Are you forgetting who gives the marriage license? Government gives the “right” to marriage, and therefore has what he calls the “vested interest” because they are the ones giving the permission in this case.
Does it make it right that government has some say? No.
Do I almost feel like that is the direction that Dr. Sowell is leaning? Yes.
Simply put, the state’s validation of heterosexual marriage and the family constitutes just as much as an imposition of culture from above, as the state endorsing alternative lifestyles.
Well, considering that the initiation of force is direct contradiction to the ten commandments, only a voluntary state or political community can be run on Christian principles.
“Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us.”-Tolstoy
How can a state be run on christian principles?
Your argument does not really work against a secular state and for a tolerant religious model, considering that secular charter states are in principle run on principles in the same sense that a tolerant religious state would be.
But, why would anyone want to support such a violent institution?
A state that restricted itself solely to defense of its citizens’ rights in their property would be perfectly compatible with Christian or libertarian philosophy.
But that doesn’t mean that christian ‘philosophy’ is compatible with libertarianism.
Marriage is not just between two people. It implicates whole families, descent and distribution of estates, care of children, title to property, etc. You really do have an interest in your neighbors’ marriage, albeit an attenuated one. Before the State ever existed, humans invented rules governing marriage. Sowell simply argues that the the government, as the licensing body in this instance, should make a policy choice to recognize only heterosexual unions as valid marriages. I don’t see how that makes him unprincipled. Naive perhaps, as the secular state cannot be reliably tasked with defending marriage, but not unprincipled.
What an invaluable contribution. Thank you so much.
You are welcome. It seems that sometimes the obvious needs to be stated.
And what is so obvious about Christianity that is incompatible with libertarianism, given that the site’s founder and administrator are both staunchly Catholic Christians?
Are you marrying your neighbors ?? Now, that’s interesting…
Syllogistic reasoning would prove your point better, assuming you have one, and enable dialogue. If you do not know how to construct a syllogism, contact one of your betters on the forum and ask them to help you out.
So many non-sequiturs there, no ? A catholic can advocate some libertarian policies, like, say, sound money. That doesn’t mean that catholicism as a philosophy advocates sound money. Besides, catholicism or any other revealed religion are, well, revealed religions, not philosophical schools.
While sometimes some religions had some sensible things to say, like endorsing property rights, except maybe for taxes, those same religions were involved in mind-boggling atrocities. Maybe revealed religions rely on the “do as I say don’t do as I do principle”…?
Juan, why do you feel driven to pick these same fights over and over, creating arguments where there doesn’t necessarily have to be one?
Who cares what religions say? What one chooses to believe or worship is their own business, as long as they don’t impose it on you. Period.
The atrocities straw man is shameful. You really should be embarrassed to resort to posting that sort of stuff when you are capable of so much more.
You did not answer the question directly. What in Christianity is antithetical to libertarianism?
I hear nobody died in atheist Russia [:^)]
No, not really. The state by definition is not reconcilable with the non-aggression principle, and thus not compatible with either a literal reading of the ten commandments or libertarian philosophy.
Your point ? Communism is indeed another form of revealed religion and as such a perfect ideology to ‘justify’ mass murder. Commies are ‘atheists’ because their church is in direct competition with other older churches.
Just one more example of the parallels between church and state, parallels which, according to you, don’t exist…
I think you’re projecting your own reasoning onto him, perhaps.
Though, even if he relied on “history” as you do… it’s still not a principle backing his position, but historical precedent. One could say historical precedent is principle (and be reduced to accepting all kinds of absurd beliefs throughout “stateless” history), but I think that would be nonsensical. What Thomas Sowell did say, though, is that because state has a monopoly on licensing… that they then have a vested interest in controlling it. Which is circular reasoning: for instance, because the Dept. of Education deals out money, they have a vested interest in people’s educational requirements. If one says that the state’s interests are the cause of one’s particular opinion about something, they have invalidated their position on that. And I think most likely they’ve invalidated most of their other positions as well (which is the point of my initial post, and not the social connotations of homosexuality and marriage themselves).
Blind obedience to parents, for instance ? Blind obedience to a bunch of fairy tales contained in the bible ? The criminalizing of ‘heresy’ which ‘justifies’ the killing of non-believers ? I don’t know. That kind of thing…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that a lot of right-wing, nationalist and militarist christians believe that their crazed and fully statist worldview is justified on ‘biblical grounds’ ?
Oh I get it, guilt by assocation.
Forget private property, I hear that’s associated with slavery?
I fail to see how it’s a religion? Because it suits you?
You’re making a generalization. Congrats on successfully being a collectivist. You’re always conflating the fact that Christians will still want to be Christians, associate with Christians, value Christianity and promote Christianity under libertarianism with statism, and frankly it is total bullshit.
I have yet to see the people you attack over and over here as ever saying they would violate your right to be whatever you want to be. You’re doing exactly what you condemn, by placing your value judgments on others. In this regard, you are more statist than anyone here. You bear libertarianism as your cross, and beat people with it like it is your bible.
Btw, you’re wrong.
I’m not a Christian scholar, so I will assume you are, and that you can back up that the New Testament promotes murder? If someone believes in Christianity, and believe that parents are to be obeyed, what difference does that make to you? Do you think Christians are going to break into your house and force you to take orders from your parents? Grow up.
This is the same crap from the same people over and over. You guys preach and seek left cover under “tolerance” and yet are more intolerant of others and their personal choices than you claim them to be.