Recently in an on line discussion about marriage, someone took pause say this...
OnLawn mentioned that he used to be a libertarian in post #19:
I understand that there are a lot of former libertarians who find that ideology politically impractical, however, how does one make the philosophic 180 from libertarianism to ideological communitarianism? (Assuming that label fits).
You are obviously both rhetorically skilled, but I'm having trouble figuring out how your [marriage] position fits into your overall political philosophy. How do you view the proper role of government in society when you aren't arguing for it to regulate marriage?
I started writing an answer, and wound up writing the opinion piece I've had in my mind to finish for a long time. It is both why I am no longer libertarian and why I am so adamant about marriage.
But it isn't finished. I'll be working on this in this journal, but I could use your help. Grammatical fixes are appreciated but not needed as I will probably put this through my editor (who happens to be my mother-in-law) when it is done. Anything you wish me to fill in, or take out for flow and succinctness just let me know. I may not agree but I always appreciate the help. Now without further adieu,
_____________________________________
The *Proper* Role of Government in Society
How do you view the proper role of government in society when you aren't arguing for it to regulate marriage?
First, a moment on marriage. I argue that the definition and protection of marriage is important in order to protect family governance. It is my right of self-governance that I am fighting for when I demand government to respect it for what it is.
Calling any contract based on a romantic relationship a 'marriage' dilutes (if not completely abolishes) the recognition of the political family unit. Because of the baggage of considering it just as a love-contract, the role of marriage is becomes weak that it is difficult to hang on to self-governance in marriage. Really should the government be interested in the love business? Does marriage keep people from forming their own love contracts now? No. Should government be interested in the political unit where children are placed in the immediate governance of parents?
Now, pause for a bit. What is ironic about that argument is that parenting and governance is a real libertarian dilemma. While they should be deliberating the difference is between good governance (or parenting) to some meaningful conclusion they usually wind up simply driving a wedge between what governance is and what parenting is. This in effort to drive that which is parental as far away as they can.
However governance and parenting not two separate concepts to be driven apart. They are, instead, two applications of the same concept.
Lets take drugs for instance, it is a real major part of the libertarian ideology. I remember about four years ago I wrote up an honest proposal to legalize drugs. It placed much of the power of policing drug use away from the government and into the hands of professional drug dealers. Pharmacists, bar owners, shaman, etc... And it was up to them to decide to sell or not based on the condition of the person they were selling to. Much like doctors do today. These people were then mostly self-regulated by guilds that they were free to form or dissolve on their own. The guilds would be held responsible for the pharmacists under it, kicking out bad doctors and such.
Another attempt so honest and meticulous in proposing decriminalization of drugs I have not ever seen. But the key issue that it addressed turned out exposing the agenda of my fellow (at that time) libertarians. There was but one aspect that I introduced in compromise that apparently there was no compromising on.
You see my proposal was built on accountability. And even though the guilds and other associations were free to form as they wished, and be regulated only by lawsuit according to people who feel themselves harmed by the user's abuse or pharmacists neglect or guild stupidity, my fellow libertarians did not like it. They simply wanted to smoke their weed in peace, no accountability. The isolated garage drug user was not just a hypothetical case to thwart justification of drug law, it was indeed their ideal lifestyle they were protecting.
Well there is only one problem with that. Such a concept does not exist. Nature is a harsh inescapable judge, and will always exact what is due. Perhaps beating nature to the punch are vigilantes who would raise up and hold souls accountable for crimes against their person or property. And then we have children who have no political power pay personally for their parent's selfish decisions.
There is a payment, an economy all around us. And every action comes at a price. You can even draw up good and evil on this axis. Evil (to me) is when you make others pay the price for your actions. Good is when you get what you want at the price you want, paying for it yourself. Good and evil are more than this, but it is sufficient to show that this is a proper moral axis.
When I say price, I should say that I mean exclusively just the consequences of the actions. Not the monetary cost in doing something. Nature is a harsh extractor of consequences. Often it would sooner kill someone than let them learn and reform.
What government does is try to inhibit people from running into the harsh judgments of nature. I call this the doctrine of replaced consequences. Because government can't raise the dead it tries to intervene before that happens and exacts its own contrived set of consequences.
Now I use death here because it is the easy example, I fully admit to it. It is the simple and extreme example that avoids the gray area while I establish my point. But a replacement for any consequence that is beyond societies ability to repair, or even extremely costly to do so, is beneficial. This would include a worker losing an arm, a health care recipient losing a lung, or the emotional scarring incurred with child abuse.
So you get a speeding ticket, a drunk driving ticket, or any other number of citations instead.
Now the objection that libertarians have against this is that it seems too parental. Replacement consequences, to them, is removing their choice in the matter. They can't do drugs because there is a law against it.
Well, fundamental to anyone observing society is the understanding that laws do not make decisions for you. The large number of drug users that manage to accomplish their desires inspire of the law is just one of many examples that show this. People still speed, people still drive drunk, etc...
But what it does do is give cause for pause. It makes sure that people who really want to run off the cliff really, really, want to run off the cliff. Because there is no turning back and saying "oops I made a mistake" while plummeting to your death that these inhibitors make someone think about the consequences before they engage in the behavior.
And now we come to the importance that the family unit has in governance. It is the first, the most compassionate, and the most attentive and immediate unit that we belong to that provides the ability to replace consequences. A time out is easier than prison time. A grounding at a young age is more instructive than unemployment later.
But lets look at what is in it for the parents too, shall we? It allows everyone who wants to the capacity to practice and learn governance for themselves. And this is crucial! Because as a democracy we hold our government accountable. But the ability to practice governance (though not a requirement) enhances our ability to understand government and make a contribution to it.
Dealing with terrorists? A two year old is a terrorist. People stuck on welfare? A teenage loafer is sucking the money from Mom and Dad. As parents deal with these problems they learn principles. And they can in turn apply these principles to government.
Children benefit from instruction from people who understand them best. Parents have the advantage in understanding children because they sharing genetic code which has certain capacities and instincts built in that parents can recognize in their own lives. Parents also are advantaged from the experience of dealing with the same child their whole lives.
And children get representation by both women and men in that governance! A boy learns about women from his mom, and a girl is understood and needs represented by someone who went through the unique experiences of being a girl herself. And vice versa.
Its not the way it always happens, but its such a great way to do things that it must be preserved. All my arguments boil down to the belief that only such equal participation in family governance has the credibility to demand recognition from the state.
Many disagree pointing to the number of families already that do not live in this system. Well we know that the children are disadvantaged in those situations, yet there are those that do pretty well in any case. To bring in an analogy, do you change the requirement for tires to be inflated because not all tires can inflate? How about road debris that flattens tires? What do people do then if its against the law to drive on flat tires?
Well the law is there for everyones protection, the consequences are too great to turn a blind eye. Yet practicality demands an exception in the matter. But writing the exception into the law as equal does nothing but encourage danger.
Well, I hope that answered your question. Oh and I'm not big government. I think a streamlined government means putting more on the states, and the states putting more on the cities, and returning more governance to the families. And that won't happen while people think marriage is just a romantic contract.