Full disclosure: I have not read Ann Coulter’s latest book Demonic, but seeing as how I am a blogger (barely) I feel I have a right to say anything I want. It’s not like we have a responsibility to provide accurate or factual information, after all.
I still don’t understand what it is that conservatives have against the libertarian stance on social issues. By and large, it tends to be more in synch with what they truly believe rather than with what Leftists believe. But it all came to a head when Ann Coulter insulted libertarians after the Republican Presidential Primary debate on Bill O’Reilly’s show:
The first thing I’d like to point out here is that Miss Coulter seems to be under the assumption that government provides the moral guidance of the populace. This is a mistake made by both Left-wing and Right-wing Statists of all types. While it is true that government can and usually does have a dramatic influence on the collective moral compass of the vast majority of people, it does not have to.
Yet I am constantly amazed at how many people assume that if we were to legalize drugs of all types, we’d suddenly see chaos in the streets. Criminals would rule by their axes and toddlers would be raped by child molesters who are high on paint thinner.
Yet for some reason, we all go to the modern day civilization we have now when narcotics and alcohol were legal to sell to children. This Drug War, another war the government fails to admit that it is losing, was started by President Nixon probably due in large part of his contempt for the hippies. And while I share his contempt in hippies, I think his solution to make their non-violent behavior illegal was a misguided one at best. But no one ever said that President Nixon was a nice guy. On a side note, it is amusing to hear conservatives whining about how the liberals are criminalizing conservatism, considering their boy Nixon did to the liberals first.
As for this whole notion that marriage can only be sanctioned by the State, is that not a Statist attitude? More and more, when I view the fight between liberalism and conservatism, I just see two Statists arguing over what kind of oppression the State should be engaged in. Personally, I am offended that I had to swear an oath to the State before I was able to swear an oath before God when I got married. What if the State decided to demand a confession of your crimes before you went into the confessional booth at a Catholic church?
The fact is, marriage licenses were not issued in the United States until 1853. So between 1776 to 1853 I suppose nobody was ever truly married, according to Miss Coulter’s illogic.
Another thing I find outrageous about Miss Coulter’s comments is her charge that libertarians do not stand for anything. If anything, Congressman Ron Paul has stood on his firm principles of limited, constitutional government and had little to no allies supporting him in the past two decades. This is largely do to social conservative snobs like Miss Coulter who continually snub him while ignoring things like his Sanctity of Life Act (look it up), a bill that would effectively do away with Roe v. Wade. That bill, by the way, has had no more than two co-sponsors, which means that Republicans do not give a damn about the Pro-Life movement.
Apparently Miss Coulter’s latest book, Demonic, is about the mob mentality used by liberals to maintain their followers, people I affectionately call the Low-Church Left-Wing Statists. But what about the Low Church Right-Wing Statists? They too are lead by mob rule. If you comfort them about these issues and presented your case in a sound and logical manner, many of them will respond in the same way that your run of the mill liberal responds to opposition (usually by throwing insults).
I firmly believe that if the government were to get out of all of these social issues like marriage, abortion, drugs, prostitution, and gambling, most things would remain the same. Sure, you would have some people who would more openly indulge in these various non-violent activities, but by and large the vast majority of people avoid these things because they are smart enough to know how potentially destructive it all can be. Also, the allure of the forbidden activity would also vanish because it is now legal.
On one final note, I would like to remind Miss Coulter that back in the summer of 2006, the Republicans had majorities in the House and the Senate and attempted to pass the Marriage Amendment, which would force States to only marry one man and one woman together. Despite all the hype surrounding it, most voters decided that the Republicans were just big-spending jackasses who needed to be reminded of why they were elected.
So I wonder if Miss Coulter realizes that these days, social issues are losing issues for either side when it comes to politics. I suspect this is largely because people do not like to be told what to do when it comes to sex and drugs and would rather have the option to make bad decisions on their own. Also, the Federal government continued to spend large amounts of money on programs nobody cares about or even knows about and the Republicans did not change anything. Yet as we enter this next election cycle, it is amazing to me that many prominent conservatives like Miss Coulter refuse to throw out their old, out-dated playbook and try something new for once.
"I am offended that I had to swear an oath to the State before I was able to swear an oath before God when I got married."ReplyDelete
I don't see a difference between swearing an oath before the State and swearing an oath before an imaginary deity. It's the same thing, because they are both human constructs that only exist inside the mind.
Not sure why liberals are so obsessed with marriage 'rights'. 'Marriage rights' is an oxymoron. Marriage is a prison, and true freedom can only be obtained through celibacy.
"[..] if the government were to get out of all of these social issues like marriage [..] Sure, you would have some people who would more openly indulge in these various non-violent activities, but by and large the vast majority of people avoid these things because they are smart enough to know how potentially destructive it all can be."
Well there you go, in your own words; Marriage is potentially destructive and smart people should avoid it. I could not have said it better.
Oh Your Lordship... there's nothing wrong with marriage, just the people who practice it. Most people can't sculpt for shit, but that doesn't mean Michelangelo's David is an abomination.ReplyDelete
Owning guns increases your odds of being shot, but I'm not running out to tell people they shouldn't own guns if they want to.
Can you imagine if there was a law preventing gay people from owning guns?
Oh, and the state is much more real than God. I don't see the point in swearing oaths to either, but honestly the legal technicalities of marriage are more for private use than public. There are tax issues, sure, but marriage is primarily the method of defining family membership in situations such as end of life choices, insurance, etc.ReplyDelete
Monogamy sucks. I can't imagine a worse nightmare than being forced to sleep with the same person over and over again for the rest of my life. I would prefer getting bamboo slivers shoved under my fingernails while getting waterboarded at the same time. And I don't see the point of establishing family membership for end of life choices. All you need is a living will. Carry a signed piece of paper in your pocket that says "Just pull the fraking plug please. DNR"ReplyDelete
If gay people want to get married, let them, I guess they have the right to be just as miserable as every other monogamous heterosexual couple if they want to.
I'm not anti-gay, I am just anti-marriage to the core.
When people tell me "I'm getting married in the fall!" my first reaction is always to say "Oh I'm sorry. Make sure you make her sign a pre-nup so she doesn't try to leave with half your assets."
Hey, Mattel(R) is coming out with a new 'divorcee Barbie' doll. She comes with a bunch of accessories, including half of Ken's sh*t.
Marriage isn't about the sex (clearly...). Frankly, there are plenty of couples with sexually open relationships, but I'm personally content to have simply married a woman who actually enjoys having sex with me, and vice-versa. And honestly, the socio-economic benefits of marriage alone far-outweigh my desire to get some strange.ReplyDelete
You may not see the point in establishing family membership for end of life choices or other legal issues, but courts have, and there's a reason we need to know what someone would have wanted in the event of the unthinkable (or at least have a way of determining who they want to act for them). That's really an important part of what marriage is: having someone who knows you well enough to make decisions on your behalf when you are unable to do so yourself, or who can care for you the way you want when things are not going well.
I know you aren't anti-gay. And I've more than once made a facetious remark along the lines of yours (although I would argue mine was funnier and clearly not meant to be taken seriously). I don't know why I made a thing of it, probably because I didn't want to address swift directly. I think I've pissed him off to the point of ignoring me, and I might as well not talk to a wall.
And actually, Ken made out on the divorce. It was Barbie's Dreamhouse and Barbie's convertible, after all. She's the one with a toy deal. He made out like a bandit.