This is the second of three posts inspired in part by the dialogue between Nick Gillespie and Charles C.W. Cooke. The social issues that I have in mind are drugs, abortion, and gay marriage. Some thoughts.
From the civilization-barbarism perspective, one may oppose legalizing marijuana, abortion, and gay marriage to the extent that one believes that civilization depends on, or at least is enhanced by, restrictions against these. However, that is not Cooke’s conservatarian position. He instead favors allowing different communities to adopt different policies. My thoughts:
1. From the freedom-coercion perspective, I see Cooke as trying to argue for a (local) “freedom to coerce.” As a general rule, this is problematic. In fact, the controversy over Indiana’s religious freedom law (or “religious freedom” law, to those who oppose it) may be an illustration of the difficulties with this approach.
During the battle over civil rights, Barry Goldwater applied federalism to argue for states’ rights to impose Jim Crow laws. Milton Friedman argued that businesses should be allowed to engage in discrimination. Today, most Americans believe that Federal coercion to prevent racial discrimination is a good thing, and Cooke supports this consensus.
2. Some conservatives try to appeal to libertarians by arguing that progressive social policies are coercive. For example, a businessman who opposes abortion can be forced to pay for health insurance that in turn pays for abortions of employees. The libertarian counter is that the wrong involved here is not that the businessman is forced to pay for abortions but that he is forced to pay for health insurance.
3. Another conservative line is that without traditional family values, people will become degenerate and thus dependent on the government, leading to bigger government. Call this the David Brooks argument. My own view, as readers of this blog (particularly the posts under the category “Four forces watch”) know, is that bifurcated family patterns are unlikely to be altered by government action.
4. The elephant in the room here is religion and voters who are motivated by it. Just the other day, I saw a full-page ad in the Washington Post using biblical imagery to argue against legalization of gay marriage. There is a long tradition of conservative politicians (and, for that matter, progressive politicians) who are not themselves committed to religious beliefs wanting to appeal to voters who are.
5. Should a baker who is opposed to gay marriage have the right to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple? I think that the most appropriate libertarian answer is to say that the baker should have such a right. But it seems to me that if you open the door to a right to discriminate, then racists can use that door. On the other hand, if you say that government should be able to force a baker to do business with an unwanted customer, does that mean that government also should be able to force a customer to do business with an unwanted baker?
My preferred society would be one in which (a) there is sufficient market competition so that if you are discriminated against by x you can easily obtain what you want somewhere else. The government has to get involved only if discrimination is pervasive; and (b) religious values are enforced within religious organizations only. If you violate the beliefs of your religion, you can be excommunicated by that religion, but otherwise you should not suffer.
I do not think that this solves the conservatarian dilemma on social issues, but it’s my best shot.
I think you’re doing yourself a disservice by grouping very different issues under the umbrella of “social issues.” As so often happens, a phrase starting with “social” is misleading!
The conservative line on drugs (though be it noted that National Review has argued for legalization for 20 years) combines the belief that drugs dehumanize the person who takes them (C-B) and that the government can effectively preven their use. On the latter point, the libertarian argument is strong.
On gay marriage, the core belief (though not usually the argument made) is that an essentially religious construct is being overwritten by an essentially anti-religious perspective. Some conservatives may have really believed that gay families are more likely to dissolve, but I am convinced that the main body of opposition came from the rejection of saying “Bill and Steve are married,” which makes as much sense to them as “Bill and Steve are seven o’clock.” Here, conservatism has made a retreat from a weak position—the state shall not recognize gay relationships as marriage equivalents—to a much stronger one—I will not be forced to go against my conscience to recognize gay relationships as marriage equivalents. This can be framed as a winner on all three axes, although that is not the only way to frame it.
On abortion, the question is simply whether we consider an unborn child to be alive. Conservatives generally do, and are against abortion. Progressives generally do not, and therefore support it. Libertarians more oftent than not do not, and therefore support it, but with many exceptions like P.J. O’Rourke and Clan Paul. Only a few people are willing to say that an unborn child is a human life, but kill it anyway, and these are usually on the conservative or libertarian fringe.
Religion really only fundamentally enters the gay marriage question, because of the religious origin and administration of marriage. Certainly a religious conservative might think that we should not dehumanize ourselves with drugs or throw away the lives of the unborn because human lives are valued by God, but that same belief will be at the core of many issues you have not included here, like whether you can torture or murder people, or or go to war with them.
So what you have here is three completely different questions: government efficacy on drugs, the balance between the state and religious institutions on gay marriage, and a tough but practical question of when life begins on abortion. I don’t think it’s possible to really understand them if you consider them as a bloc.
If discrimination is pervasive, the government is most likely engaged in enforcing it, no?
I think the gay rights issue is more banal than we think. Everyone agrees that we have a right to be bigots in our private lives – toward potential mates, friends, even our own children. And everyone agrees that we have a right to be bigots in our commercial lives – as long as we are employees or customers.
LGBT citizens are given no protection in any scenario except where the other party is an employer or seller. And they are given no protection if they are an employer or seller.
This applies generally to gender and racial civil protections, too.
These protections are really a status game against civil rights in the commercial realm, disguised as civil rights for marginalized groups.
No business man is forced to pay for health insurance. If he elects to provide health insurance their are regulation about what he provides, but that is a very different thing.
Why do you continue to repeat this incorrect observation? You are an open minded person, so why do you make this error– you should know better.
Even under Obama-care no one is forced to provide insurance and there are certain features of Obama-care that may actually lead to firms dropping health insurance. If the employee receives the compensation the firm had previously spent on health insurance this might actually turn out to be a positive benefit of Obama-care. I say this because having a person afraid to quit a job and maybe even start a new business because of health insurance restrict individual freedom.
“I say this because having a person afraid to quit a job and maybe even start a new business because of health insurance restrict individual freedom.”
And the government is doing this through the tax code, what you are calling “not forced.” I think your explanation seems to be semantic in nature.
Employers are not fully forced to offer insurance, but they are forced to pay their taxes, and they have to pay more in taxes. Turns out, the government may be (ham-handedly) undoing this unwise distortion now that it is bankrupting THEM.
A firm counts health insurance payments as part of labor compensation that is a legal business expense that reduces its earnings and the taxes they pay.
If a firm does not provide health insurance its labor costs are lower and it makes higher profits and so the taxes they pay are higher. But in the end the higher taxes are only a fraction of the extra profits they pay. So they are better off —
i.e. their after-tax profits are higher.. Or you claiming that a firm has to pay above 100% of their profits in taxes?
Now, explain to me how that it is the government is bankrupting them when their after tax profits are higher.
You have not thought through you analysis at all.
I am glad, however, that you agree with me that no firm is forced to provide health insurance. Thanks
See http://www.irs.gov/Affordable-Care-Act/Employers/Employer-Shared-Responsibility-Provisions
this regulation is much more of a regulation of what insurance you provide rather than a requirement to provide insurance.
But you are right I should have written my statement in the past tense because before this year no firms were required to provide health insurance. But I have seen this claim made many times over the yeaars.
I’m not american, but it is my understanding that there are many establishments that offer discounts to veterans.
Are there laws that prevent selective discounting from extending to normal people?
Can a cake shop have the folllowing pricelist?
Wedding cakes – $1000000
99.8% discount to straight couples
99.89% discount to straight christian couples
Why is all the talk about outright bans? Why not use prices to discriminate?
The laws are prohibitions against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Offering discounts on the basis of sexual orientation is discrimination just as much as refusing to provide the service at all would be.
The government has to get involved only if discrimination is pervasive
This is the heart of the matter. Our current crop of progressives think that every form of inequality indicates pervasive discrimination, and thus we have our current Leviathan.