In the comments on this post below, Rhodes math professor Jeff Hamrick makes a very important point. I quote him in full:
Of course, it is a fallacy that every right comes with a meaningful cost derived at somebody else’s expense. For years, I’ve heard that respecting the right of every person to marry the one they love will “cost” heterosexuals something. It will do something to their children. It will impose some utterly vague inconvenience on straights as they come to understand marriage differently. It will force the state to shed pennies here and there to allow LGBT individuals to enjoy the same estate tax, Social Security, etc., benefits. While this “right” comes with a cost (and the general point about NFLVR is well-taken), let’s be clear about the real reasons that people complain about certain costs: these complaints are often a thinly-veiled way to encode bigotry or disdain for a group of people, whether those people are a pair of lesbians living in the hood or a family in sub-Saharan Africa hoping for a clean water source.
A couple of thoughts in response:
1. This is exactly the kind of discussion I would want to have in the perfect liberal arts college course.
2. Jeff is right that not all “costs” are meaningful. Any change in the status quo will impose a “cost” on someone else. I don’t have a right to demand compensation because my neighbor’s shiny new car makes me feel bad; as philosopher Michael Huemer said once at an IHS conference we both attended in response to a criticism of income inequality, “envy is a vice.” Along these lines, here’s Steve Landsburg’s review of Robert Frank’s Luxury Fever. Murray Rothbard offers a clear treatment of a number of cases in The Ethics of Liberty. I applied some of these principles to the immigration debate in a Forbes article last year.
3. I don’t think principles can depend on political context. In short, we can’t be voice-of-the-people deliberative democrats when Our Team is in power and checks-and-balances strict constructionists when Their Team is. Even if we want to be strictly utilitarian about it, we have to be mindful of unintended consequences. The power we’re enjoying today will probably be used against us tomorrow.
Rights like private property and religious freedom also can’t be unalienable for Our Team and dependent on a cost/benefit test for Their Team. Over the summer, I discussed how this was particularly evident in the hysteria over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, during which principles like private property rights and religious freedom were being attacked by those who claim to hold them most dear.
4. A lot of opponents of gay marriage base their opposition on alleged social costs, but the arguments I’ve heard are almost all speculative. I’d be interested in good estimates of the net effect of gay marriage on government finance and economic growth. As Jeff points out, the cost is almost certainly trivial, and I would suspect that there are good reasons to think it’s positive.
5. Perspective matters. One of my favorite books is Bryan Caplan’s The Myth of the Rational Voter, which I’m going to assign in my Public Choice class in the Fall. Here’s an abbreviated version, and here’s a podcast. One of Caplan’s points is that there is an enormous gap between voters’ perceptions of the percentage of the federal budget devoted to foreign aid (very large) and the reality (very small). Caplan discusses “anti-foreign bias” at length; “foreign” can be anyone other than “members of my tribe.”
All of this leaves me tempted to take David Gordon’s course on epistemology.
{ 33 comments }
One of Caplan’s points is that there is an enormous gap between voters’ perceptions of the percentage of the federal budget devoted to foreign aid (very large) and the reality (very small). Caplan discusses “anti-foreign bias” at length; “foreign” can be anyone other than “members of my tribe.”
Actually, this is perfectly rational other than to atomized academics who live in ideological Petri dishes. I will forgive many slights against me by family members because they’re family, bound to me by social and biological ties that pay non-financial dividends over generations. The stranger in my house, not so much.
Also, dollar for dollar, foreign aid seems to really ramp up the externalities. We only send a few billion to Israel a year and look at the grief that causes us.
You’ve said it all, amen.
There is “aid” built into the defense budget that double the amount sent via USAid, not to mention the world-policing we do.
as per texas chris, the total subsidy is much, much higher.
Costs are prices. Prices are subjective.
“Costs are prices. Prices are subjective.”
Subjective, but imprecisely measurable. That imprecision is what makes 90% of externality type arguments garbage to me.
Imprecisely measurable? Really? How so?
For years, I’ve heard that respecting the right of every person to marry the one they love…
I just caught this. Whence comes this “right?” I fell in love with Anne Hathaway the other night–do I have the right to marry her? If Anne Hathaway and I love each other and want to get married, do we have a right to have this union recognized as legitimate by my current wife? Do I have the right to insist that the Orthodox Church recognize my union with Anne Hathaway as a marriage?
You’re actually arguing for a positive right that everyone accord your anomalous, male-male pairing the same dignity and privileges that they do to a heterosexual pairing. Your argument for this positive right boils down to, “There are no costs so far as I can tell, but even if there are, they’re comparatively low and I know better than these bigots anyway.”
Don’t be surprised when people push back on your imaginary right.
I think you miss the point…it’s not about someones wife or churches…both are independent entities an are not obligated either way. The issue at hand- when you get married you have to get a license and with this approval from the state, you then can claim certain legal privileges.
I believe this is the motivation for gay marriage. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be an issue. Of course, the real question is… what business is it of the state to sanction marriages???
Then, again, what business is it of the state to sanction anything???
If that’s the case – getting approval from the state so they can claim certain legal privileges – then what’s the problem with civil unions? Why does their gay union have to be called a “marriage?”
Joshua_D,
Good point…but according to the wiki citation below these unions are not recognized by the federal gov. nor by other states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union_in_the_United_States
I’m single so this is not my expertise, but I am assuming that “marriage” is legally recognized throughout the U.S. and elsewhere.
Exactly.
As things now stand, the State enforces legal norms such as family law: child custody, inheritance, alimony, consensual sex, child support, etc. Replace the State with any other institution (the Church, the Mises Institute, the chief of the Hatfield clan, the Amish elders, whoever) and that institution will still have to set standards for what its members will or will not recognize as a valid marriage.
Point being, marriage is a privilege, not a right. There is almost certainly a right to love whom you will, but marriage is not just between the participants; you are perforce asking others to recognize the union as valid. Hamrick is arguing for positive rights which simply cannot be shown to exist on an epistemological basis.
“Point being, marriage is a privilege, not a right.”
In today’s feminist, femo-fascist states, marriage is neither a privilege nor a right, it’s GROSS STUPIDITY.
Marriage represents the biggest financial risk and the biggest reputation risk for males, especially athletes and well off males.
If I was a successful male like Tiger Woods, I would have stayed single with no kids and I would have counted my money and my blessings instead of my fuckings.
@Anti-Gnostic. For legal purposes, I am asking the State to recognize the union as valid. The State is quite different from the Orthodox Church. I’ve given up the “right” to do certain things (punch you in the face, for example) so that we can have such a State. I’ve given nothing up to the Orthodox Church.
I am not making a philosophical argument — or hoping to expose myself to an exhausting discussion about the positive versus negative rights. I’m interested in practical issues only. The Supreme Court has ruled clearly that marriage is, in fact, a right (Loving v. Virginia). Many of the rights mentioned by the students in Leigh’s video project are, in fact, positive. (In fact, most are.) And I am not asking individuals to say or recognize anything about any union I may be involved with: I am asking my State to do so, and to accord me the same treatment as the other pigs feeding at the trough of benefits associated with marriage.
I view the distinction between positive and negative rights as a false dichotomy anyway. And, though it’s none of your business, I’m not involved in any sort of “anomalous male-male pairing” right now. There are at least 80,000 such anomalous pairings in the United States alone, a fact that you might keep in mind before you produce your next sneer.
The Anti-Gnostic,
I believe you have made a grave mistake in your analysis. Marriage is many things to many people.
But in simple terms, marriage is nothing more than a contractual agreement between two consenting parties. This contract is recognized by the state to entitle the parties to certain legal obligations and rewards.
This is no different than two people owning title to a property or the assets of a business. In both of these examples, a contractual agreement has been made and is recognized by the state. And all three examples, as you say, are “asking others to recognize the union as valid”.
Henceforth, to allow one group to engage in a contract (i.e. marriage) and deny another is extremely unethical and very anti-libertarian.
In the end, I would believe the freedom to form a contract would be considered…a right.
The contract is not the issue. Homosexual couples are already free to sign contracts, draw up wills, etc., to reflect their preferences between themselves. What is being argued for is entitlement to the same advantages (or disadvantages, as the case may be) which the State extends to married heterosexuals. I don’t intend to argue the point, other than to say that there are policy reasons why the State may want to favor heterosexual couples over homosexual couples. Whatever your opinion on the matter, it’s clearly a privilege. There is no “right” to have the State or its citizens recognize your marriage as valid, just as there is no right to insist that the Church, family members, an employer or an insurance company recognize your marriage as valid.
@Anti-Gnostic. Your position is really pretty untenable and, frankly, is heteronormative in nature. Unlike any number of my friends, you have evidently never undertaken the incredible stress and expense of synthetically replicating, through financial/medical powers-of-attorney, co-parenting agreements, estate planning documents, second parent adoptions, etc., the legal structures that are automatically granted to consenting and heterosexually-married individuals. Heterosexually and homosexually married couples DO NOT have access to the same legal structures.
I’m opposed to the State picking out winners and losers in the game of life. If you were really a libertarian, you’d abhor any attempt by the state to favor one party over another party without a rational or substantial basis for doing so. That’s how oil companies and ethanol producers and soy farmers get the sweet treats that libertarian types so often end up screaming about.
If you’re a bigot, simply say so in clear and uncertain terms — I assume the policy reasons you attribute to the State include the usual right-wing bogeymen like “procreative purposes,” “responsible parenting,” and “every special kid needs both a mom and a dad.”
Like I said, I don’t intend to argue the point. There is no right to have the State (or any other person or entity) dignify your, my or anybody’s relationship one way or the other. It’s a privilege to be decided by the polity on whatever policy grounds they deem sufficient. In a libertarian society, the same dynamic would apply, except there wouldn’t be any of the State’s “civil rights” to wave around when things don’t go your way.
It’s hard to break the mental chains the State, a.k.a. People with the most guns and prisons, wrap around our minds from K – 12 in state school.
That people view marriage as a contract of sorts simply goes to show have far down the state-sponsored rabbit hole we’ve fallen.
I definitely lean libertarian, but I always wonder why so many libertarians fall in the same utopia-trap that socialist fall into. Without the State, a.k.a. People with the most guns and prisons, homosexuality wouldn’t be nearly as common place as it is here in the USA. Of course, single-motherhood dependent on State handouts would drop dramatically as well without State handouts.
The Anti-Gnostic,
Surely you believe we should be treated equally under the law. Isn’t denying one group access to a legal definition or status (i.e. marriage) a violation of that???
If I am to take your logic to its extreme, then I have to believe that anything bestowed to us from the state is a privilege. Is this observation correct?
Homosexuals are free to marry, just not to a member of the same sex. I am heterosexual. I am not permitted by law to marry anyone of the same sex, either. What “rights” am I afforded that they are not?
David C,
I appreciate your comment and actually found it quite clever… but as with most discussions, it really comes down how we define the premise. Your comment implies that marriage is between a man and a woman. Where as I define marriage as a contract between two people.
What if we replace the legal definition of marriage with that of a business partnership? And we define a business partnership as something that is arranged between a man and women. Furthermore, the legal definition states that people of the same sex cannot enter into a business partnership.
So, by your logic, I am free to run a business just not with a man. You prefer a female business partner but point out that you can’t partner your business with a man either.
When presented this way, it all sounds rather ridiculous.
What’s interesting is even the terms of marriage have evolved. At one point in our history, upon marriage, a woman had to forfeit her property to her husband. Today, that is not the case but it sets a precedent that the terms and conditions of marriage are not static…therefore, open to revision and inclusion.
Needless to say, the fact that marriage is a legal determination awarded by the state causes the conflict… between those who redeem the rewards of marriage and those who are excluded.
It is discussions like this that remind me of why I became an anarcho-libertarian.
It’s been 15 years that I worked for a living and I had 8 different jobs.
15 years and 8 jobs later, I have realized two things.
1) I was always paid miserable worthless wages
2) I was always treated by my bosses and coworkers like I was a worthless piece of scum
I realized that employment is very destructive because I am not treated with dignity, I pay too much taxes and I’m paid worthless wages. I realized that I will never be able to make my dreams come true nor being treated with respect by getting a job, so after being fired from my last job because I complained about psychological harrassment, I decided that I will never work again for the rest of my life, no matter how short it will have to be.
So now, I am a happily unemployed person since June 2010 and never again shall I have a job. Also, because I am a libertarian, I have to refuse any forms of government subsidies, it’s against my principles. People keep telling me that I have the “right” to claim unemployment benefits, that I paid for it.
I keep replying to them that NO, I don’t have any “right” to unemployment benefits because if I am entitled to unemployment benefits, this involves that somebody else is forced to pay unemployment insurance, this is against freedom and my motto is live free or die.
So, I’ve been living free since June 2010. I guess that I should change my motto, because I refuse to work again. I have always hated employment. It’s not the effort or doing work that I hate, it’s the hierarchy and psychological harrassment that I hate, it’s the fact that I pay taxes like crazy and therefore I no longer want to be paid a worthless shitty wage and I no longer want to be treated like shit.
So I guess that in my case, it’s live free and die ! That’s okay with me.
I’m sure yours is a troll post, but I feel like pontificating so I’ll play.
I’ve never had the constant problems you describe and I’ve had a dozen jobs in various firms since I was old enough. I suspect I’ll have more by the time I die. Did any of these places engage in what you describe? (Bad treatment and harassment?) Yes, but in only two cases and the money wasn’t worth the abuse, so I was gone.
Interestingly, one of the bad cases was as a filing clerk in a government office. The co-workers and the management there were hands down the worst I’ve ever seen. The level of incompetence, gossip, and corruption was beyond my ken. I was a social democrat then, so of course I didn’t understand why this was this case. Anyways. . .
If, as you say, you always had the problems you describe, I’d say that YOU are the problem. Either you are an unskilled, low output worker or you are a social misanthrope. If it is true you’ve decided to not work, good luck with that. The fact is, to get anywhere and to have anything, you have to be valuable to others.
Of course, since yours is a troll post, I suspect all this will be a big joke to you. Congratulations.
I think he’s just a bit crazy. He thinks he’s special, different, etc. I’ve know many people like him. Being alive isn’t the same as living, in my opinion, or living free.
I agree, I am the problem, I refuse to be exploited and tobe looked down and to be underestimated. I am not a social “philanthropist” where I will accept to be treated like a worthless piece of trash just to “fit” in. I am a social “misanthrope” who demands respect, yet I realized that there is no such thing as civilization where everyone is created and treated equal.
In reality, people abuse their power and sucks up to those above them and gives a hard time to those below. This is what the job environment has always been for me and I realize that this is what it will always be. So I decide to quit working because I will no longer partake in this kind of bullshit.
This is just useless nihilism. If anything is bullshit, it’s your outlook.
“I’ve heard that respecting the right of every person to marry the one they love will “cost” heterosexuals something. ”
That’s okay, I couldn’t care less, I am not a heterosexual, I am what you could call a hoplosexual, LOL !!!
Art, or Mises – can you take on this utter BS, Please?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5kHACjrdEY
Every time the subject of “rights” comes up it turns into an endless morass. It does so because someone always assumes he possesses such which is universal and undeniable. The reality is quite different. No one possesses a “right” to even exist, much less anything else. Arguments to the contrary can only result in airy opinions which do nothing to resolve the problem and each case will always be decided on the real basis of power and circumstance.
You can talk about legal rights, rights from a Catholic, Baptist, Hottentot, or whatever viewpoint; but the instant you assume something universal you have stepped off planet Earth and set yourself adrift in space. I do not believe we can progress without beginning on a sound fundamental. Looking at it this way, contrary to Hobbes, does not necessarily condemn us to any more of a short, nasty, brutish life than we already live. But starting from a realistic basis may help improve it.
Might is might, there are no rights, that’s what I always thought and that’s what I always observe in reality, in physics, in animal kingdom and in civilization. Those who believe there are rights and laws are idiots. Those with power do what they want and are above the laws, above morality, above nature and above God.
Rights were invented to dull the mind of the masses so they won’t develop the reflex of using their mights but to keep them begging for their rights.
You’re insane.
Comments on this entry are closed.