Senior Privileges

I don't understand why it is a libertarian position to support the federal government repudiating its obligations.

For the same reason that libertarians reject Affirmative Action and reparations. Did whites oppress and exploit blacks in the past? Certainly. Does racial discrimination continue to this day, albeit in an implicit, less pernicious form? No doubt. Do people with white skin enjoy structural advantages while people with black skin suffer from structural disadvantages? Yes.

Does any of this justify punishing one group for the crimes of an innocent third party, or rewarding one group at the expense of another? Not at all. And nothing justifies paying off government debt with stolen money. That is the libertarian argument in favor of the government "repudiating its obligations." Being a libertarian is sort of like being a doctor: When fulfilling moral obligations, first do no harm.

Social Security rests on the notion that it is okay for high school seniors to torment and abuse freshman, because they themselves were tortured and abused three years prior. To comfort these freshman, we tell them that their suffering today is an investment for the future, to be paid off with "Senior Privileges." The cycle of violence begins anew.

Share this

"Does any of this justify

"Does any of this justify punishing one group for the crimes of an innocent third party, or rewarding one group at the expense of another? Not at all. And nothing justifies paying off government debt with stolen money. That is the libertarian argument in favor of the government “repudiating its obligations.” Being a libertarian is sort of like being a doctor: When fulfilling moral obligations, first do no harm."

This wasn't your position on gay marriage. I pointed out that if you gave state sanction to gay marriage it would inevitably and quickly be used to violate the property rights of those who would choose to privately discriminate against gays. You made it clear that you were willing to trade away some of the rights of those you considered bigots, in order to benefit gays.

A "first do no harm" apporach precludes that.

There is nothing in your utilitarianism that obliges you to do no harm anyway, you must only avoid net harm to society.

Fulfilling moral obligations

Fulfilling moral obligations to one generation with tax revenue expropriated from another generation simply creates another moral obligation. I don't see any net obligation fulfillment here.

Does extending equal rights to gays to enter into the same sorts of legal contracts as straights violate the property rights of others? Only in the same sense that extending equal rights to non-citizens to enter into the country violates the property rights of others. You've rejected that argument in the past, John. Supporting open immigration does not require supporting the welfare state (although in effect, the former could theoretically increase the latter). You rightly place the blame for these potential undesirable consequences where it rightly belongs - not on the immigrants or the advocates of open immigration, but on the government and the advocates of the welfare state. So too, supporting equal rights for gays does not require supporting anti-discrimination laws (although in effect, the former could theoretically increase the latter). I rightly place the blame for these potential undesirable consequences where it rightly belongs - not on gays or those who wish to extend equal rights to gays, but on the government and advocates of anti-discrimination laws.

But Micha, one of the legal

But Micha, one of the legal rights gays many gays explicitly seek is the legal right to violate the property rights of those who would discriminate against them. Do you favor granting them this legal right so long as others have it? You did before.

I am certainly not in favor of extending equal rights to immigrants in this sense. I don't hold that immigrants have any right to welfare, for instance. I don't hold that they should be granted a legal right to pick anyone's pocket; quite the contrary, I hold that such legal rights of citizens should be done away with.

But Micha, one of the legal

But Micha, one of the legal rights gays many gays explicitly seek is the legal right to violate the property rights of those who would discriminate against them. Do you favor granting them this legal right so long as others have it? You did before.

Did I? I recall favoring the extension of marriage rights to gays, not the extension of anti-discrimination laws.

I am certainly not in favor of extending equal rights to immigrants in this sense. I don’t hold that immigrants have any right to welfare, for instance. I don’t hold that they should be granted a legal right to pick anyone’s pocket; quite the contrary, I hold that such legal rights of citizens should be done away with.

But you do hold that immigrants have the same right to enter and live peacefully in this country as native-born citizens do. Would you favor a policy restricting the rights of immigrants to marry, if doing so would grant more latitude to property owners to discriminating?

I hold that you should not

I hold that you should not extend any legal right to anyone that entitles them to do wrong and that you should always withdraw such legal rights where they exist. If there is a proposal on the table to deny men of white Irish catholic descent (or even just me individually) the legal right to have their marriage recognized by the state, I won't object a bit because I have no such natural right.

Do you favor extending equal legal rights to gays when they include a legal right to do wrong, or not?