What is the Austrian economic thought on changing marriage laws to include homosexual marriaga?
Austrian Economics has no say on homosexual marriage. The only branches of “economics” that would have anything to say on such a matter would be crankish schools of thought with some ideological ax to grind.
If you are talking about libertarianism, the views can be diverse and varying perspectives on how to look at social customs in relation to the state/ "natural law / etc. There is no single unified answer.
the two main perspectives are, as you might have guessed, for and against. the “for” crowd believes that denial of same-sex marriage effectively constitutes legal discrimination against homosexuals, as only heterosexuals are legally permitted to marry the person they like to have sex with (being as they are of two opposite sexes). the “against” crowd believes that legal marriage always a necessarily constitutes a form of discrimination and it is contrary to libertarian principles to expand the sphere of human interaction that falls within the aegis of government.
Thank you.
you are quite welcome, Thomas.
Being gay myself, I don’t really have any intention to be married, any time soon. I am also a bit confused as to why so many people demand to be able to use the term ‘marriage’. In the end, churches should be free to call it a “marriage” or to refuse to do so at their discretion. If it’s about the legal perks of marriage, you can have these without forcing churches to marry people they don’t want to. Another non-issue turned into a divisive chasm due to the state and its tendency to stick its nose where it doesn’t belong.
Bravo Jon
I never could understand the frantic clamoring for the STATE to approve gay marraige.
. Individuals always did and always will have the right to associate and relate to any and everybody they choose.I never felt the need for Lord Obama or Lord Busch for that matter to approve my heterosexual union. They do not and should not have that power.
If supposed gay rights advocates lobby for the government to give its seal of approval… they also give the government a new right to somethinng they didnt have before, … and consequently a future exalted leader to yank that privilege. Why even give themthat power?I really do not have much expertise in this field but from here it seems to me to be more of a clamoring for government benefits than a hunkering for recognition
I tend to agree, Albert. there is definitely a spectrum of libertarianism, with minarchism and “making the best of a bad situation” by negotiating with thugs and voting for ron paul on one side, and peaceful counter economics on the other side. I consider it a logical progression based on ones individual circumstances. for example, it takes a lot of moral courage for an employee of the state to affirm anarchism. likewise, if someone is a black market actor for libertarian reasons, it would be inconsistent for them to want legalization and regulation of drugs like marijuana.
the important things to remember are the many roads to liberty and methodological individualism. we should not expect for libertarians to sacrifice their own interests for “the cause,” for we will be disappointed.
Well I’ll try to lay out what I’ve heard from the Libertarian View on same-sex marriage. First of all, there is a broader problem in groups’ rights: “worker’s rights,” “women’s rights” and now “gay rights.” As vive la insurrection alluded to, these groups violate some aspect of natural law. That is to say, there are no rights other than those that can be applied to any and all individuals. Now the state has taken it upon themselves to define marriage, and create a stigma within these groups, namely tax breaks and marriage licenses. This has created a sort of tri-marriage between government and the couple, rather than just the couple.
There are religious/cultural implications of how to define ‘marriage,’ but in its simplest terms, it is a voluntary and binding association between two individuals. Now, because of government authority in a marriage, officials attempting to uphold the law might prevent marriage licenses from being granted to couples that they themselves do not feel right about granting (for whatever reason of discrimination).
If the government were not involved in marriage, most churches and insurance companies and other institutions that recognize and observe marriage would not really be drastically effected. In fact, it would act as any business in a truly free market. Homosexual couples who want to be ‘married’ would choose the institution that would recognize them. Competition and incentives might force other churches/insurance companies who would not normally recognize the couple to start doing just that.
Let me know if I am way off, but that is just my 2 and 1/4 cents.
[Edit: Now that I think about it, ^ all this means is that there really is no Libertarian view, instead there is simply individual view on the matter]
vive is addicted to natural rights theory. He is forever talking about the morality of reason and its application to objective and absolute morality.
They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centred lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
- Hans Herman Hoppe
http://mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdf
Not that I think Hoppe represents the “Austrian” position on this subject, I just think it is always worth reminding ourselves what that guy has said.
“I just think it is always worth reminding ourselves what that guy has said.”
Yea, in context..
I don’t know if you realized, but you linked to a paper by Walter Block. It’s interesting nonetheless, but it doesn’t make any sense to cite someone else’s phrasing of Hoppe if you want to understand Hoppe himself.. Especially on such a controversial point.
it isn’t someone else’s phrasing, it is a direct quote of hoppe from his book “democracy: the god that failed”. i don’t know of a copy that is online. so i just posted a link that included the quote that was from a “friendly” source that folks could follow if they wanted more information.
i’m not looking to go off on a tangent discussing Hoppe in this thread–it isn’t worth it. if anyone thinks that i or walter block quoted hoppe out of context, they know where to look. and that’s what i want them to do. i personally think the more people read of hoppe the less impressed they will be.
hoppe’s writings are like plutonium. the more you’re exposed to them, the more you will want to throw up.
Love me some moral absolutism
Is there a thread on moral relativism vs absolutism?
I love to play sarcastiball. and we typically look at morals in other terms as well. theres a thread by Clayton someone like me should find for you
edited to add: not the thread, but start here:https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/ethics-and-moral/23013/3
^
I’m glad someone caught the joke.
No clue what just happened
vive la insurrection is about as far from a moral absolutist as you can get. he will tell you that absolutism is relative to something youve never heard of and give you two dozen authors to read. thats right, William assigns homework.
Oh, alright thanks!
Phrasing wasn’t the right word. I just meant that’s it’s not a full quote, and you have to rely on Block’s interpretation of it. But I know from experience that a pdf of that book is nowhere to be found, so I understand why you linked to Block’s paper now.
I’m not at all here to defend Hoppe’s writing, I just think it’s necessary to include some more context or cite the original source when you bring up a statement like that. With that quote alone, it’s not at all clear what Hoppe means. I mean, is he making an exception to the NAP? You (who apparently holds a bias (not necessarily a bad thing) against Hoppe in the first place) throwing out a quote as controversial as that, and then linking to some Block paper is just kinda.. careless. But maybe you can explain what he means more exactly? Is he advocating violating the NAP? This is my honest inquiry.