How in the hell can he consider himself a libertarian if he believes this (from last week):
"Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110508.php3
I mean this isn't even religious bigotry, but specifically pro-state. He doesn't say that the church or perhaps (non-theist) individuals have a vested interested in unions or children... nor of the future population. But that the state specifically has this interest... and the people are subjugate to that will. Maybe the state has plans for the children and unions (sending them to war and taking money), but what difference does it make? Clearly, Sowell has little interest in liberty nor really in the self-interest that lies behind society as well as market organization.
I just don't get this mealy mouth version of libertarianism... where expected economic results of capitalism are cool, but consistent ethics (which don't involve historical bigotry where they need apply or "vested interests of the government") are nowhere to be seen. Applying his logic, all of libertarianism is abolished. And thus, Sowell should turn in his card. He'd better go back to beating the war drum and cheering on other vested interests of the state: like stealing more money, ignoring advice from economists like himself, and continuing the domination of people's lives.
I don't recall Dr. Sowell claiming to be a libertarian, anti-statist or even independent. He's a great common-sense economist, but he is known to be partisan, and in his books he never mentions the evils of the federal reserve. I think he's a Chicago school guy isn't he?
"Every civilization depends on the quality of individuals it produces. If you over-organize humans, over-legalize them, suppress their urge to greatness-they cannot work and their civilization collapses." -Frank Herbert, from Children of Dune
Sowell, like a lot of American conservatives, still believes in the American experiment. The only unifying principle of a secular, multicultural society is the democratic market-state, which to the American conservative perspective has been "lost" and therefore must be recaptured if the experiment is to be successful. American progressives believe the same thing from their perspective, and they are currently the ones who control the levers of power.
Sowell just doesn't want to take that next step: that the traditions and principles he holds dear can only receive their due through the pre-state institutions of organic society.
Byzantine: Sowell, like a lot of American conservatives, still believes in the American experiment. The only unifying principle of a secular, multicultural society is the democratic market-state, which to the American conservative perspective has been "lost" and therefore must be recaptured if the experiment is to be successful. American progressives believe the same thing from their perspective, and they are currently the ones who control the levers of power. Sowell just doesn't want to take that next step: that the traditions and principles he holds dear can only receive their due through the pre-state institutions of organic society.
My point is that he has no principles. Once one claims that the state's "vested interests" are what makes something correct, then they've thrown that out the window. Even to say conservative principles would be false, in this case. The American state is currently run by the democrats. If their interests are what is important to him, I would not say that he is founding his decision about marriage licensing (which I've described as basically an extortion of an institution if not simply a corruption of free contract) is about conservative principle. He could have easily explained this particular principle, but he did not. He went for the lazy bigotry (that is used by both conservatives and liberals as a shortcut). And it's clear why he does not believe in "organic society" -- he actually believes that people don't actually want children or marriages... but only do so because The State magically gives a crap about future populations (news to me, after looking at all the zeros on the current national debt.)
As I already said, Sowell does not call himself a libertarian. I think you may be projecting your beliefs on to the man because you perhaps agreed with his writings in the past about other subjects. Sowell is very good on market economics and race relations, but he is still just a republican, not a libertarian.
On the other hand, when I read that column you linked to, I didn't get the sense that he was exactly endorsing the state's interest in future generations, I think he was simply stating that as a fact. You don't deny that the state wants more bodies do you?
I think one can believe in the State and still be principled. Again, Sowell (correctly, in my view) seeks to defend marriage and the State is an institution powerful and prominent enough to do so, especially if people who share his values are running it. On the other side of the debate, homosexuals believe that fundamental human rights are at stake, and seek to enlist the State for their objectives as well.
The difference between me and Sowell is that (1) I don't believe the secular State is capable of defending marriage, or anything else worth defending, and it follows that (2) I don't believe in the secular State. That's a paradigm shift that movement conservatives will not make. Four years (or should I say, four more years) of down-is-up, two-plus-two-equals-five Democratic rule may convince them otherwise but I'm not holding my breath.
stillbjorn: You don't deny that the state wants more bodies do you?
They do, they just didn't like the model that was being turned out. Thus, the Immigration Reform Act of 1965.
He seeks to defend it because it is in the "vested interest of the state" and for utilitarian reasons: popping out more children to pay taxes, feed to the wars, maybe build the roads, etc. He doesn't seek to defend it for any reason he believes in. Certainly not as a means to his own happiness or liberty. I also think that invalidates his economic thinking as well. In economic thinking, he has to explain rationally why one idea is better than another. If the primacy of the state is the guiding doctrine of his philosophical positions, then it is not principle he is after (notice he never ever mentions that removing all contract interference by the state would solve the issue). But probably conditioned fear of losing the state and it's empty symbolism -- which is a common theme among weak-minded statists. This may be why they cannot take the "step" to anarchism. They are as conditioned and irrational as liberals. "Defending marriage" in a statist or non-statist position is as ridiculous as the idea of "human rights" -- and always as nebulously defined. Though marriage is not a positive right, so it is fine by me. I can't see how any contract need be.
It's interesting that Sowell actually mentioned a possible military coup on Hannity and Colmes if the government got too corrupt. No doubt so the government could run more efficiently and not so they'd go away forever or leave people alone.
I think one can believe in the State and still be principled.
Not as a libertarian.
Again, Sowell (correctly, in my view) seeks to defend marriage and the State is an institution powerful and prominent enough to do so, especially if people who share his values are running it.
The state is illegitimate and corrupt no matter who runs it and no matter what their philosophies are.
On the other side of the debate, homosexuals believe that fundamental human rights are at stake, and seek to enlist the State for their objectives as well.
Being a homosexual does not mean that one is a statist per se.
The difference between me and Sowell is that (1) I don't believe the secular State is capable of defending marriage, or anything else worth defending, and it follows that (2) I don't believe in the secular State.
What does "secular" have anything to do with this? Would you prefer "the religious state"?
John Ess:How in the hell can he consider himself a libertarian if he believes this (from last week): "Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation."
Sowell is simply wrong here. Child rearing was the reason claimed by the church for documenting, officiating, and controlling marriages. The state is in it mainly to plunder inheritances and, more recently, to control welfare costs.
It's a mystery how anyone could look at the state's positions on abortion and immigration and see evidence of a plan to encourage natural population increase. Isn't the marriage tax penalty coming back in 2010?
I think what Sowell means is that minority shouldn't use the State to force their definition of marriage on others. But then, logically, the majority shouldn't enforce its definition of the marriage on others either. In other words, I can claim I'm married to a dog but I can't force other people to acknowledge it. In the past, familes were private affairs, you didn't need state or church approval to form a family, but societal customs were (and still are) important and can't be ignored that easily. These days people are used to the State controlling their lives and they can't imagine that you can form relationships and protect their young without the government's "care" even though the humanity has managed to do just that for thousands of years.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Natalie:In the past, familes were private affairs, you didn't need state or church approval to form a family, but societal customs were (and still are) important and can't be ignored that easily.
Marriage as a formal institution began as a means of documenting inheritances though. It has always been to some extent controlled by the governing authorities.
stillbjorn: I don't recall Dr. Sowell claiming to be a libertarian, anti-statist or even independent. He's a great common-sense economist, but he is known to be partisan, and in his books he never mentions the evils of the federal reserve. I think he's a Chicago school guy isn't he?
I remember a radio program where Sowell mentioned that he didn't like being called a "black-conservative" and said that he is more libertarian leaning. Hell, Sowell is why I became a libertarian in the first place. I am sad to see that he has become more partisan recently; or perhaps I just didn't notice it before.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
You are really one of the more obtuse people on this forum. I am not saying that Sowell has argued successfully to legitimize state action. Rather, he is enlisting the State to an end he sees as justified.
Brainpolice: Being a homosexual does not mean that one is a statist per se.
Where did I say that? But since you mention it, homosexuals are perfectly free to craft their own arrangements so as to acquire all the trappings of a marriage. What they can't do is force others to accept their relationships as such, and that is where they turn to the State for validation. Sowell is doing the same thing from the other end.
Brainpolice: What does "secular" have anything to do with this? Would you prefer "the religious state"?
A state which acknowledges the genuineness and applicability of, let us say, the Christian faith, is perforce admitting that government must be run by Christian principles, and must likewise acknowledge the existence of the sacramental institutions of Church and Family. The secular State is a god unto itself and answerable to no higher authority or competing institution.
Byzantine: The secular State is a god unto itself and answerable to no higher authority or competing institution.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Now Byzantine is an advocate of theocracy?
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
I think what he means is that the state is inherently secular since it defers to nothing in particular. Which I believe. Since I don't believe religion is even a real thing, as an atheist. Of course, I don't believe the state is anything real but the "agent" one defers to (the guns/prisons)... as Voltairine de Cleyre once so eloquently pointed out.
Jon Irenicus:Now Byzantine is an advocate of theocracy?
Juan: Jon Irenicus:Now Byzantine is an advocate of theocracy? I'm not sure -- that's why I said "seems to advocate". At any rate, he surely is not an anarchist.
Oh dearie me.
Byzantine: Juan: Jon Irenicus:Now Byzantine is an advocate of theocracy? I'm not sure -- that's why I said "seems to advocate". At any rate, he surely is not an anarchist. Oh dearie me.
I'm jealous. I wish I could be accused of not being anarchist enough. Most of the people I hang around with think that society will collapse if we get rid of the FDA.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap