Social vs. Economic Policy In the Real World (For ACers)

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They're just imposing more statism to fix the problems of statism, when they should be pointing out the fact that the state institution of marriage is something that shouldn't exist *at all* in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would you replace it with?

[/ QUOTE ]

De-institutionalize marriage. No more state-sponsored marriage. You can have the ceremony, the ring and the cake, but no [censored] benefits. If they want to form a civil union, they can do it independant of state recognition, just like gay people do.

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]
which (correctly) asserts that gays are fighting for equal rights, but in a way that is completely stupid. Even if the state grants them these rights in their attempt to resolve their inequality, rednecks are still going to hate them and nothing's going to change. They're just imposing more statism to fix the problems of statism, when they should be pointing out the fact that the state institution of marriage is something that shouldn't exist *at all* in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you said. If I were to construct my ideal society, marriage would not be recognized by the state. However, since state-recognized marriages probably aren't going away anytime soon, I feel the more pragmatic thing for me to do is to support the state-sanctioning of gay marriage (as long as we are going to have state-sanctioned heterosexual marriage).

I'm not sure I agree with you claiming this is imposing statism on top of statism. I'm not proposing adding a new law, just changing the definition of the original law.

[Iplayboard]

[ QUOTE ]
What does that matter? It's still violence against one's will. It manifests differently because drugs are regulated differently. You don't see the IRS walking around with guns frisking kids on the street.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly my point. I agree with you in the theoretical sense that "social" issues are "economic" issues. However, since society, as you pointed out, regulates them differently, in the real world I think it's ok to view them differently on the basis of that regulation.

[ QUOTE ]
No one directly values money, they value the potential purchasing power it has for goods (like drugs).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, clearly I was mistaken. Obviously know one intrinsically values money. What I meant was that in regards to taxation, the government is robbing you of some of your purchasing power, but not all of it. However, in regards to drug prohibition the government is robbing you of all of your power to purchase drugs (or you live with the fear of imprisonment).

I think the debate we are having is pretty much over semantics.

[Borodog]

M6,

I really wasn't trying to be a smartass; my apologies if it came off that way. I honestly thought you missed the last sentence.

This is like the difficulty Andy Fox and I had in the "Difference between reps and dems" thread. For me, the absence of state intervention in marriage is good enough. Whatever people work out amongst themselves is fine by me.

[ QUOTE ]
M6,

I really wasn't trying to be a smartass; my apologies if it came off that way. I honestly thought you missed the last sentence.

This is like the difficulty Andy Fox and I had in the "Difference between reps and dems" thread. For me, the absence of state intervention in marriage is good enough. Whatever people work out amongst themselves is fine by me.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, no problem, and thanks.