I do with anti-gay marriage people would stop calling themselves defenders of "Biblical marriage", though. The Bible allows many marriages that US law forbids, and forbids marriages that US law allows. The shape of our marriage institutions has more to do with Roman and Germanic customs than it does the Bible.

From the very beginning, God calls on a man to leave his mother and father (not father and father, I note parenthetically), and to join together with his wife. If I have a critique to offer, I would like to see more emphasis on that positive call.

...the major issue with Chik Fil'A is that it's donating to organizations that the SFLC designates as "hate groups" such as organizations that are supporting massacring gay people abroad and such.

I don't agree with the sentiment, but I'm just saying that that's one of the rationalizations I saw.

The conventional understanding of marriage has changed so drastically over the course of my lifetime that I don't see the prevention of same sex marriages as something worth annoying my neighbor over.

[quote=SteveGus]The conventional understanding of marriage has changed so drastically over the course of my lifetime that I don't see the prevention of same sex marriages as something worth annoying my neighbor over.

A small subset of my neighbors wants it earnestly.  I've asked the basic conservative question that our right wingers never seem to ask any more --- "what's the downside?" --- and I just don't see one. It isn't like large percentages of the married couples in the country are going to be same-sex. Any intangible damage to marriage as a social institution, rather than a creature of law, has already been done.

I do not approve of marriage and family law ... As law, it's more like a game of Mornington Crescent where the players make up rules as they go.

I believe as a result of years of easy divorce.

My suspicion is that many of these cohabiting couples are trying to escape the baloney that surrounds marriage these days. It's true that they should be married before God but it's also true that they are effectively doing that in some respect by repute. (In the Middle Ages, there was actually a principle of "marriage by repute") One could suggest that, as priests of God, Christian people can marry themselves without the extra societal baggage of the modern "marriage industry."

The breeding subsidies that figure so prominently in tax laws were put there by governments eager to promote birth rates among people of the 'right' skin color, culture, and language. Where else are we going to raise the infantry to send to the trenches?

Hmm ... governments are "eager to promote birth rates among people of the 'right' skin color, culture, and language" so they can then send them to the trenches to get killed? What?

My suspicion is that many of these cohabiting couples are trying to escape the baloney that surrounds marriage these days. It's true that they should be married before God but it's also true that they are effectively doing that in some respect by repute. (In the Middle Ages, there was actually a principle of "marriage by repute") One could suggest that, as priests of God, Christian people can marry themselves without the extra societal baggage of the modern "marriage industry."

Ignore the marriage industry! (I did.) The marriage license does not cost much. A wedding does not have to cost a lot.

Just pledge before God to your beloved ...

Also, there is the whole "legal" issue where the government attaches all the inheritance rights and hospital visitation rights to a "legal marriage." In fact, this is actually what most homosexual couples are demanding. That said, the government should not be involved in marriage, in my opinion.

I think all the legitimate concerns can be covered by a simple night watchman state with basic laws against thievery and perjury. There's no need for extensive micromanagement and regulation.

Ultimately, government would be the enforcer of any contract that might come from a marriage agreement (property, custody of children, etc), so why not streamline the process with some "micromanagement and regulation" to begin with instead of re-inventing the wheel each time?

The socialists ask us: "Since the law organizes justice, why should it not organize labor, education, and religion?"

Why? Because it cannot organize labor, education, and religion without disorganizing justice.

Do not forget that the law is force, and that, consequently, the domain of the law cannot legitimately extend beyond the legitimate domain of force.

When law and force confine a man within the bounds of justice, they do not impose anything on him but a mere negation. They impose on him only the obligation to refrain from injuring others. They do not infringe on his personality or his liberty or his property. They merely safeguard the personality, the liberty, and the property of others. They stand on the defensive; they defend the equal right of all. They fulfill a mission whose harmlessness is evident, whose utility is palpable, and whose legitimacy is uncontested.

This is so true that, as one of my friends remarked to me, to say that the object of the law is to make justice prevail is to use an expression that is not strictly exact. One should say: The object of the law is to prevent injustice from prevailing. In fact, it is not justice, but injustice, that has an existence of its own. The first results from the absence of the second.

But when the law, by the intervention of its necessary agent, force, imposes a system of labor, a method or a subject of education, a faith or a religion, its action on men is no longer negative, but positive. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own will, the initiative of the legislator for their own initiative. They no longer have to take counsel together, to compare, to foresee; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless accessory; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

It [the law] substitutes the will of the legislator for their own will, the initiative of the legislator for their own initiative. They no longer have to take counsel together, to compare, to foresee; the law does all this for them.

Mr. B is assuming that all people have an initiative and a will worthy of assertion.

Self-preservation and self-development are aspirations common to all men, so that, if each person enjoyed the free exercise of his faculties and the free disposition of their products, social progress would be continual, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is another disposition that is also common among men. It is to live and to develop, when they can, at the expense of one another. This is no rash charge, nor is it an expression of a morose and pessimistic state of mind. History bears witness to its truth: its annals are filled with accounts of constant wars, mass migrations, acts of clerical despotism, the universality of slavery, commercial frauds, and monopolies.

And quite often the law does a better job, with more just results, than the will of the people. (I'm thinking of picnics at lynchings and governors blocking school doors to the entrance of black kids.)

In fact, if I might note, would it not behoove us to be aware that not all legislators have a "will worthy of assertion," as well? Are we not all sinful? Why should we legitimize the legislator's crimes against his fellow man?  Should we not argue against all sin?

Actually, his position is far more sophisticated than I think you give him credit for:

Laika, my friend, Mr. Bastiat already granted your concern with the "picnics at lynchings and governors blocking school doors to the entrance of black kids" when he said, "When law and force confine a man within the bounds of justice... They fulfill a mission whose harmlessness is evident, whose utility is palpable, and whose legitimacy is uncontested."

In fact, if I might note, would it not behoove us to be aware that not all legislators have a "will worthy of assertion," as well? Are we not all sinful? Why should we legitimize the legislator's crimes against his fellow man?

Should we not argue against all sin?

Yes, you told me so, but in a big, complex society like ours with so many competing interests, doesn't law and force (the government) need to be big and complex too? Does the mission of law and justice only apply in simple circumstances?

Nobody said anything about absence of government.

I just don't see how this near absence of government idea is supposed to work.

If there was no such thing as self-interest, humans would simply sit on the ground and die of starvation.

The Fall caused it to "curve inward on itself" so that natural human self-interest is only able to desire sin without God's grace.

That is the key strength of a "free market." A government is only a small microcosm of a society but the market encompasses the entirety of human society.

At any rate, to avoid trailing off, the basic point of this is that even without bureaucratic micromanagement there *IS* a principle that governs. First, obviously, God. Secondly, the fact that man cannot act against man's own self-interest.

Ah, the Siren call of the self; Ayn Rand is inescapable these days! I must say I'm a bit surprised to hear you waxing enthusiastic over the virtues of selfishness.

And even with God's grace, ones' interpretation of the limits of one's self-interest will vary wildly. I could trust my neighbors if I lived in a community of emperorbmas (a homogenized sandbox), but could they trust me? What if it were in my self-interest to pollute the air that they breathed and the water that they drank (all in the service of a free-market, of course)?

Sure, I would like to live in an experimental community of emperorbmas - decent, intelligent, informed, pretty much orthodox Christians - but where could I find such like-minded people in one place, and how long would it be before some schism formed?

All great and wonderful until you notice that the unfettered market leads to a pooling of wealth and power at the top (Great Depression, Great Recession). Then you're back to needing (oh! the horror!) regulation, unless, of course, you favor that kind of thing.

Hmmm... My neighbors must be extreme aberrations, then, eating themselves into obesity, smoking themselves into coffins, doping themselves into stupors, voting against their self-interests with disturbing regularity, et cetera ad infinitum.  Sometimes I think you're deceived by your own decency, empy.

Sure, I would like to live in an experimental community of emperorbmas - decent, intelligent, informed, pretty much orthodox Christians - but where could I find such like-minded people in one place, and how long would it be before some schism formed?

That is, libertarians seek to maximize "liberty." We should have a freedom of conscience, religion, ownership of goods, freedom to live our own lives, freedom from the unfair invasion of our lives, the freedom to dissent from the government, the freedom to use our resources in a way that doesn't hurt other people, freedom to learn, freedom to share, freedom to trade, freedom to give away what we own, freedom to form agreements with other people, freedom to associate with whomever we wish, freedom to seek that wrongs be redressed and contracts be enforced, freedom to do things other people find to be vices, freedom to criticize the vices of other people, freedom to criticize your critics, the freedom to do none of these things, the freedom to do all of these things, etc.

It'll be Keynes that pulls us from the smoking wreckage if any of it gets played out beyond the scale of a commune or an organic farmer's market.

Anyway, I didn't mean schism in any religious sense

that kind of unity wouldn't last a generation, tops.

We have all that now, but we choose not to exercise it. Re-invent the wheel, and we'll choose not to roll.

I think most are checking out life together without a firm commitment and then later when they marry many will still hedge on the commitment partly because they were not fully committed in their test period of living together. That is how I see it.

The question today is should marriage, whether by societal norms or by the government, be redefined to include homosexuals? And is this a good for society or bad? If it would be bad for society then what should be done about it?

The basic issue for most "same-sex marriage" supporters that I have talked with is civil rights. They could care less that we, as Christians who are trying to maintain doctrinal integrity, view it as not compatible with God's Word. That's not what they are wanting to change and they don't intend to force us to accept SSM as "valid in the eyes of God."

Rather, they think that we are currently trying to use the state to coerce everyone to accept our religious doctrines and to deny homosexual people the same benefits that we receive for heterosexual marriages. This being the case, they believe that we are preventing people from being able to have a different religion which doesn't accept the common Christian understanding of marriage. That being the case, we are trying to use our Freedom of Religion to take away other peoples' Freedom of Religion.

Personally, I think this conclusion is inescapable. The way I see it, the "civil rights" front is already lost to us and there is no way to recover that aspect without doing further injustice to other people's freedoms.  Where we can and must "stick to our guns" is in preserving the Christian religious doctrine of marriage. Our churches don't have to provide these invalid "marriages" to people and we don't have to believe that God approves.  Therefore, while we should continue to express what we believe we don't need to be worried about the government *not* being able to deny "same-sex marriage."

Right now the discussion seems to only have the either/or options and not a both/and option of living in peace.

PS By my thinking, the solution I feel would be best is to change the law so that all could get "domestic rights". I don't think civil unions or SSM solves anything because I believe the target is moving. We are rudderless.

My thoughts exactly. And it really isn't about fairness or equality (though there are situations where some kind of legal kinship would be fair); as you say, the target will move.

In that case, you could say that I embrace diversity. :P

that kind of unity wouldn't last a generation, tops.

I'll actually admit as much.

I suspect, however, that if there is enough of a cultural shift that it is possible to overcome this. Basically, children would need to be reared to value the importance of their own freedoms and to remain vigilant in protecting them.

Of course, youthful rebellion may well present an Eden-breaking scenario even with that kind of culture. The sad thing is that the past tends to repeat itself no matter how hard we try to avoid it.

I'm not complaining about the basic design of the Republic here. I think the American Founding Fathers did a very decent job setting up a system that valued freedom. It may have its flaws, but it served as a good example even though it has gradually decayed as people forgot why it was important to defend certain things.

Let's not forget that another name for "libertarian" is "classical liberalism," that is, the liberalism of the Founding Fathers. Remember Bastiat who lived during the early days of America and considers us a good example of his philosophy? Why can't we return to that?

Just look at what great things the unity and shared commitment of those who went through the Great Depression and WWII wrought.

Because now Native Americans, the descendants of slaves, and women can vote, too?

The basic principle here is simple: save money, you have more money. Spend money on credit, you cause the entire system to collapse. The error that the Keynsian economists continue to propagate is that "credit bubble" = good thing. It isn't exactly rocket science, but for some reason we keep beating on the credit bush like it will suddenly work.

Furthermore, during World War II, the government's policies actually ended up hindering a recovery that should have happened sooner. The increase in production was nearly entirely being spent on the war effort which, while it increased the GDP numbers, did nothing to help the people themselves. What ultimately did help was removing a large number of people (i.e. the army) from the economy so they would have nothing else to spend their income on. As a result, they ended up saving money instead of using up more credit.  Consequently, the very next generation went back to "normal" and spent up most of the gains.

Oh, FWIW, apparently someone beat me to coining the phrase "Christian libertarian." Drat, I should have spoke sooner. :POh, FWIW, apparently someone beat me to coining the phrase "Christian libertarian." Drat, I should have spoke sooner. :P

Americans like their stuff - pay them wages high enough to enjoy the fruits of their productivity (stuff) and the economy I'm talking about churns right along. But we've allowed that economy to fail by letting our corporate overlords convince us that we shouldn't be allowed to share in our tremendous productivity (effective wage stagnation). Your "credit bubble" was brought on by folks trying to maintain the standard of living that they thought was their birthright. Working two jobs couldn't maintain it; everybody in the household working couldn't maintain it; credit was the last, grasping resort once we threw away the lessons of the past.

Banks expand credit well beyond their own assets and by the funds of their clients, often supported or encouraged by the setting of low interest rates by a central bank. This additional credit flow into the economy from increased borrowing for capital projects stimulates economic activity. Projects which would not have been started before, seem now profitable, creating malinvestment. They increase demand for production materials and for labor and their prices rise, which, in turn, leads to an increase in prices of consumption goods. If the banks would stop the extension of credit, the boom would be rapidly over. To prevent the sudden halt of this boom (and the resulting collapse of prices), the banks must create more and more credit, and the prices will rise even more.

But this expansion of credit cannot continue forever. There is no additional capital or labor; there is only more money (and debt). The means of production and labor which have been diverted to the new enterprises have to be taken away from others. Society is not sufficiently rich to permit the creation of new enterprises without taking away from others. As long as the expansion of credit is continued this will not be noticed, but it can't be pushed indefinitely. The inflation and the boom can last only as long as the public thinks that the prices will stop rising in the near future. When the public becomes aware, that there the inflation will not end, and that prices will continue to rise, panic sets in. Eventually, people may give up the currency and rush to exchange money for goods, buying things they have no use for, just in order to get rid of the money (the so-called "flight into real values.")

Many casual expositions of ABCT say things like, "The business cycle is not a feature of the free market, but instead is caused by the manipulations of the central bank." But it is far more accurate to say that ABCT blames the boom-bust cycle on fractional reserve banking.  Specifically, when banks are allowed to issue paper money (or increase customers' electronic bank deposits) without an actual act of saving by somebody in the economy, then the resulting drop in interest rates is artificial. The false interest rate sets in motion an unsustainable boom period, which leads people to erroneously consume capital and which creates the inevitable bust.

But anyway, yeah, sure, if you're talking about an economy where everyone is hoarding their money, afraid to spend on anything but the bare essentials, where entire households are out working multiple crummy jobs to get by, where the government refuses to help or set fair rules so all the participants share (a strong, broad middle-class), where the money and influence is held by the few... well, your dream is being realized, my friend, and there's nothing (that I'm aware of) to stop you from trading your eggs for my honey. Sure, you don't need no steenkin' gub'mint if you don't want no steenkin' infrastructure or no steenkin' sfety net, etc. If Social Darwinianism is what you're after, if eating grubs and fighting each other to work in the salt mines is what you're after, then we're well on the way.

You continue to put words in my mouth about Social Darwinism.

To use a metaphor, the fox is dwelling in the hen house so it makes sense that the hens are too upset to lay any eggs.

Sorry. I'm not trying to misrepresent what you're saying, I'm just following your anarcho-syndicalist notions to their logical conclusion

So if we hobble the barnyard watchdog and encourage the fox to invite the wolves to the party, that'll somehow work out well for us?

Actually, I'm more of a "night-watchman state" minarchist. If I had to be an anarchist, it would probably have been anarcho-capitalism, though.

No, the watchdog is the fox. All I'm saying is we need to get rid of it so the hens can work.

All the while, and in actuality, the government is facilitating (through infrastructure, education, etc.) whatever your commercial pursuits might to be.

See above. Nothing is hindering the hens from doing what hens do. If the hens aren't working, it's probably because they've convinced themselves that the sky is falling.

Basically, what really makes the government any better than a more sophisticated kind of mafia racketeering? At least the thief just comes up to your face and demands your car. There is no trickery and he doesn't hides himself behind millions of citizens. Why is it that this perspective is treated as "lunacy?" What is wrong about feeling upset about having to pay for services we don't want or need?