I read tclune as only accusing the Republicans and not the Democrats of inconsistency on the budget deficit. That does, however, mean that he hasn't given any example of Democrat inconsistency. I suppose he could be thinking of targeted drone strikes.
Why would you suppose that? Opposition to drone warfare in general has typically ranged from tepid to non-existent among Democrats in positions of power. Opposition to specific instances of drone warfare exist, but are typically tied to the specific circumstances involved, not drone warfare per se. Kind of like how it's not hypocritical to support one war and oppose a different war (unless you claim to embrace some kind of all-purpose pacifism).
Opposition to warfare in general is not a Democrat thing. It was the Democrats who escalated the Vietnam war and the Republicans who elected a president based on ending US involvement
Those parties really can't be equated with today's Democrat and Republican parties.
That was just an obvious example, but fair enough, ancient history. Hillary Clinton is part of the contemporary Democratic party, as is Joe Lieberman and they are regarded as liberal hawks. Madeleine Albright is another example. And you could argue many more that are not exactly hawk-averse.
If you polled party members, I've no doubt that in general more Democrats than Republicans would be anti-war, bu the point is that the republicans do not own war-like tendencies.
I've always been confused by the notion that equal rights is a left-right issue. It's more an authoritarian-liberal axis thing.
Seems to me that rights is a libertarian vs authoritarian thing, but equal is a left vs right thing.
Under the authoritarian left, all are equal in having no rights. Under the libertarian right, all have rights and are consequently in that sense equal.
Is there a libertarian left these days ? Or is that corner of the diagram underpopulated ? By chance ? Or because collectivism is inherently restricting of freedom ?
Eh? The freedom to starve in a ditch is no freedom at all, so right-libertarian "rights" are non-existent for many people.
The libertarian left is alive and well, it just thinks the freedom of people is more important than the freedom of corporations.
I've always been confused by the notion that equal rights is a left-right issue. It's more an authoritarian-liberal axis thing.
Seems to me that rights is a libertarian vs authoritarian thing, but equal is a left vs right thing.
Under the authoritarian left, all are equal in having no rights. Under the libertarian right, all have rights and are consequently in that sense equal.
Is there a libertarian left these days ? Or is that corner of the diagram underpopulated ? By chance ? Or because collectivism is inherently restricting of freedom ?
I read tclune as only accusing the Republicans and not the Democrats of inconsistency on the budget deficit. That does, however, mean that he hasn't given any example of Democrat inconsistency. I suppose he could be thinking of targeted drone strikes.
Why would you suppose that? Opposition to drone warfare in general has typically ranged from tepid to non-existent among Democrats in positions of power. Opposition to specific instances of drone warfare exist, but are typically tied to the specific circumstances involved, not drone warfare per se. Kind of like how it's not hypocritical to support one war and oppose a different war (unless you claim to embrace some kind of all-purpose pacifism).
Opposition to warfare in general is not a Democrat thing. It was the Democrats who escalated the Vietnam war and the Republicans who elected a president based on ending US involvement
Those parties really can't be equated with today's Democrat and Republican parties.
That was just an obvious example, but fair enough, ancient history. Hillary Clinton is part of the contemporary Democratic party, as is Joe Lieberman and they are regarded as liberal hawks.
Eh? Joe Lieberman is part of the Democratic party?
Usually the term libertarian refers to the view that corporations should have unlimited rights - that an employer should have the right to dictate what employees do or say while not at work for example (*).
As such, libertarians are by definition right-wing.
Libertarians usually do not want to get rid of the state: indeed one might say that a libertarian is someone who wants to get rid of all the bits of the state that aren't coercive, but strengthen the bits that are coercive. After all, property rights cannot exist unless they are enforced. Indeed, I think one could argue that property rights are simply rights to directly or indirectly coerce people into not using stuff that you claim as property.
Usually left-wingers who want to get rid of the state, and consequently corporations, are termed anarchists.
As a general historical point, pretty much every right that belongs to individual people rather than to corporations or employers has been fought for people who were left-wing at the time.
(*) You have opined that employers should have such rights in the past, although you've denied it more recently.
That was just an obvious example, but fair enough, ancient history. Hillary Clinton is part of the contemporary Democratic party, as is Joe Lieberman and they are regarded as liberal hawks.
Eh? Joe Lieberman is part of the Democratic party?
I grant that European/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand conservatives have had successful mixed economies, but it seems here in America it is always the Democrats that have to stabilize the American economy.
The Democrats *are* conservatives, by any agreed definition of the phrase. The US's Overton window (increasingly the UK's too) has been dragged a long way right.
Democrats are left of center it seems, and up until Nixon the Republicans were slightly right of center, but over the years the Republican Party has moved over to the far right, almost in the Nationalist Socialist range.
I grant that European/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand conservatives have had successful mixed economies, but it seems here in America it is always the Democrats that have to stabilize the American economy.
The Democrats *are* conservatives, by any agreed definition of the phrase. The US's Overton window (increasingly the UK's too) has been dragged a long way right.
Democrats are left of center it seems, and up until Nixon the Republicans were slightly right of center, but over the years the Republican Party has moved over to the far right, almost in the Nationalist Socialist range.
Yes and the Democrats have moved right into the vacuum they left. Today's Dems are in roughly the same place that the GOP was in 1958.
I grant that European/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand conservatives have had successful mixed economies, but it seems here in America it is always the Democrats that have to stabilize the American economy.
The Democrats *are* conservatives, by any agreed definition of the phrase. The US's Overton window (increasingly the UK's too) has been dragged a long way right.
Democrats are left of center it seems, and up until Nixon the Republicans were slightly right of center, but over the years the Republican Party has moved over to the far right, almost in the Nationalist Socialist range.
Yes and the Democrats have moved right into the vacuum they left. Today's Dems are in roughly the same place that the GOP was in 1958.
Is there a particular issue that brings 1948 to mind? I don't think it would be the conclusion of many political scientists; according to one scaling I've heard cited, House Democrats are now significantly more liberal than since their most conservative time in the late forties, while House Republicans are much more conservative than their most liberal time in the mid seventies.
I grant that European/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand conservatives have had successful mixed economies, but it seems here in America it is always the Democrats that have to stabilize the American economy.
The Democrats *are* conservatives, by any agreed definition of the phrase. The US's Overton window (increasingly the UK's too) has been dragged a long way right.
Democrats are left of center it seems, and up until Nixon the Republicans were slightly right of center, but over the years the Republican Party has moved over to the far right, almost in the Nationalist Socialist range.
Yes and the Democrats have moved right into the vacuum they left. Today's Dems are in roughly the same place that the GOP was in 1958.
Is there a particular issue that brings 1948 to mind? I don't think it would be the conclusion of many political scientists; according to one scaling I've heard cited, House Democrats are now significantly more liberal than since their most conservative time in the late forties, while House Republicans are much more conservative than their most liberal time in the mid seventies.
That is just not on the page you cite, unless it's buried in the voluminous footnotes.
I grant that European/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand conservatives have had successful mixed economies, but it seems here in America it is always the Democrats that have to stabilize the American economy.
The Democrats *are* conservatives, by any agreed definition of the phrase. The US's Overton window (increasingly the UK's too) has been dragged a long way right.
Democrats are left of center it seems, and up until Nixon the Republicans were slightly right of center, but over the years the Republican Party has moved over to the far right, almost in the Nationalist Socialist range.
Yes and the Democrats have moved right into the vacuum they left. Today's Dems are in roughly the same place that the GOP was in 1958.
Is there a particular issue that brings 1948 to mind? I don't think it would be the conclusion of many political scientists; according to one scaling I've heard cited, House Democrats are now significantly more liberal than since their most conservative time in the late forties, while House Republicans are much more conservative than their most liberal time in the mid seventies.
That is just not on the page you cite, unless it's buried in the voluminous footnotes.
When I click on the link, it leads me to the heading "Polarization" which has a plot showing House party means on a liberal/conservative dimension from 1879-2010 - is that not what you get?
Is there a libertarian left these days ? Or is that corner of the diagram underpopulated ? By chance ? Or because collectivism is inherently restricting of freedom ?
It was more often the left that was arguing that as a gay man I should be free to form a legally recognised relationship with the consenting adult of my choice. It was almost the entirely the right that was trying to insist I should only have a relationship with a woman. Does that answer your question?
Alas, no. Arguing for laws that give legal status to some practice is more of an authoritarian act than a libertarian one. Making a law is intended to compel people. At least most of the time.
But I guess decriminalising use of marijuana would be a libertarian act. And there are left-leaning people who want to do that. Not quite sure of the connection between their general leftist beliefs and that particular issue...
Arguing for laws that give legal status to some practice is more of an authoritarian act than a libertarian one. Making a law is intended to compel people. At least most of the time.
Bzzt. If that's your interpretation, then it's a very idiosyncratic one.
If legal marriage between consenting non-related adults is already law, but is restricted to a subset of the population, then removing those restrictions (ie the old law prevents same-sex marriage, the new law doesn't) is not an authoritarian act, it's a liberal one.
Unless you're going to argue that the law recognising orfeo's hypothetical marriage is somehow infringing your existing rights, of course. Are you going to argue that?
Alas, no. Arguing for laws that give legal status to some practice is more of an authoritarian act than a libertarian one. Making a law is intended to compel people. At least most of the time.
But I guess decriminalising use of marijuana would be a libertarian act.
So letting same sex couples have the same legal options as opposite sex couples is authoritarian, but granting legal status to the smoking of weed is libertarian? Why isn't "giv[ing] legal status" to the practice of smoking weed authoritarian, if "laws that give legal status to some practice [ like smoking weed ] is more of an authoritarian act than a libertarian one"?
Alas, no. Arguing for laws that give legal status to some practice is more of an authoritarian act than a libertarian one. Making a law is intended to compel people. At least most of the time.
But I guess decriminalising use of marijuana would be a libertarian act. And there are left-leaning people who want to do that. Not quite sure of the connection between their general leftist beliefs and that particular issue...
Is there not a real clash between your paragraphs? In the first, you're denying the right to Orfeo to be fully who he is; in the second, you're in favour of allowing him to engage in what could fairly be called an optional practice.
Alas, no. Arguing for laws that give legal status to some practice is more of an authoritarian act than a libertarian one.
Wow. Having watched you paint yourself into a corner with the help of minds shrewder in debate than mine (I could reference @Crœsos, I could mention @Dafyd), I now see you just march out over the wet paint.
The fewer people the number of people allowed to marry, the more free the society? Pretty grim view of marriage! (“I now pronounce you ball and chain.”)
Alas, no. Arguing for laws that give legal status to some practice is more of an authoritarian act than a libertarian one. Making a law is intended to compel people. At least most of the time.
Oh what rot. You let some abstract ideological nonsense burst out from your fingers, except for that last sentence when some part of your brain briefly thought “hmm, is any of this non-analysis actually relevant to the specific example I was given?”
The question wasn’t about any old legal status. It wasn’t about IMPOSING a legal status. It was about recognition of previously existing relationships. And for that reason your response is stupid.
.
Alas, no. Arguing for laws that give legal status to some practice is more of an authoritarian act than a libertarian one. Making a law is intended to compel people. At least most of the time.
Nonsense.
The right in question here is the right of two adults of the same sex to contract a marriage with each other, to nominate each other as their legal next of kin, to have that next-of-kin status recognized in hospitals and the like, and so on.
From a libertarian point of view, marriage is a contract that adults are at liberty to enter in to - an adult's freedom to control themselves and sign contracts is an even more fundamental pillar of libertarianism than property rights. And libertarians are all happy to use force to uphold property and contract rights.
Wouldn't being a true libertarian include respecting the freedom of others to be either bigots or socialists?
Which is one of the chief problems of Libertarianism. If the bigots hold the power and the money, then Libertarians respect their freedom to stay in charge. Libertarianism is too often pro-status-quo and little else.
Russ, on Monday afternoon one of our Shipmates of many years standing is marrying his partner after a long relationship. Is that not an occasion for us to rejoice and be glad with them?
Just to add that because they live in a sensible diocese, they are able to be married in their parish church.
As I understand it, the Anglican Communion remains all tied up in knots about equal marriage primarily because of African and Asian Dioceses. Or have they said it is up to the individual bishops now?
As I understand it, the Anglican Communion remains all tied up in knots about equal marriage primarily because of African and Asian Dioceses. Or have they said it is up to the individual bishops now?
At least two Provinces, the US and Scotland (grin), have said that as far as they are concerned it's up to the individual provinces (that is, area under the jurisdiction of an Archbishop or equivalent). And if the other Provinces want us to sit on the naughty step then we'll sit there.
Gramps 49 - The constitution of the Anglican Church here establishes a reasonably loose federation, with most matters being left to individual dioceses - and it's dioceses not bishops. In turn, each diocese has its own rules on a whole range of matters, starting with the election of members of synod and going from there. The Archbishop of Sydney is the most senior bishop of NSW, but that does not give either him, or the Sydney Synod, any powers over other dioceses.
A quick rundown: for about 40 years now, Sydney Anglicanism has been dominant in the diocese of Armidale. A couple of years ago, Sydney agreed to give financial support to the Diocese of Bathurst (under a previous bishop, the diocese had entered into a very improvident borrowing) but a term of the support was that the Abp of Sydney's approval was needed for candidates for election as Bishop. We'll see how that turns out in what has been a high diocese. That leaves Newcastle, Grafton and Riverina which are predominantly high to catholic, and Canberra-Goulburn which is mixed but liberal. Our shipmate lives and is being married in Newcastle.
Alas, no. Arguing for laws that give legal status to some practice is more of an authoritarian act than a libertarian one. Making a law is intended to compel people. At least most of the time.
But I guess decriminalising use of marijuana would be a libertarian act.
So letting same sex couples have the same legal options as opposite sex couples is authoritarian, but granting legal status to the smoking of weed is libertarian? Why isn't "giv[ing] legal status" to the practice of smoking weed authoritarian, if "laws that give legal status to some practice [ like smoking weed ] is more of an authoritarian act than a libertarian one"?
You're confusing two different senses of "legal status". One is that something is not forbidden by law.
Decriminalising the act of smoking weed or decriminalising homosexual acts is removing a legal prohibition. Thereby leaving it up to individual people to decide whether they do these things or not.
(My understanding is that in English law everything is permitted unless it is explicitly forbidden. I'm not a lawyer and that may be just hearsay. But that background colours my view of law. Law does not create freedom; law protects against the wrongdoing of others.)
The other sense of legal status removes individual decisions as to which category things or people fall into.
If someone is legally blind, then the law obliges you to treat them as a blind person, regardless of the actual amount of vision they have.
In this country you have legal status as a dog owner, but not as a cat owner. It doesn't make you more free with your dog than with your cat.
Not saying that either of these laws is necessarily a bad thing. Maximum liberty does not necessarily equate with maximum morality or maximum happiness.
But let's be honest enough not to label as liberty those legal protections that we approve of.
(Trying not to get sucked into discussing gay marriage).
Yes, letting two people decide if they want to contract a marriage is definitely forcing you to treat them like a married couple, in exactly the same way that it already does.
You're confusing two different senses of "legal status".
Actually, it was you who did that, by bringing up the imposition of legal status when I brought up legal recognition of a relationship.
So don't you dare turn around and tell other people they're confusing different senses. That was all you. Because you have this ideological determination about libertarianism that you are determined to wave about even when it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
So don't you dare turn around and tell other people they're confusing different senses.
You are someone who has presumably spent some time thinking about the nature of law. If you think the distinction I'm making here is false, I'd be interested to know why. If you think it badly expressed, I'd like to know the words you would use.
If all you want to do is brush it aside as a way of expressing your opposition to libertarianism, don't let me stop you, but it's less interesting...
... In this country you have legal status as a dog owner, but not as a cat owner. It doesn't make you more free with your dog than with your cat. ...
How? I'm puzzled by that. What wondrous legal status does owning a dog give a person that is different from the rest of us? Is it an enhanced one - a lesser version of a seat in the House of Lords - or a diminished one - habeas corpus doesn't apply to you? Which jurisdiction is this?
So don't you dare turn around and tell other people they're confusing different senses.
You are someone who has presumably spent some time thinking about the nature of law. If you think the distinction I'm making here is false, I'd be interested to know why. If you think it badly expressed, I'd like to know the words you would use.
If all you want to do is brush it aside as a way of expressing your opposition to libertarianism, don't let me stop you, but it's less interesting...
You really need to learn to read. The point was not that the distinction doesn't exist. The point was that you yourself completely ignored a distinction in your rush to tell everyone that recognising gay marriage was an example of left-wing heavy-handedness.
I can see that there's a libertarian (or even liberal) case for the state not recognising any marriage or civil partnership whatever. There is no such case for the state only recognising marriage between different sexes or genders.
I can see that there's a libertarian (or even liberal) case for the state not recognising any marriage or civil partnership whatever. There is no such case for the state only recognising marriage between different sexes or genders.
Or, for that matter, between those of the same skin colour.
... In this country you have legal status as a dog owner, but not as a cat owner. It doesn't make you more free with your dog than with your cat. ...
How? I'm puzzled by that. What wondrous legal status does owning a dog give a person that is different from the rest of us? Is it an enhanced one - a lesser version of a seat in the House of Lords - or a diminished one - habeas corpus doesn't apply to you? Which jurisdiction is this?
Here in the Republic of Ireland, one is legally required to pay for a licence to own a dog. And (in common with other jurisdictions, if I understand correctly) legally responsible for damage done by one's dog.
Real libertarians have cats.
Or to put it another way, the out-and-out libertarians would treat dog ownership as cat ownership. Not saying that's necessarily a good thing - just exploring/illustrating the authoritarian-libertarian dimension.
You're right - it's a tangent.
And if you register it as a guide dog, that's a different legal status, giving you rights to take it on public transport etc...
... In this country you have legal status as a dog owner, but not as a cat owner. It doesn't make you more free with your dog than with your cat. ...
How? I'm puzzled by that. What wondrous legal status does owning a dog give a person that is different from the rest of us? Is it an enhanced one - a lesser version of a seat in the House of Lords - or a diminished one - habeas corpus doesn't apply to you? Which jurisdiction is this?
Here in the Republic of Ireland, one is legally required to pay for a licence to own a dog. And (in common with other jurisdictions, if I understand correctly) legally responsible for damage done by one's dog.
Real libertarians have cats.
Or to put it another way, the out-and-out libertarians would treat dog ownership as cat ownership. Not saying that's necessarily a good thing - just exploring/illustrating the authoritarian-libertarian dimension.
You're right - it's a tangent.
And if you register it as a guide dog, that's a different legal status, giving you rights to take it on public transport etc...
You could perhaps argue that a guide dog has a different status from an ordinary dog, but whether dogs can have statuses is a different question from whether a human does. Whether or not one has to have a licence for one's dog is a rule one has to comply with but not a matter that affects what one's 'status' normally means.
Now a tangent on a tangent. One used to have to have a dog licence here, but it got abolished when somebody spotted that it was costing more to issue them than the government was getting back and they were not delivering any administrative benefits. It's possible your dog licences might just be a carry over from before 1921 which nobody's ever bothered to look at.
But let's be honest enough not to label as liberty those legal protections that we approve of.
I'm pretty sure that's all libertarianism is, labeling legal protections you approve of (e.g. legally enforceable property rights, contracts, etc.) as liberty and those you don't (e.g. equality under the law for gay people) as cruel despotism.
... In this country you have legal status as a dog owner, but not as a cat owner. It doesn't make you more free with your dog than with your cat. ...
How? I'm puzzled by that. What wondrous legal status does owning a dog give a person that is different from the rest of us? Is it an enhanced one - a lesser version of a seat in the House of Lords - or a diminished one - habeas corpus doesn't apply to you? Which jurisdiction is this?
Here in the Republic of Ireland, one is legally required to pay for a licence to own a dog. And (in common with other jurisdictions, if I understand correctly) legally responsible for damage done by one's dog.
Real libertarians have cats.
Or to put it another way, the out-and-out libertarians would treat dog ownership as cat ownership. Not saying that's necessarily a good thing - just exploring/illustrating the authoritarian-libertarian dimension.
You're right - it's a tangent.
And if you register it as a guide dog, that's a different legal status, giving you rights to take it on public transport etc...
You could perhaps argue that a guide dog has a different status from an ordinary dog, but whether dogs can have statuses is a different question from whether a human does. Whether or not one has to have a licence for one's dog is a rule one has to comply with but not a matter that affects what one's 'status' normally means.
Now a tangent on a tangent. One used to have to have a dog licence here, but it got abolished when somebody spotted that it was costing more to issue them than the government was getting back and they were not delivering any administrative benefits. It's possible your dog licences might just be a carry over from before 1921 which nobody's ever bothered to look at.
... In this country you have legal status as a dog owner, but not as a cat owner. It doesn't make you more free with your dog than with your cat. ...
How? I'm puzzled by that. What wondrous legal status does owning a dog give a person that is different from the rest of us? Is it an enhanced one - a lesser version of a seat in the House of Lords - or a diminished one - habeas corpus doesn't apply to you? Which jurisdiction is this?
Here in the Republic of Ireland, one is legally required to pay for a licence to own a dog. And (in common with other jurisdictions, if I understand correctly) legally responsible for damage done by one's dog.
Real libertarians have cats.
Or to put it another way, the out-and-out libertarians would treat dog ownership as cat ownership. Not saying that's necessarily a good thing - just exploring/illustrating the authoritarian-libertarian dimension.
You're right - it's a tangent.
And if you register it as a guide dog, that's a different legal status, giving you rights to take it on public transport etc...
You could perhaps argue that a guide dog has a different status from an ordinary dog, but whether dogs can have statuses is a different question from whether a human does. Whether or not one has to have a licence for one's dog is a rule one has to comply with but not a matter that affects what one's 'status' normally means.
Now a tangent on a tangent. One used to have to have a dog licence here, but it got abolished when somebody spotted that it was costing more to issue them than the government was getting back and they were not delivering any administrative benefits. It's possible your dog licences might just be a carry over from before 1921 which nobody's ever bothered to look at.
But let's be honest enough not to label as liberty those legal protections that we approve of.
I'm pretty sure that's all libertarianism is, labeling legal protections you approve of (e.g. legally enforceable property rights, contracts, etc.) as liberty and those you don't (e.g. equality under the law for gay people) as cruel despotism.
"Legal protections" means "guaranteeing rights". And what's more libertarian than rights?
But let's be honest enough not to label as liberty those legal protections that we approve of.
I'm pretty sure that's all libertarianism is, labeling legal protections you approve of (e.g. legally enforceable property rights, contracts, etc.) as liberty and those you don't (e.g. equality under the law for gay people) as cruel despotism.
"Legal protections" means "guaranteeing rights". And what's more libertarian than rights?
As I understand it, if you run over a dog, you are required to notify the owner. Not if you run over a cat. Also, if your somehow acquire someone else's dog, you are required to return it - it would be theft. If you acquire someone else's cat, you cannot be required to return it. This happened to a friend of mine, whose acquisition of a feline who decided to join their household was challenged by the previous "owner". Apparently, a cat is defined as a "creature of the night" and not deemed to have an owner. which seems very cognisant of the cat's view of things, but might be a problem applied to some expensive pedigreed one.
I can see that there's a libertarian (or even liberal) case for the state not recognising any marriage or civil partnership whatever. There is no such case for the state only recognising marriage between different sexes or genders.
I suspect there's a case that Liberal's occupy the corresponding quadrant inquired about earlier. But in practice the freedoms that they want (and unsurprisingly who they want them for) are so opposite, that calling them left-libertarians or right-liberals would be a nonsense (I'm sure there is a small group of both of those).
Comments
If you polled party members, I've no doubt that in general more Democrats than Republicans would be anti-war, bu the point is that the republicans do not own war-like tendencies.
Eh? The freedom to starve in a ditch is no freedom at all, so right-libertarian "rights" are non-existent for many people.
The libertarian left is alive and well, it just thinks the freedom of people is more important than the freedom of corporations.
Pfft. This isn't even wrong.
As such, libertarians are by definition right-wing.
Libertarians usually do not want to get rid of the state: indeed one might say that a libertarian is someone who wants to get rid of all the bits of the state that aren't coercive, but strengthen the bits that are coercive. After all, property rights cannot exist unless they are enforced. Indeed, I think one could argue that property rights are simply rights to directly or indirectly coerce people into not using stuff that you claim as property.
Usually left-wingers who want to get rid of the state, and consequently corporations, are termed anarchists.
As a general historical point, pretty much every right that belongs to individual people rather than to corporations or employers has been fought for people who were left-wing at the time.
(*) You have opined that employers should have such rights in the past, although you've denied it more recently.
Last I checked he was a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party.
Interesting spin. All have the right to equality, not inequality at anyone else's expense, which it always is.
Democrats are left of center it seems, and up until Nixon the Republicans were slightly right of center, but over the years the Republican Party has moved over to the far right, almost in the Nationalist Socialist range.
Yes and the Democrats have moved right into the vacuum they left. Today's Dems are in roughly the same place that the GOP was in 1958.
That is just not on the page you cite, unless it's buried in the voluminous footnotes.
Here's the plot by itself (I hope).
It was more often the left that was arguing that as a gay man I should be free to form a legally recognised relationship with the consenting adult of my choice. It was almost the entirely the right that was trying to insist I should only have a relationship with a woman. Does that answer your question?
Alas, no. Arguing for laws that give legal status to some practice is more of an authoritarian act than a libertarian one. Making a law is intended to compel people. At least most of the time.
But I guess decriminalising use of marijuana would be a libertarian act. And there are left-leaning people who want to do that. Not quite sure of the connection between their general leftist beliefs and that particular issue...
Bzzt. If that's your interpretation, then it's a very idiosyncratic one.
If legal marriage between consenting non-related adults is already law, but is restricted to a subset of the population, then removing those restrictions (ie the old law prevents same-sex marriage, the new law doesn't) is not an authoritarian act, it's a liberal one.
Unless you're going to argue that the law recognising orfeo's hypothetical marriage is somehow infringing your existing rights, of course. Are you going to argue that?
So letting same sex couples have the same legal options as opposite sex couples is authoritarian, but granting legal status to the smoking of weed is libertarian? Why isn't "giv[ing] legal status" to the practice of smoking weed authoritarian, if "laws that give legal status to some practice [ like smoking weed ] is more of an authoritarian act than a libertarian one"?
Is there not a real clash between your paragraphs? In the first, you're denying the right to Orfeo to be fully who he is; in the second, you're in favour of allowing him to engage in what could fairly be called an optional practice.
Wow. Having watched you paint yourself into a corner with the help of minds shrewder in debate than mine (I could reference @Crœsos, I could mention @Dafyd), I now see you just march out over the wet paint.
The question wasn’t about any old legal status. It wasn’t about IMPOSING a legal status. It was about recognition of previously existing relationships. And for that reason your response is stupid.
Nonsense.
The right in question here is the right of two adults of the same sex to contract a marriage with each other, to nominate each other as their legal next of kin, to have that next-of-kin status recognized in hospitals and the like, and so on.
From a libertarian point of view, marriage is a contract that adults are at liberty to enter in to - an adult's freedom to control themselves and sign contracts is an even more fundamental pillar of libertarianism than property rights. And libertarians are all happy to use force to uphold property and contract rights.
Even when that bigotry impinges on the liberty of others.
Which is one of the chief problems of Libertarianism. If the bigots hold the power and the money, then Libertarians respect their freedom to stay in charge. Libertarianism is too often pro-status-quo and little else.
As I understand it, the Anglican Communion remains all tied up in knots about equal marriage primarily because of African and Asian Dioceses. Or have they said it is up to the individual bishops now?
A quick rundown: for about 40 years now, Sydney Anglicanism has been dominant in the diocese of Armidale. A couple of years ago, Sydney agreed to give financial support to the Diocese of Bathurst (under a previous bishop, the diocese had entered into a very improvident borrowing) but a term of the support was that the Abp of Sydney's approval was needed for candidates for election as Bishop. We'll see how that turns out in what has been a high diocese. That leaves Newcastle, Grafton and Riverina which are predominantly high to catholic, and Canberra-Goulburn which is mixed but liberal. Our shipmate lives and is being married in Newcastle.
You're confusing two different senses of "legal status". One is that something is not forbidden by law.
Decriminalising the act of smoking weed or decriminalising homosexual acts is removing a legal prohibition. Thereby leaving it up to individual people to decide whether they do these things or not.
(My understanding is that in English law everything is permitted unless it is explicitly forbidden. I'm not a lawyer and that may be just hearsay. But that background colours my view of law. Law does not create freedom; law protects against the wrongdoing of others.)
The other sense of legal status removes individual decisions as to which category things or people fall into.
If someone is legally blind, then the law obliges you to treat them as a blind person, regardless of the actual amount of vision they have.
In this country you have legal status as a dog owner, but not as a cat owner. It doesn't make you more free with your dog than with your cat.
Not saying that either of these laws is necessarily a bad thing. Maximum liberty does not necessarily equate with maximum morality or maximum happiness.
But let's be honest enough not to label as liberty those legal protections that we approve of.
(Trying not to get sucked into discussing gay marriage).
Actually, it was you who did that, by bringing up the imposition of legal status when I brought up legal recognition of a relationship.
So don't you dare turn around and tell other people they're confusing different senses. That was all you. Because you have this ideological determination about libertarianism that you are determined to wave about even when it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
You are someone who has presumably spent some time thinking about the nature of law. If you think the distinction I'm making here is false, I'd be interested to know why. If you think it badly expressed, I'd like to know the words you would use.
If all you want to do is brush it aside as a way of expressing your opposition to libertarianism, don't let me stop you, but it's less interesting...
How? I'm puzzled by that. What wondrous legal status does owning a dog give a person that is different from the rest of us? Is it an enhanced one - a lesser version of a seat in the House of Lords - or a diminished one - habeas corpus doesn't apply to you? Which jurisdiction is this?
You really need to learn to read. The point was not that the distinction doesn't exist. The point was that you yourself completely ignored a distinction in your rush to tell everyone that recognising gay marriage was an example of left-wing heavy-handedness.
Or, for that matter, between those of the same skin colour.
Here in the Republic of Ireland, one is legally required to pay for a licence to own a dog. And (in common with other jurisdictions, if I understand correctly) legally responsible for damage done by one's dog.
Real libertarians have cats.
Or to put it another way, the out-and-out libertarians would treat dog ownership as cat ownership. Not saying that's necessarily a good thing - just exploring/illustrating the authoritarian-libertarian dimension.
You're right - it's a tangent.
And if you register it as a guide dog, that's a different legal status, giving you rights to take it on public transport etc...
Now a tangent on a tangent. One used to have to have a dog licence here, but it got abolished when somebody spotted that it was costing more to issue them than the government was getting back and they were not delivering any administrative benefits. It's possible your dog licences might just be a carry over from before 1921 which nobody's ever bothered to look at.
I'm pretty sure that's all libertarianism is, labeling legal protections you approve of (e.g. legally enforceable property rights, contracts, etc.) as liberty and those you don't (e.g. equality under the law for gay people) as cruel despotism.
In that case give me a bee licence!
<digs out https://youtu.be/2maz36_q6Fk>
Hmm. The topical references haven't aged well, have they?
"Legal protections" means "guaranteeing rights". And what's more libertarian than rights?
Mercenaries?
I suspect there's a case that Liberal's occupy the corresponding quadrant inquired about earlier. But in practice the freedoms that they want (and unsurprisingly who they want them for) are so opposite, that calling them left-libertarians or right-liberals would be a nonsense (I'm sure there is a small group of both of those).