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

[Iplayboard]

This is in response to hmkpoker's thread
Social Policy is Economic Policy

The first assumption I am going to make is that this is true.

Let's compare drug prohibition to taxation (I'm basically reiterating hmkpoker's argument and using it as my context). Libertarians will agree that both of these are theft on the part of the government. In the case of drug prohibition the government is redistributing money from drug buyers to drug sellers since drugs cost more because they are illegal( of course the drug seller doesn't reap the full reward because much of the redistribution is wasted in government regulation).

In the case of taxation(for simplicity we will only look at welfare) the government is redistributing money from the rich to the poor (of course the poor don't reap the full reward because much of the redistribution is wasted in government regulation ).

So to the Libertarian, both cases look like equal cases of thuggery on the part of the goverment.

However, this is in the theoretical sense. Let's look at the real world. Real life politicians and thus real life polices don't treat social and economic issues as one in the same.

Two policitians are running for office. A Ronald Reagan conservative and a liberal (can't think of any true liberals, I wouldn't count most Democrats).

Ignoring all other issues the conservative wants to abolish income tax and maintain the war on drugs. The liberal wants to maintain the current income tax and abolish the war on drugs.

I would vote for the liberal and I'm guessing hmkpoker would vote for the conservative and of course borodog wouldn't vote at all.

The "social issues are economic issues crowd" will jump in and say that they are both just economic issues and since I will now be able to buy drugs cheaper I am merely voting in my economic interest. That is true to an extent, but I am also voting on the basis that I don't want to be arrested do to my drug usage. Now, you could argue that someone who opposes taxation and votes for the conservative is also voting on the basis that they don't want to be arrested do to their not paying taxes. But realisticly, look at how many people are imprisoned for drug use versus how many people are imprisoned for not paying taxes.

In the case of taxes, the thing that you are valuing is money. The government is taking away some of your money, but not all. Thus you are still free to spend or invest the rest of it without fear of imprisonment.

However, with regards to drugs, the thing that you are valuing is the drugs. Since drugs are illegal, you cannot do ANY drugs without the risk of imprisonment.

Finally, if you still don't believe that in the real world economic policy differs from social policy, then please explain the concept of same-sex marriage as it relates to economics. My assumption is that people desiring it are not doing so for tax breaks, but rather for the public acknowledge their union, which is something you cannot buy on the black market.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, if you still don't believe that in the real world economic policy differs from social policy, then please explain the concept of same-sex marriage as it relates to economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Freedom to contract. The state has no business telling you who you may associate with and how you may associate with them.

[ QUOTE ]
My assumption is that people desiring it are not doing so for tax breaks, but rather for the public acknowledge their union, which is something you cannot buy on the black market.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this case, I think it *is* about equal protection. If you want to enter a same sex marriage, you can find someone to perform a ceremony, and you can tell the whole world. You can't get tax breaks, or state-imposed estate protection, or state-recognized powers when your partner is unexpectedly incapacitated, etc.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing hmkpoker would vote for the conservative

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] No, I wouldn't vote for Reagan.

[ QUOTE ]
But realisticly, look at how many people are imprisoned for drug use versus how many people are imprisoned for not paying taxes.

[/ 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 ]
In the case of taxes, the thing that you are valuing is money. The government is taking away some of your money, but not all. Thus you are still free to spend or invest the rest of it without fear of imprisonment.

However, with regards to drugs, the thing that you are valuing is the drugs. Since drugs are illegal, you cannot do ANY drugs without the risk of imprisonment.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[ QUOTE ]
Finally, if you still don't believe that in the real world economic policy differs from social policy, then please explain the concept of same-sex marriage as it relates to economics. My assumption is that people desiring it are not doing so for tax breaks, but rather for the public acknowledge their union, which is something you cannot buy on the black market.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because homosexuals think that they can wave their hands and pass a law, and suddenly all the faggothating rednecks will celebrate their love. Doesn't work that way. I don't even think of that as an issue worth talking about, and I get worried when the media makes a big deal over it because it makes me think that it's a distraction from the real issues that are going on.

In my opinion, the whole institution of marriage should just be done away with.

[hmkpoker]

The estate protection and hospital visitation rights can (to my knowledge) be arranged with a visit to your lawyer.

[Borodog]

Last time I checked, coercively violating property rights and the freedom of exchange is still coercively violating property rights and the freedom of exchange, no matter what property is being violated or what exchange is being interfered with.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The estate protection and hospital visitation rights can (to my knowledge) be arranged with a visit to your lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but people who marry politically-favored parties (i.e. opposite sex) get all that "for free" without having to have special documents drawn up.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The estate protection and hospital visitation rights can (to my knowledge) be arranged with a visit to your lawyer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but people who marry politically-favored parties (i.e. opposite sex) get all that "for free" without having to have special documents drawn up.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you know where to go, it's not that hard to do. And when you consider what people go through to get married...

My point was made in response to this:

[ QUOTE ]

My assumption is that people desiring it are not doing so for tax breaks, but rather for the public acknowledge their union, which is something you cannot buy on the black market.

[/ 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 ]
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?

[Borodog]

I believe he answered that.

" . . . the state institution of marriage is something that shouldn't exist *at all* in the first place."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What would you replace it with?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe he answered that.

" . . . the state institution of marriage is something that shouldn't exist *at all* in the first place."

[/ QUOTE ]


No, he didn't answer that. I asked what he would REPLACE it with.

Some possible choices:

1) non-state institution of marriage

1a) religious institution of marriage

2) civil or legal contract

3) other

4) nothing

5) any of the above depending solely on the couple's choice


Borodog, you're pretty smart, but that doesn't mean everyone else are idiots--sometimes you don't stop to think, and then you occasionally you come off with flip responses that are wrong or misplaced.

If you're going to be smart (or smart-aleck;-)), at least try to be right, please.