit. It goes on. If Mary and Nancy decide to get married at the local shul, nobody’s stopping them. Nor is any private institution forced to recognize the marriage. Mary and Nancy can choose to associate with said institutions, or not, depending on how important their status is in the big picture.
What am I missing? Not trying to play dumb here. I’m trying to see how there is a conflict inherent in your scenario. It’s not up to the government to “legalize” it or not. It’s a strictly private endeavor.
Steve,
Your original statement regarded government “doing any good”, not government “increasing liberty”.
We are in agreement on what must be done now, but don’t fall prey to the same hubris as leftists did–thinking that policies appropriate for the 1930s were always appropriate and always will be appropriate forever after.
I disagree that the only good government may provide is liberty, but at this point in time it is the public good we most need to increase.
Neil –
Increasing (and protecting) liberty is government’s sole legitimate function, according to some fella named Jefferson I read way back when.
#16 wrote:
“Nor is any private institution forced to recognize the marriage.”
Tell that to the photographer in New Mexico that was sued by a woman and her partner because she refused to take her pictures. Tell that to E-Harmony who, in New Jersey only, must set up a website specifically for gays because a gay man said that E-Harmony (which was started by Christians) was discriminating against gays. Tell that to the numerous Dioceses in Massachusetts and in D.C. that will stop offering adoption services because it is against their beliefs that a family has two of the same sex.
That being said, you are absolutely correct that marriage is not “legalized” by the government at any level. But that is only true of heterosexual marriage as that has existed well before there was such a thing as the United States. However, the only way to make gay marriage legal is to…well…legalize it. And in a bit of irony the only legalized form of marriage in this country would be gay marriage which is why in Stephen’s original post it would have to be prudent that if gay marriage were to be legalized the government would also have to legalize heterosexual marriage. I understand your argument that if only “government” stayed out of marriage we wouldn’t have any problems. Just like when I talk to libertarians about legalization of drug use, I always say, “Were it only so simple then.”
BTW, if you will, I read Maggie Gallagher who has been pretty good at defending traditional marriage. I do not come at this as a religious person because I am not. However, some things should stay in Pandora’s Box because of the torrent of unintended consequences that could follow.
Washington, Madison, and Hamilton disagreed, and they had a lot to do with the wealth and freedom we have enjoyed.
Chris,
I think you’re making my point for me. If the government were out of the picture, then those examples you point out in your first paragraph would have no legal standing. The courts would not be involved, because there would be no legal foundation for suing. If marriage were a strictly private institution, on what grounds would the photographer, or e-Harmony, or the Dioceses be sued? Seriously.
Maybe I’m missing something fundamental here. Maybe we’re collapsing the definition (legal, at the moment) of marriage, with non-descrimination laws? You can have marriage be a completely private institution, and still maintain non-descrimination laws. Now, I have problems with over-reach in that area, as well. But I also understand the fundamental principles behind them. I.e., as Steve puts it, the increase of liberties. Civil Rights being the most pertinent example.
Finding against the photographer is definitely over-reach, as far as I’m concerned, as are the other examples. I mean really. Would you rather have the photographer tell you straight out that she won’t do it, so you have the opportunity to go elsewhere, or be forced to take the pictures, and have an “accident” and destroy the non-backed up (oops! My bad!) images.
I dunno. I admit to lots of conflicting thoughts and emotions here. I abhor irrational discrimination. And it obviously has an impact upon those being discriminated against. But, who am I to keep someone from being a complete idiot? If they want to take this life opportunity and be a flaming retard by refusing to acting civilly with someone “different”, there’s really only so much I can, or should, do to stop them. Now, does that mean they have the right to lynch people, or deface synagogues, or burn apostates alive? Absolutely not.
But how do you get from there to “you’re not allowed to decline having a voluntary commercial transaction with this individual”? I’m not allowed to use e-Harmony? Shit, I’ll build one for gay people and make a fucking mint off of it. e-Harmony’s loss is my gain. You won’t take my wedding pictures? Fine, I’ll find someone who does and give them $2000 of my hard-earned cash. Your loss.
I’m really at a loss at how little people are able to simply be adults these days. Any type of slight, real or perceived, is immediate grounds for a discrimination lawsuit. Jesus. F*cking. Christ. Grow the f*ck up, already.
Yeah. Hobby Horse….
Neil –
Looking at the mess we have today, I’d say Jefferson won that debate, albeit ex post facto.
When the government gets out of the Marriage business, I’m going to marry both my cars, my motorcycle, and my little dog, Toto, and claim the lot of them as dependents on my taxes.
Steve-
It’s the overreach that causes problems, not the initial vector. Progressivism started with Abraham Lincoln, land-grant colleges, and transcontinental railways, after all. It ended with the Cornhusker Kickback. The Tea Parties are just getting started, but every movement is liable to overreach. Just consider me the whispered “remember, thou art mortal”.
I loved it Steve,we need more people talking about the basic principals of our Rights as Americans. That is the thing that has been missing in the current Republican push.