More Gay Stuff

Sunday, February 29, 2004
Posted in category Uncategorized
Comments Off

Here’s the promised response to the gay union arguments. Lots of folks saw the “gay union” issue being argued somewhat on the Lew blog. Here, here, and here. I am not going to repeat this stuff, but I’ll add a bit to it, as I promised a week ago.

Someone on the blog tried to use my cultural conservative views as a starting point for proving me a hypocrite, and all I can say is that it failed miserably. I don’t want to attack anyone, and I refuse to do so, but I have to at least say that it failed.

My influences, my cultural conservatism, etc., is irrelevant to what I had posted on the blog. I hold cultural conservative views, however, libertarian principles do not allow me to lord my beliefs over others via the power of the State, with its monopoly on force. I may use my influences and views to try and persuade (or criticize) others, but that is non-aggression, as upheld by libertarian principles and theory.

Where I was kinda referred to as a “left-libertarian” was not credible. Some people may not want to make the distinction between a personal ideology, supported by a systematic pattern of principles, and the *advancement of a particular social policy* for the sake of approval of its behavioral patterns and ultimate, social goals. The latter is “left-libertarian,” not the former.

On gay unions In San Franciso: anytime a locality denies the right of the Feds to interfere in local goings-on, and therefore furthers the principles of decentralization, that is a good thing. The Feds interfering in local politics is never a good thing. We know darn hootin’ well where government “expansion” is a problem. It requires the growth of the State for the Feds to marry gays, and this is something the left-libertarians don’t want to face up to. Why? Because they are politically correct social engineers that go along to get along, because this how they make it in the PC mainstream. In fact, and I know I keep repeating this, but it requires further government tyranny to force any monoploy government – Fed, State, or local – to marry gays.

On the other hand, anytime a State denies the Feds, and a locality denies a State, and better yet, a household denies a locality, we move closer and closer from our current Federal Leviathan, to States’ Rights, to legitimate, individualist-family secession. And that is always a good thing. As I said before, I believe that civil society does and will continue to recognize gay unions not as “traditional marriages,” but as same-sex unions, and this is the concept of discrimination trumping the notion of equality. The definition of marriage cannot be changed to accomodate the social engineers and non-discrimination Nazis, because that necessarily involves the growth of the State and its tyrannical equality movement, and it goes against the core of libertarian principles.

Some of what I saw on the LRC blog, on this topic, was religious totalitarianism, and I stand against that, from anyone, including my fellow Catholics. WorldNetDaily does a good enough job of that. To deny the *basic* libertarian axiom of self-ownership, well, them are fightin’ words to me, and for most other libertarians. For as soon as you deny me my own body, you then can do to me whatever you’d like, in any manner of aggression whatsoever.

I believe that religious views are privately-held and voluntary. Jacob Hornberger, a libertarian and a Catholic, would agree. And I only mention this because he made that public with me in an interview I did with him a few years ago, when we discussed the notion of religion and liberty.

Rothbardian libertarians and paleocons (and traditional conservatives) have much common ground – traditions, cultural conservatism, pro-religion, anti-libertinism, etc. – and we come together on what we agree on, against those that denounce us.

However, Catholicism is not Puritanism, and therefore, I am a bit mortified by the extreme puritanism eminating from some Catholics, for all of us do not share those strict, puritanical views that appear far too fundamentalist for comfort. The Old Testament Totalitarianism of the Dispensationalists is bad enough, but Catholics do recognize natural law as leading to liberty. Anywhere I blog, I’m going to do all I can to maintain the standards of libertarianism as set forth by Murray Rothbard, who I believe is the world’s greatest champion of liberty, and the greatest theorist to ever pen a word. I believe in it too strongly not to do so.

Be Sociable, Share!
Both comments and pings are currently closed.