Asymmetrical Information

I'm with you on abolishing Social Security as a guaranteed benefit for all citizens. I also support the idea of a national program that provides for those to which life has dealt a nasty hand: the sick, the abandoned, the orphans, the widow(er)s, and anyone else who has lost the ability to provide for themselves through no fault of their own.

But to allow the maximum opportunity for people to provide for themselves in retirement we should totally abolish the idea of Social Security for the ablebodied. We should also abolish all taxes on every form of investment and savings, including income that is directly put in an investment vehicle (much like 401k $$$ today).

Of course this would have to be phased in and would not absolve today's younger workers from continuing to pay SS taxes (in order to fund the program promised to today's elderly).

But, like getting the State out of the marriage business I have very littly hope that anything like my plan will ever be implemented. I haven't reached cynicism yet, just extreme skepticism.

Old is def not fabulous. I'd fix social security with the Logans Run solution.

In all seriousness SS is welfare. People today are pulling out far more then they put in. The idea that SS isn't welfare is one of the little lies that stick up their rear righties tell each other once they are old enough to collect. If it weren't for medicare alot of old folks would die homeless and broke. I like the idea of self reliance, but the older you get, the softer you get, and to be completely honest I will take every SS dollar I can grab. But making 62 is difficult if you live(d) a fabulous lifestyle, so I likely wont be a drain on the system.

Jane,

Fair point, but what aspect of current American society meshes poorly with the anarcho-capitalist "marry whomever you want" rule? In your Social Security example, you suggest that the removal of Social Security benefits ought to be paired with the expectation that we all provide for ourselves in old age. What is the pairing with the "marry whomever you want" value? What else has to be changed?

--Nobody

As for gay marriage, the most convincing and feasible method of implementation is allowing the states to make their own laws. Of course, Massachusettes and Utah are going to part ways on the issue, but I think it's a good idea. Once the more middle-of-the road states see that Massachusettes allows gay marriage and is doing just fine, most of the rest of the states will join in. I think this is one of those issues that isn't going to be helped by shoving it down people's throats. Abortion in the United States is a good example of the continuing controversy that happens when you go about things that way.

It's a darn shame that we have seen that only the minority party ever sticks up for states' rights.

Oh, and as for predictable things, social security, and aging... there's a saying that there are only two certainties in life: Death and Taxes. Aging is the former, Social security a form the latter takes. ;-)

All good points. One of the big things that pushes me away from libertarianism and the Libertarian Party is the complete lack of pragmatism among the apparent leaders.

When having discussions with Libertarians, most arguments tended to devolve to the point where I would be accused of not being a 'true' libertarian, inevitably followed by an argument about what it means to be one in the first place. After a while you get a feeling that it's simply another secular religion, and if you don't accept X, Y and Z, you're not allowed to be a member of their church.

-- You can't just import one aspect of my libertarian utopia--no social security--without the crucial things that underpin it, like a population that knows it's expected to save for its own retirement. Similarly, you can't just import one feature of anarcho-capitalist life--anyone can marry anyone they want--as if all the vast social changes that an anarcho-capitalist or minarchist system would represent, are already there. --

I call this "the connectedness problem." At any attempt to alter any of the major facets of current legal or political reality, the enemies of the change can use all the connected issues to argue against it, asserting that the proponent is obligated to present solutions, or palliations, for all the foreseeable perturbations his change would cause.

The argument is not always dismissible...but if memory serves, many defenders of the pre-Civil War status quo argued against the abolition of slavery on the grounds that it would be economically ruinous to the cotton industry, and therefore to the United States's balance of trade with England and Europe. So the argument isn't always conclusive, either.

There is relatively little resistance to the concept of "gay civil unions", which would permit gay couples to enjoy the employment benefits and tax advantages available to heterosexual "married" couples. The resistance becomes acute when the decision is made to insist that "gay civil unions" be called "gay marriage".

This may seem to be a largely semantic argument; but, if it were only that, the gay activist community would not be so adamant about it. Rather, it is an attempt to "normalize" the "gay civil union" by calling it something it is not: marriage. Call it a "gaity", or a "sodomy", or a "vagina dialogue", or some other name which is truly descriptive. Just don't call it marriage.

There is relatively little resistance to the concept of "gay civil unions",

Don't I wish. There's only no resistance to "civil unions" when full marriage equality is looming. Given the upper hand, the political opponents of gay marriage have always moved to ban or limit civil unions as well. Notice the trend in recent state constitutional amendments (Ohio and Michigan being only the most prominent examples) that are marketed as a way to prevent gay marriage, but also go on to ban civil unions and even domestic partner benefits for government employees.

I agree that the middle point of public opinion is probably closer to tolerance of civil unions, and that it certainly isn't acceptance of gay marriage, but it's not as if anyone in power is putting this forward as an option. Looking at the map, "the people in power" in almost every state are those who oppose gay marriage, or at least are unwilling to work to bring it about.

Brittain's remarks strike me as very astute.

That's why I think we could wind up with an unfortunate outcome here, in which the legitimate needs of gay couples will be disregarded in order to protect the more important matter, which is the institutional support of marriage as a 'man-woman" institution.

When I am being pessimistic, I think that it could well be that the best protection for marriage is to privatize it. Perhaps as a civil matter, we should simply focus on the question of who is financially responsible for children, and legally entitled to make decisions for them, and forget the other stuff. No spousal social security. No tax breaks based on marital status. No interspousal medical rights, in the absence of a living will. No inheritance by spouses in the absence of a will.

If you look at the development of the law in the case of unwed parents, it seems that we already have a structure in place to handle children. Unwed fathers have legal rights concerning their children and must pay child support (in theory,) unwed mothers can kill them while in utero over the objections of the father (as can wedded mothers) - viewed objectively, maybe "marriage" has already disappeared for civil purposes.

So perhaps the really radically conservative solution is to abolish civil recognition of "marriage," and leave the institution each to our own religious beliefs and practices.

You forget the existence of the common law. Statute - legislation - may issue directives, prohibitions & the like. But the surrounding common law rules will necessarily modify & shape much of what actually happens. Here in Australia, 'de facto' relationships are treated as statutory marriages by the courts & even by govt agencies. Lawyers have devised various ways of dealing with the break-up of such relationships & indeed with their various ramifications. As custom changes, so does the law proper - regardless of statute.

The argument that Social Security could be eliminated if we just had everyone expecting it from the beginning of their working life does nothing to address the large numbers of people who don't make enough and will never make enough to set aside a significant amount of money. While we've heard the stories of the exceptions to this little "rule" it should be remembered that there are probably good reasons why they are so rare.

And as far as another post is concerned, if there is little opposition to civil unions for gays why do the majority of the "marriage protection" state constitutional amendments specifically ban them? And don't the majority of these laws including the one coming up for a vote in Kansas also attempt to ban anything resembling the antecedents of marriage for gays?

There is another way to look at pragmatism. Which approach moves things in our directions? Which strategy most undermines State authority? Which approach allows us to bring in a constitutuency that has a vested interest in Liberty?

I say back Gay Marriage and do our damndest to pry the Gay and Lesbian segment away from the Left. Using your own terms, they are the fringe and they are the ones who will see things differently.

When I speak with friends who are gay, I also suggest the seperation of marriage and State as something that is to their own advantage. Marriage is a religious custom; perhaps Gays should start their own Church and cock a snoot at the State.

And we should support them. It *is* a personal liberty issue and as Libertarians we simply cannot ignore those whose liberty is being trampled.

I could care less about how marriage is defined. But I'll fight to the death to defend your right to define it.

why do the majority of the "marriage protection" state constitutional amendments specifically ban them?

Because they are drafted by interest groups and legislators who are strongly anti-gay and who use majority opposition to gay marriage to grab an extra bite of the cake. Prior to the election in Michigan, some of these advocates went so far as to claim the amendment was only about marriage, and wouldn't affect DP benefits, in order to quiet discussion of the law's true effect.

People voting on the referenda knew they were voting against gay marriage and generally weren't concerned with the details beyond that. They certainly were not given an option of what type of referendum banning gay marriage they would be asked to approve.

"But I'll fight to the death to defend" blah blah blah

translation:

"so what I am going to do is piss and moan like an impotent jerk, and then bend over and take it up the tailpipe!" - Fletcher Reede

Jane Galt wrote, ...in my libertarian utopia...

Are you a real libertarian or a ROYAL libertarian?

"The argument that Social Security could be eliminated if we just had everyone expecting it from the beginning of their working life does nothing to address the large numbers of people who don't make enough and will never make enough to set aside a significant amount of money. "

Well, how in the hell are they managing to survive without 15% of their income right now? They're stuck paying the FICA tax no matter how low their income is.

Ken, if there was no social security, quite a few Americans would just spend 15% more. Then when they got old and unable to work, they'd be starving in the streets. Except they wouldn't be - no doubt someone would tax the provident to provide for the improvident.

And Jim, it's not really a matter of income, it's a matter of willingness to think ahead and to sacrifice a little luxury now for future comfort. That often correlates to income (since the improvident probably also weren't thinking ahead when they were younger, blew off classes, and wound up with no job skills), but I know people with 6-figure incomes who get themselves buried in debt buying luxuries.

Maybe this is just an old man's crotchetyness, but it seems to me that over the last 50 years, Americans have been steadily getting worse at long-term planning and at working hard and socrificing for the future. So it might be a good thing for our society if we could let a few of those who put themselves into poverty actually starve in the streets, for the encouragement of the others.

markm,

You said: "And Jim, it's not really a matter of income, it's a matter of willingness to think ahead and to sacrifice a little luxury now for future comfort.". How many luxuries are we talking about when you make under $10 an hour in this country with its cost of living?

Ken,

Your post has a major flaw in its assumption that the half of the total amount going into Social Security from the employer would automatically benefit the employee. Frankly, it's highly unlikely. You do realize that 15% is the total from both the employee and employer, don't you? In addition the payout is weighted to benefit those who were unable to contribute larger amounts of money. This, of course, is a major sticking point for conservative opponents of the program.

It never ceases to amaze me the lies and distortions that the alliance of Right-Wing religious hate groups and corporate criminals come up with. Social Security Privatization is simply Social Security Corporatization/Bankruptization. It's nothing by a corporate welfare scam concocted by Adolf Bush and his fellow Fascists.

Here are some of the REAL facts about social security:

*regarding SOLVENCY:

1. Privatization REDUCES direct monetary input into Social Security. Reducing funds worsens solvency. In other words, funding for Social Security is not improved by removing money. (Yes, it really is that simple.) Thus, privatization will WORSEN the solvency problem. For example, bank account withdrawals don't increase your bank balance, they reduce it. Social Security withdrawals don't increase the balance in the fund, they reduce it. Privatization was never an attempt "solve" the social security "crisis/problem." It's direct effect is to rapidly worsen the solvency crisis/problem. The privatization scheme may actually be an attempt to convert a "problem" into a "crisis." Privatization is like pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out.

*Privatization Justification: Bush's REAL reasons vs. Bush's Lies

To force taxpayers to subsidize corporate welfare, even more than they currently are. To provide bankers, corporations, and Wall Street with a new source of funding for corporate welfare.
Privatization has nothing to do with providing retirement. If it did, safe investments would be encouraged, such as gold or government bonds. The borrowing necessary to fund this pseudo-crisis would greatly exacerbate a couple of real crises: the understated budget deficit and the rarely-mentioned national debt. The long term borrowing necessary will add $200 billion per year to our ACTUAL $650 billion+ budget deficit, during the first 10 years. It will add $300 billion per year for the following 20 years.

*regarding existence of a "crisis" or problem and "bankruptcy" and "exhaustion of social security fund"

Bush walks a fine line between extreme distortion, and outright lying. According to the system's trustees, the system will not be "exhausted" in 2042. According to Congress's budget agency, it will run short in 2052. Beginning at this time, Social Security will have to pay out less than 100% benefits, because there will be insufficient funding to pay 100%. This is assuming NO changes are made to the current system. Some experts say this point will never come, even if no changes are made. (Again, privatization alone will make this date come SOONER, not later.)

*REAL options for pseudo-crisis solution:

Raising cap on taxable wages from current $90,000 to $140,000 reduces the 75-yr. funding gap by 43%, according to the "Wall Street Journal," from Sunday, 1/30/05.

Increasing payroll taxes 1/4 of one percent reduces the 75-yr. gap by 24%, according to the WSJ from 1/30/05. (see WSJ.com/Sunday)

*$10 trillion social security shortfall:

This shortfall is calculated over an indefinite period of time, unlike all other numbers used. The actual shortfall over the next 75 years is $3.7 trillion, not $10 trillion.

SUMMARY POINTS:

1. No social security "crisis" exists.

2. Privatization will CREATE a social security crisis, not solve it.

3. Privatization will WORSEN a current crisis: the actual current account deficit of over $600 billion.

4. Privatization will WORSEN another current crisis: our national debt of over $7 trillion. (Which some state is much higher.)

4. Multiple solutions to long-term social security problem exist, which involve only minor changes.

5. Privatization's only benefit is to provide another taxpayer-funded source of corporate welfare.

6. Bush is a liar.

Mike

Conspicuously absent from this discussion: marriage is a sacrament, a centerpiece of religious and spiritual life.

Obviously, the readers of this blog reject traditional religion and spiritual life, but the reality is that marriage evolved as a religious and spiritual tradition.

Talk about ignoring history. Marriage evolved to serve real human needs... spiritual needs. Talking about this institution only in regard to its pragmatic and economic manifestations is a form of enforced blindness.

The principle assumption of the pro-gay marriage forces goes unnoticed in this formulation. You've all assumed that religious and spiritual history, evolution and thinking are not even valid enough to warrant consideration.

What if you are wrong and these religious and spiritual traditions have a reason for being? Why are you so certain that these traditions don't even need to be considered?

Conspicuously absent from this discussion: marriage is a sacrament, a centerpiece of religious and spiritual life.

Probably because those elements are "conspicuously absent" from current civil marriage. Intentionally so.

This issue is tangential to same-sex marriage as long as there are millions of interfaith and areligious couples in America whose marriages have the imprimatur of the state. Do you think the government should introduce a religious component to civil marriages?

I have commented that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, but not because I believe that the government should suddenly stop giving marriage licenses and respecting marriages. I'm merely pointing out that marriage has two sides, a religious side and a government side. The religious side is sometimes absent and varies with the religion. The government side is dictated by laws.

It would probably be helpful to separate the two in discussion. Different religions and different sects will have different criteria for who can marry. These criteria should NOT influence who can get a legal marriage. Aside from the problem of reconciling the conflicts between religions, religious law shouldn't dictate secular law.

Whether or not the government should get out of the marriage business is a question that can only be answered by looking at the consequences. If marriage is a valuable social institution that brings with it significant benefits to society, then it is the government's business. If those benefits would be significantly reduced by allowing gay marriages, then I'd lean towards keeping gay marriage illegal.

The problem is that most people don't seem all that interested in consequences. They either see gay people who want to get married and can't (Not Fair!) or people trying to get the government to allow people to get married who shouldn't be permitted to by their religion (Stop interfering in my religion!).

Civil unions would probably solve both problems, by giving gays the benefits of marriage without "marrying" them. But that doesn't answer the question of whether or not this would harm or help society.

My guess is that allowing gays to marry (or form civil unions) might have the effect of bringing more stability into the gay community. If you let gay couples get married and settle down with government approval, they will have more in common with heterosexual married couples and will probably become more conservative and settled. This is related to the single mother issue, where putting a cost on something (gay marriages/monogamous gay couples) reduces the number that you get. But I don't know for sure if that would happen.

Earnest

"Do you think the government should introduce a religious component to civil marriages?"

No, I don't think civil marriages should exist.

Religious tradition and governmental policy intersect in this institution called marriage. You can't divorce one from another.

The religious component already exists in traditional marriage, even though the sacrament of marriage also is codified into state law.

In other words, I'm trying to tell you that this attempt to abstract marriage as entirely a legal matter between the individual and the state is a radical reformation of the concept of marriage.

Undertake it at your own risk. You do not know what the consequences will be of a total secularization of the laws of marriage. That's what I'm trying to tell you. There is a reason that marriage has existed as a symbiosis of law and religious custom.

It may strike you as ideal to abstract the religious tradition of marriage from the legal tradition, but you are doing something very radical, very dangerous and very unknown when you do that. Get it?

but you are doing something very radical, very dangerous and very unknown when you do that.

Here's what I don't get. People of different religions have been doing it for years. Decades, even. I'm sure there were mixed marriages in the 19th Century. Would you say the effects of these marriages is really "very unknown"? Would you care to comment on them?

Jim: "How many luxuries are we talking about when you make under $10 an hour in this country with its cost of living?"

TV sets. Video games. Cigarettes and other drugs. $150 for a pair of sneakers. Prepared foods instead of cooking from scratch. And they can afford that with SS deducted from their paychecks.

We don't actually have a high cost of living in this country. We've got high housing prices, I think often due to excessive regulation that prevents the supply from catching up to the demand. Good, healthy food is very cheap - but you've got to ignore the marketing hype for the far more profitable food-like substances, and do the work of preparing it. And mainly, there are so many, many luxuries available that it's hard to resist...

A problematic aspect of arguing about the importance of marriage by pointing to increases in bastardy is that, while it can be shown that bastardy is associated with various social ills, it cannot be shown that these ills would have been prevented by marriage. The low income women who are induced by welfare payments to beget children out of wedlock may not be particularly marriageable, and their likely marriage partners are themselves unattractive as spouses. Moreover, the entitlements that come with marriage are often irrelevant to persons in the lowest socioeconomic classes, eg there are no employee benefits to be shared and there is no estate to allocate when one dies intestate.

As one commenter has suggested above, there is not much left of marriage as a legal institution as it has been progressively stripped of content over the years. Much of what remains is the recognition of the relationship that can be forced on third parties in connection with the provision of certain benefits. Accordingly, the social stigma that once attached to divorce or bastardy or adultery is gone, and this cannot easily be legislated back into existence. The increasing participation of the state in marriage has coincided with its destruction as an institution of civil society.

The state has killed marriage as a substantive institution and left in its place a shell of entitlements based on married status. Extending these entitlements to same sex couples would probably do the institution itself no more harm. Traditional couples would still enjoy the privileges and entitlements appurtenant to marriage, such as they are. To the extent that these are desirable, married couples could continue to access them in contrast to unmarried couples. The gay couples who take advantage of marriage would not have married opposite sex partners.

Ultimately, the question of whether to permit gay marriage may hinge on figuring what the state is trying to do by recognizing certan relationships.

I'll have to echo and enhance the question. Jane, what are the big, scary consequence you foresee from going to open civil marriage, private marriage, or just allowing gay marriages?

It's one thing to refer to foreseen-but-dismissed consequences for things like Social Security, but what are the consequences for gay marriage that you think are worth worrying about - the arguments that aren't merely back-formations to justify religious loathing?

Not to imply that you're arguing this out of religious loathing, that is.

Here's about a dozen problems with legitimizing homosexual marriage.

Brittain33, I'm not Stephen but I'll give a whack at a reply anyway.

Your question about mixed marriage rather misses Stephen's point, I believe. To review, he says:

It may strike you as ideal to abstract the religious tradition of marriage from the legal tradition, but you are doing something very radical, very dangerous and very unknown when you do that. Get it?

If we turn to the experience of Scandinavia and the Netherlands, it seems to me that Stephen's point may counter those who argue that legalizing gay marriage has caused a decrease in heterosexual marriage. Assuming that the data purporting to show such a decline are correct, I suspect that the causal connection is not to the legalization itself, but to the extraordinary decline in religious observance that we've seen throughout Europe--especially in Northern Europe. Of course, it's this secularization that enabled legalization in the first place.

The very fact that so many oppose Americans gay marriage on religious grounds may have the effect of containing any harmful consequences that might otherwise result from legalization - precisely because marriage is more likely to retain its religious character here than anywhere else in the developed world.

Mike writes on Social Security. I think you need a little balance in your sources of information. If the answer to any intractable political problem is so painfully obvious than any moron could see… well then you are intentionally ignoring one entire side of the problem. For instance if you only read information published by O.J. Defense team you would know the facts are:

1) Mark Furman is a racist
2) OJ could never ever murder anyone because gloves don’t fit his hands
3) The Prosecution never ruled out suicide
4) Nobody has any idea how they died because they didn’t find the murder weapon
5) DNA Testing isn’t even as reliable as astrology
6) Marcia Clark propositioned OJ for sex and when he turned her down she decide to pin the deaths on him
7) Bush is a liar

So it is soooo obvious that OJ is innocent.

Maybe you don’t have all the facts because you are intentionally ignorant and close-minded because of your political affiliations. My advice to you, grow up.

Jane: Don't be ridiculous. People planned their lives around [Social Security]; you can't just rip it away and let millions of people starve.

The obvious answer to this is to just phase it out gradually.

People in here seem to underestimate the power of Social Security in regards to fighting poverty.

http://www.cbpp.org/2-24-05socsec.htm

--Cobra

Similarly, you can't just import one feature of anarcho-capitalist life--anyone can marry anyone they want--as if all the vast social changes that an anarcho-capitalist or minarchist system would represent, are already there.

What a crock. Comparisons to abolishing Social Security are laughable. As was correctly pointed out, today's seniors are relying on social security. (And not only are the relying on it, they already paid in. Abolishing it now would rob them of what they are entitled to.

In contrast there is absolutely no reason, other than opposing gay marriage in principle, to oppose gay marriage. There are no reliance issues. There is no need to implement any other component of libertarian society to make gay marriage work. Suggesting that it would be good but it is - scary, scary! - too dangerous to implement is bullshit of the highest order.

god, how I would have loved to ever had a job that paid enough for me to save something but like most women- and a good education is no shield against this - i've had only jobs that paid at the survival level and i was lucky to get that! all those stories you hear about women making it big and good money-wise are the exception. there are more of me out here than any other kind, so unless you are willing to wear a pair of our shoes for a year, keep Social Security alive.

Without Social Security, you could have saved the taxes you would have paid into Social Security.

Here's what I don't get. People of different religions have been doing it for years. Decades, even. I'm sure there were mixed marriages in the 19th Century. Would you say the effects of these marriages is really "very unknown"? Would you care to comment on them?

You answered your own question without realizing it -- or, to make a shorter paraphrase of OxyMoronNYC's response, what successful inter-religious marriages can you point to where both parties didn't come to the table with a well-defined view on what marriage should be as an institution, as well as the consequences associated with breaking it?

In fact all of the "big three" -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- have some pretty clear, strong directives on sexual chastity and marriage. Many of those directives are compatible in practice (if not always in principle), assuming the practitioner in question is clinging to the tradition at some level greater than casual fire insurance. The above is also true for some of the more cultish sects such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons.

A related post that similarly answers its own question:

It's one thing to refer to foreseen-but-dismissed consequences for things like Social Security, but what are the consequences for gay marriage that you think are worth worrying about - the arguments that aren't merely back-formations to justify religious loathing?

Something like 60% of a polled sample of the US population will nominally claim some connection to Christianity, and the other ~40% contains a not-insignificant fraction of Jewish or Islamic adherents along with JWs and Mormons. What you freely set aside as "religious loathing" -- even after making appropriate deductions for the many libertine sects and the mere résumé padders -- may represent the parallel beliefs of a not-insignificant fraction of the net US population. And when you crack a whip against a fundamental element of someone's worldview, you may just get a backlash.

And backlash can have all kinds of consequences, starting with the various defense-of-marriage acts -- some of them quite strict in their definitions -- that have arisen in many states. I happen to have no particular objection to those acts, but someone hoping to promote a different point of view may wish to reconsider the kinds of tactics that got us to this point.

space:

You say, "In contrast there is absolutely no reason, other than opposing gay marriage in principle, to oppose gay marriage." Your statement is pretty much exactly what Jane was talking about in the longer post about gay marriage: you encounter a gate across your path, pronounce that the gate serves no purpose, and (I infer) commence to tear it down, without any understanding or acknowledgment that it didn't grow there like a weed. That there's no reason besides a principle to oppose gay marriage is an awfully (a) uncompromising and (b) unsupported statement.

People on these two threads who don't support or are cautious about gay marriage have given all kinds of reasons for their positions beyond an unexamined "principle" (I may be reading too much into your statement, but what I'm getting from it is that this particular "principle" is equivalent to anti-gay bigotry in your view - please excuse me if I'm misunderstanding). Some are concerned with the effect on children of gay unions. Some are concerned about the use of marriage as a means to a kind of political end. Some are concerned that straight couples, seeing the advantage gay couples could have just for the asking - the fact that they cannot have children unless they go seriously out of their way to do so, so that they almost automatically have two unfettered incomes as long as both work - may decide, themselves, to get a piece of that action by doing their best not to have kids, or not to have them until they're older, both of which can affect both the kids and society as a whole. (Yes, I know educated urban folk are already doing this. The argument might be made that this tendency could move farther out of the cities. Is it bad? Depends on how you look at it. If SocSec is part of your plan, yeah, I think it's bad. If you're a 40-year-old woman giving birth or a 50-year-old man fathering a child for the first time, yeah, statistically it's bad, at least for the woman and for the child.) You can disagree with the strength or importance of the arguments, but they're not pure principle.

Marriage has a certain baseline in almost all religions, as Jane's original post suggested. For example, a very devout Catholic might seek out a comparably devout Catholic for a marriage. However, the less devout that Catholic is, he might expand possible marriage partners to include not so devout Catholics, then members of conservative Protestant sects, then also other Protestants, Jews, Muslims, an sort of believer . . . and so on. Certainly in my own experience seeig marriages of friends and colleagues, it seems that the religious aspect is extremely important, as people tend to marry within their sect even if they themsleves are not at all observant. This might be from family pressure or what have you - but as Jane suggested, it is real, and a significant aspect of the cultural baggage of marriage. And while a purely Libertarian view of a utopian society and its laws could separate that aspect from the legal system, Jane's point seems to be that as we see America today, the two are extremely intertwined. Some folks like that and want to extend it, some folks dislike it and want to limit it and roll it back. But, if you are on the limit /roll back side, I think Jane rightly cautions us that our limit/ roll back hopes, when actualized, can backfire both by increasing the size and scope of government, and, in a different way that I think we also ought to be concerned about, by making individual human lives worse. Certainly we should work to increase freedom by reducing government (and Jane cautions us that we might make mistakes even in trying to reduce government) but we might also try to make sure that the reduction also doesn't reduce overall happiness and success.

what successful inter-religious marriages can you point to where both parties didn't come to the table with a well-defined view on what marriage should be as an institution, as well as the consequences associated with breaking it?

I can point to plenty, and in all those cases the agreed-upon rules transfer smoothly to those of same-sex couples who have gotten married. In any case, the existence of a strong definition of what marriage should mean doesn't appear to be sufficient--same-sex couples have that, it's the package of rules and obligations provided for by state marriage, combined with personal responsibility, love, and a commitment to one another.

The successful interfaith and areligious couples ALL jettisoned an element of marriage that is central to all the faiths you mentioned--a shared view of who God is and what role he plays in the institution, not to mention the various sacraments required by the religions.

Interfaith marriages have become de rigeur because society recognizes that marriage has come to encompass more than the sacraments provided for by a given religion. It includes social obligations, economic interdependancy, a commitment to raise a family (although even that has fallen by the wayside--look at the post-menopausal brides), and commitment to one another. Gay couples have adopted this paradigm, and in communities where we are visible, have become part of the fabric of society within the context of marriage as it is practiced. Society as an aggregate hasn't come to view marriage that way, but individual societies within America have, and more will come to see it with time. No one disagrees that the trend on this issue points one way. Only here, the courts have moved ahead of society as a whole because the current state of laws was judged to be unjust according to the principles of state constitutions.

Anyway, my mother-in-law just arrived for a visit, so I'll have to end this post.

Jane, social security is not intended to provide insurance against the unlikely possibility of old age. It is intended to provide security against EVERYTHING that could happen between now and old age. Your straw-man who doesn't realize he will have an old age is not the problem. The problem is the millions who do their best to plan for old age and then the company they put their pension-plan stock into goes bust, their house burns down the week after the insurance company fails, their daughter's cancer eats up all retirement savings, whatever. There are three responses to this problem:

1) Who cares, I got mine. This worked right up until the Great Depression when too many people realized they might not have theirs.

2) Let's only give to the deserving poor, maybe through private charities. This creates huge administrative expenses, terrible humiliation and probably great difficulty for each applicant, and will certainly end up with mismatches between real and perceived 'deservingness'. The history of trying to identify the "deserving poor" is long and sordid.

3) Social Security or some similar system. Works smoothly, affordable (so far, and indefinitely with minor adjustments for demography), and has created probably the largest class of happy elders of any society in history. And some VERY relieved adult offspring who don't have to provide for poor old Dad and Aunt Nana.

But stern morality is so much more "utopian" than mere happiness, isn't it?

Unintended consequences...let's see, next Einstein happens to be gay and decides that there is no reason in the world to do any research in the U.S. Or multiple anti-gay laws combined with anti-stem cell research laws backed by the same people make bioscience researchers decide there are better places to do their work than in a country that is looking backwards instead of forwards. They wonder what the next religiously based law might be and there are other places more than willing to host their work.

Jane, you've simply replaced one utopia for another. You argue against the utopianism of those who wish for freedom of marriage or no social security right now, yesterday.

Yet you forward a utopia of your own in which no one ever argues for "major legal change" until whatever socio-psychological-infrastructural ducks you imagine are necessary for it are all lined up in a neat little (utopian) row.

Comments are Closed.