John Paul II on Freedom and Order
"Where society is so organized as to reduce arbitrarily or even suppress the sphere in which freedom is legitimately exercised, the result is that the life of society becomes progressively disorganized and goes into decline."
So writes John Paul II in Centesimus Annus (1991) on socialism and social democracy. The Pope might have used the phrase of Mises's: Planned Chaos.
The idea that imposed order leads to disorder, and freedom leads to genuine order, is not new; it is a claim that is at the very heart of the classical liberal tradition. What was new in 1991 was to see this insight recaste and reargued from the point of view of Catholic anthropology. The Pope understood that the totalist claims of socialist states were lies that were impoverishing people and souls, and he embraced the core institutions of the business economy--rooted in freedom, respectful of rights, directed toward truth--as the only viable and moral replacement.
This was the argument for a free society made in the years following the collapse of central planing in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and, really, most of the entire world. He pushed the argument further to denounce the social-assistance state of developed 'capitalist' economies for wasting resources, multiplying bureaucracies, and depriving society of human energies.
This was a restatement and embrace of liberalism, a recapturing too of the tradition of thought that gave birth to economic science in the first place (a point fully demonstrated in Rothbard's History of Economics Thought, which is out of print, but also Chafuen's Faith and Liberty, and this summary piece by Jésus Huerto De Soto).
Many have speculated about the relationship of the personalism of John Paul II (see his overlooked treatise The Acting Person, written during the 2nd Vatican Council) and the Austrian School (Human Action). Centesimus Annus seemed to give every reason to believe there is a basis for that comparison.
I wrote more on this encyclical here. More on the economics of JPII: 1, 2, 3, 4. Also, this piece by Duncan Reekie, on Mises's and Knight's view of caritas in relationship to the Christian tradition, is very interesting.
In any case, freedom has a lost a great modern champion with the death of John Paul II. May his legacy continue to inspire people to throw off the chains of tyranny.
Comments (55)
Ike Hall
*sigh* Wrongly blamed for the state of the world, yet again...thanks, JP!
Published: April 2, 2005 10:53 PM
Ike Hall
That said, the encyclical is thought-provoking and quite enlightened, from an Austrian perspective. It calls for a certain noblesse oblige that Randians would balk at, but most Austrians would have no problem with, so long as it is not forced.
Published: April 2, 2005 11:29 PM
Rolf
The wonderful poem "Concerning My Neighbors, the hittites" by Yugoslavian Poet Charles Simic seems so fitting for these times.
Concerning My Neighbors, the Hittites
Great are the Hittites.
Their ears have mice and mice have holes.
Their dogs bury themselves and leave the bones
To guard the house. A single weed holds all their storms
Until the spiderwebs spread over the heavens.
There are bits of straw in their lakes and rivers
Looking for drowned men. When a camel won't pass
Through the eye of one of their needles,
They tie a house to its tail. Great are the Hittites.
Their fathers are in cradles, their newborn make war.
To them lead floats, a leaf sinks. Their god is the size
Of a mustard seed so that he can be quickly eaten.
They also piss against the wind,
Pour water in a leaky bucket,
Strike two tears to make fire,
and have tongues with bones in them,
Bones of a wolf gnawed by lambs.
*
They are also called mound- builders,
They are called Asiatic horses
That will drink on the Rhine, they are called
My grandmother's fortune telling, they are called
You can't take it to the grave with you.
It's that hum in your left ear,
A sigh coming from deep within you,
A dream in which you keep falling forever,
The hour in which you sit up in bed
As though someone has shouted you name.
No one knows why the Hittites exist,
Still, when two are whispering
One of them is listening.
Did they catch the falling knife?
They caught it like a fly with closed mouths.
Did they balance the last egg?
They struck the egg with a bone so it won't howl.
Did they wait for dead man's shoes?
The shoes went in at one ear and out the other.
Did they wipe the blood from their mousetraps?
They burnt the blood to warm themselves.
Are they cold with no pockets in their shrouds.?
If the sky falls they shall have clouds for supper.
What do they have for us
To put in our pipes and smoke?
They have the braid of a beautiful girl
That drew a team of cattle
And the engraving of him who slept
With dogs and rose with fleas
Searching for its trace in the sky.
*
And so there are fewer and fewer of them now.
Who wrote their name on paper
And burnt the paper? Who put snake-bones
In their pillows? Who made them walk
Under the ladder? Who stuck pins
In their snapshots?
The wart of warts and his brother evil-eye.
Bone-lazy and her sister rabbit's-foot.
Cross-your-fingers and their father dogstar.
Knock-on-wood and his mother hell-fire.
Because the tail can't wag the cow.
Because the woods can't fly to the dove.
Because the stones haven't said their last word.
Because dunghills rise and empires fall.
*
They are leaving behind
All the silver spoons
Found inside their throats at birth,
A hand they bit because it fed them,
Two rats from a ship that is still sinking,
The leaf they turned over too late.
*
All that salt cast over the shoulder,
All that bloody meat traveling under the saddles
of nomads...
Here comes a forest in wolf's clothing,
The wise hen bows to the umbrella.
When the bloodshot evening meets the bloodshot night,
The tell each other bloodshot tales.
That bare branch over them speaks louder than words,
The moon is worn threadbare.
I repeat: lean days don't come singly,
It takes all kinds to make the sun rise.
the night is each man's castle
Don't let the castle out of the bag.
Wind in the valley, wind in the high hills,
Practice will make this body fit this bed.
May all roads lead
Out of a sow's ear
To what's worth
Two in the bush.
By Charles Simic from C.A.P 1990
Published: April 2, 2005 11:56 PM
Andy D
Maybe that quote has a deeper meaning. As in, how can the rights of man be respected when inalienable rights are not accepted becuase you can only gain inalienable rights from a Higher Power? For Catholics, this is God. for other people maybe it's nature or other forms of paganisms. My libertairian beliefs stem from my religious/moral beliefs. I think the teachings of Jesus are also clear; would you throw chains on your neighbor? And yes, it is my duty to help those let fortunate than me. Because I *try* believe my life is God's. The Pope gave hope to those who were living under communism, and was a great ally of freedom, whether you like it or not ;)~
Published: April 3, 2005 4:45 AM
Daniel Franke
I think the classical liberals have it backwards on this point. Freedom is chaotic, and chaos is good. The floor of the NYSE is anything but orderly.
Published: April 3, 2005 6:18 AM
perrosuelto
So seems good for libertarians that Catholic Church survey closely your behaviour into your own bedroom? A reclusive institution, including Opus Dei work, that has ALWAYS acted with fascists regimes? A confirmation: dubya. All hails this dance of death like a show. Shame!
Published: April 3, 2005 10:17 AM
Andy D
Perro,
I thought the whole point of libertairianism was freedom of choice? Catholics freely make the choice to follow the Church, it doesn't force itself onto you. Bush runs a facist regime? A garuntee the millions upon millions who were killed by thier government in the past century would have gladly lived under "the Bush regime." We have such suffering in this country, don't we?
Google: Darfor, Sudan, Rwanda, Chinese slave labor, etc...
The Church really worked with the nazi facists when 1/4 priests in Poland were killed, and when the Pope sponsored the solidarity movemnet there also. (i.e. against the russians.)
You are such a reactionairy blinded by ideological hatred. Post something coherant.
Daniel, I see it as chaos is freedom, and freedom is good. :)
Published: April 3, 2005 1:09 PM
perrosuelto
Hei! Dandy of the two one: or you are washbrained by something like catholic fundamentalists rain or symply you know nothing about history and rationality: the faith in immortality of soul is a fable anyone may chose, not only libertarians, but it's IRRATIONAL. From this point on you may believe in wathsoever fable you want but you have to admit you act in a irrational way. You seems to admit ONLY the role of this pope fighting against communist regimes and you are right by with YOUR MONEY. The monocratic regime of state of vatican act mainly for money wether you believe or not. For almost 2 thousands years this regime was collecting 10% along with laical state taxes, murdering and practicing torture to millions only for suspects, wiping out private properties to innocents or socalled erethic (where you think modern torture take their inspiration? There are hundreds of XVI° century books explaining in detail "how to suministrate "tormenti", you know the term "mazzolati" that broke the bones of all the body, take information, boy) You never ask you from where come the LUXURY of the papal court? Hundreds of bishops suiting in red, violet like buffons, mainly gay, because the dogma don't permit to a women to enter into the jearchy even to run a parish. And the millions of africans dying by HIV after missionaries invade Africa forbitten condom? You are a man of courage or a parrot like ALL the leaders of the world that simule omage in order to obtain support from the mass of fearful that believe in a life after death, including Bush reborn (reborn?) If you look at his face, it's a depressed man as like as Rummy is arthitic (look at his finger). This regard all kind of religion not only the catholic one, but the Catholic show all the arrogance of the privilege pushing and estorting conversion side to side with totalitarian state and via the brutal tradition. So look at yourself to be well packed with neocons and millions and me alone against all. Did you like the majority of sheeps.Well you are inside, I am a dog that's outside.
Published: April 3, 2005 4:47 PM
Julius No
It's a good read! Thanks!
Pope John Paul II was a good man, I liken him to Ronald Reagan. Good man, Poor wizard.
Children hiding in Adult bodies insist on a Wizzard. At least one, preferably more.
It's too bad the Dominican Order, a branch of the Church under his direction didn't read what JPII had to say about free markets. Lest we forget, The Dominican Order is the outfit who schooled and underwrote good ole Sub Comandante Marcos of Southernmost Mexico. They know his name. Some say he is still on the payroll.
You know, the guy frequently pictured in a freshly starched, clean and pressed U.S. issue uniform holding an M-16? Perfect photography? Ed Lansdale would have been proud.
Hero of the goatherder who with his neighbors only wants the land around them left as they have been managing it.
Respected.
Not stolen by some phony fake Privitisation scheme to one day be split three ways with the Church, Mexican and American politicos.....
This Scheme has worked so well in the past: Remember the huge IMF Developement loans given to Mexico in the late 1970s ??? Proceeds were split three ways back then as well. Guess the percentage that actually went into projects? Guess who got the rest?
I look for the Sub Comandante to sell out one day. He'll give them the gift of Government. As soon as the ink is dry, the drilling rigs will show up.
The problem with leaders of large groups is they have no control over most of the membership.
Back door enterprises emerge on the side and happen weather or not the leader has his fingers in it. The compass is broken. Sovreignty is no more. Jurisdiction is a joke. Everyone is screwed.
At the township level people might have a chance.
Perhaps.
Published: April 3, 2005 7:34 PM
Andy D
You causality is incorrect. Why do you think that there are morals? If everyone lied, cheated and had children out of wedlock, do you think society would survive? Why do people raise children? The Church has erred, but it also does great chairitable work on a scale never dupilicated. Before welfare, how did the sick and lame survive? Through the Church.
You believe the Church is causing/supporting AIDS by disapproving of condoms? Thats like saying if I don't give my kid enough money he'll have to go steal some. The person who has intercourse with AIDS infected persons is the one responsible for AIDS transmission. If you don't see the good that the Church is doing in this day and age then you are blind. I am not excusing all thier past behavior, but I will defend thier institution as important to society.
Look at the millions of preists and nuns who live in poverty to do missionairy work and actually help to alieviate the suffering. There is something right about that.
Published: April 3, 2005 8:58 PM
Julius No
If everyone lied, cheated and had children out of wedlock, do you think society would survive?
Ask the CIA's Jesse Jackson.
Published: April 3, 2005 9:22 PM
David J. Heinrich
perrosuelto,
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that those in the Church have done some good things? No-one here is saying that the Catholic Church never did any wrong. Nor is this particularly about the Catholic Church, but rather it is about John Paul II. He has done many great things for freedom. Certainly, he wasn't perfect, but who is? Is your hatred for religion really that strong? I am an atheist, but greatly respect religious views, and many religious people, including JPII.
Sincerely,
David J. Heinrich
Published: April 3, 2005 10:25 PM
perrosuelto
David, I may aknowledge that CC has made "some" good things but "mostly" bad ones. As libertarian and free thinker, simply I can't understand all this "festival" of hypocrital fanaticism toward an institution that worse than a state structure look inside private freedom of choise. David, are you ready to allow your kid to learn into Boston church, a male kid I means? The Soviets were broken well before this pope action, it's well know by you and by me, let this site to be sincere.
Published: April 4, 2005 4:26 AM
Mike
You're basically right about the CC, Perro. The Taliban helped defeat communism in Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean the Taliban should be praised for its "pro-freedom" stance. The Catholic Church's main beef with communism was its atheism.
The Pope and his church have spent an inordinate amount of time and resources attempting to maintain government meddling in the private decisions of individuals. John Paul II was no friend of liberty.
Published: April 4, 2005 8:24 AM
Francisco Torres
Mike wrote:
"The Catholic Church's main beef with communism was its atheism."
Not only the Catholic Church. If you read some of LewRockwell.com essayist, one would think atheism is THE reason of all ills in the world, as if religious nuts and holy wars never existed.
I do not agree John Paul II was an enemy of liberty, Mike. Judging from his speeches and writings, he certainly advocated for personal freedom, although as one would expect he was quite the traditionalist concerning Catholic dogma.
Published: April 4, 2005 10:12 AM
Brad Dexter
Religion as philosophy is fine. All philosophies when presented in their fineries sound good. All, or nearly all, philosophies endeavor to improve individuals and make bright promises if life is conducted in accordance with its ideals. And people are free to follow whatever illusion they choose.
But I have found the more irrational the foundation of the philosophy, the more its tenets bubble up through the culture and into public policy.
The more detached the philosophy is from material reality, the more maleable the tenets become, and the more dreamy they are. Individuals can then make of it what they want, and become so fixated with what they have constructed, and will not brook contradiction (and really can't be contradicted as it is not based in reality), that they become zealous and are more prone to use force against others.
To sum up, the more fantastic the philosophy, mixed with a broad acceptance, leads indirectly to the incredibly poor public policy we have today.
Published: April 4, 2005 11:12 AM
Charles Hueter
Assuming the quote isn't ripped from a different context, it does go straight to the heart regarding my feelings about JPII:
"The church cannot be an association of freethinkers."
As such, I have my skepticism regarding the ex-Pope's attachment to individual freedom.
Published: April 4, 2005 11:22 AM
Dennis Sperduto
Mr. Hueter,
"The church cannot be an association of freethinkers." Although I could be incorrect, I believe that JPII meant this in the context of official Catholic Church theology and doctrine, and not to matters outside of this sphere.
Published: April 4, 2005 11:43 AM
perrosuelto
Mr. Brad, may I assume your post like "philosophia ancilla religio" as was in Middle Age? Even in physic the invariability in space and time of fenomenae is a matter of faith,is not is. The question is also that you give for grant that politics are something like philosophers, a little mad here, a little dreamy there, erratic in its own. THEY ARE NOT. The men acting in politic arena are only lust of power and brutality. They tend "to use force against others". The true philosopher don't touch even a fly, he express his ideas and feelings without the pretensions to be taken in serious and after all without reach the TRUE FOR ALL. The true for himself is sufficent. regards.
Published: April 4, 2005 12:36 PM
Brad Dexter
Perrosuelto,
What I said (or intended to say) was that such philosophies espoused by irrational philosophers are the ones that resonate well with the masses, and then percolate there way into public policies.
I have spent quite a bit of time on the curious nature of individuals and States and how people presumably want maximum freedom for themselves and tight control over everyone else. At its root it is irrational, and only irrational philosophies will suit such thinking. And religions are the safest bet, though 'secular' versions (fascism, communism) have manifested themselves as Statism broke away from proper religious foundations.
Regardless, philosophies are the starting point. Brute use of force does not occur without a starting point. It seems that almost all cases the head of the philosophies cloaked themselves in the holiness of 'the cause' even as the practical implementation of it brutally brought down opponents through force.
Published: April 4, 2005 4:14 PM
Jeffrey
Here is an enormously charming image of the Pope viewing a laptop computer. Amazing to think that his pontificate began before GUI, soon after the first consumer PCs, and the same year the word processor was born. This Pope had been shaped by Gaudium et Spes (1965) and its heralding of the new age of technological progress and its merit for the whole of humanity. He believed it and defended it.
Published: April 4, 2005 9:25 PM
Arman Demirjian
It seems no one asked the more pertinent question about all this Papal fiasco: "WHO CARES?"
Published: April 5, 2005 12:15 AM
Rolf
Arman wrote: It seems no one asked the more pertinent question about all this Papal fiasco:"WHO CARES?"
What planet do you live on Arman Demirjian? Earth has about 1.1 Billion faithful Catholics with the Pope as their guiding light.
The who cares question is self explanitory.
Published: April 5, 2005 2:04 AM
Arman Demirjian
I was obviously commenting on the deification of the Pope and the ensuing battle royal about whether or not the Pope was a man of peace or against liberty. I personally am an agnostic and have nothing to do with organized dogma, and I don't quite find the Pope to be a voice of liberty, apart from his minor role in Communism in Poland. All of a sudden he is lauded as the greatest saint that walked on earth. But knowing Communism, it was not so much the Pope's supposed role in bringing down Communism as the inherent flaw in that ideology that threatened it from the get go as Mises observed.
Published: April 5, 2005 2:16 AM
Doug
To all the Pope's anarchist detractors, if you think the Church's restrictions on personal behavior are stifling, you should imagine what health, life and auto insurers would write into their policies if regulators allowed them.
Think of all the ettiquete and mores that will evolve in a world with true freedom of association and the right to discriminate.
In place of the State, what alternative institution do you propose to protect the weak and guard against evildoers? A "contract" with heavily armed thugs that will be jettisoned as soon as a higher bidder appears?
Published: April 5, 2005 8:47 AM
Francisco Torres
Doug wrote:
"In place of the State, what alternative institution do you propose to protect the weak and guard against evildoers?"
People can exercise their freedom of association to form protection organizations, exactly as they do today. They can freely create those associations that will enable them to successfully defend themselves against the action of evildoers. One organization that comes to mind is, believe it or not, the NRA. Its members chose to freely associate to defend their rights against government intervention and the "good people" who want to ban guns altogether; I do not see any difficulty from an anarcho-capitalist point of view for people to organize in this manner.
Of course, being an anarchist does not mean stopping being a Catholic. People who join the Catholic faith do so freely, and can leave the same, as I did.
Doug wrote:
"To all the Pope's anarchist detractors, if you think the Church's restrictions on personal behavior are stifling, you should imagine what health, life and auto insurers would write into their policies if regulators allowed them."
Doug, the reason health, life and auto insurers do not dictate lifestyle choice is because there is a thing called the FREE MARKET. If a person found the restrictions quite easy to live with, then those insurers will keep the customer, but ultimately it is the customer who calls the shots. Of course this is the same with religion: each religion competes against the other in the market of ideas.
Doug wrote:
"Think of all the ettiquete and mores that will evolve in a world with true freedom of association and the right to discriminate."
You mean to say it is different right now?
I have the right to discriminate, and so does everybody else. I do not have to open the door to my home to everybody; I can choose who can come in and who that cannot; I married the prettiest girl I have ever met, not the ugliest, et cétera, et cétera. I have the right to associate with whoever I want right now... The exceptions of course are due to government interference, but do you think the government can really legislate every aspect of human actions? Since it cannot, I do not think the ettiquete and rules of civility will be too different if there was not a government.
Published: April 5, 2005 9:32 AM
Doug
Francisco:
Under the current regime of ERISA, Medicare/Medicaid, SSI, and other externalities, homosexuals, smokers, drug users, the obese, etc. enjoy an insurance subsidy. That's one of the reasons insurance premiums continually rise. If these externalities were removed, people would have to pay the full freight for their lifestyle choices. Insurers compete for good risks, not poor risks. The insurance market, like all markets, operates toward economy and efficiency, and would weed out poor risks as uninsurable.
And,
Compare the ettiquete and mores of times past when government was much more limited with the ettiquete and mores under the current regulatory state.
Published: April 5, 2005 10:16 AM
Rolf
Jay Wright's Beautiful poem "Benjamin Banneker Sends His Almanac To Thomas Jefferson" says so much so apply in these Know It All times.
Benjamin Banneker Sends His Almanac
To Thomas Jefferson
Old now,
your eyes nearly blank
from plotting the light's
movement over the years,
you clean your almanac,
and place it next
to the heart of this letter.
I have you in mind,
giving a final brush and twist
to the difficult pages,
staring down the shape of the numbers
as though you would find a flaw
in their forms.
Solid, these calculations
verify your body on God's earth.
At night,
the stars submit themselves
to the remembered way you turn them;
the moon gloats under your attention.
I, who know so little of stars,
whose only acquaintance with the moon
is to read a myth, or to listen
to the surge
of songs the women know,
sit in your marvelous reading
of all movement,
of all relations.
So you look into what we see
yet cannot see,
and shape and take a language
to give form to one or the other,
believing no form will escape,
no movement appear, nor stop,
without explanation,
believing no reason is only reason,
nor without reason.
I read all of this into your task,
all of this into the uneasy
reproof of your letter.
surely, there must be a flaw.
These perfect calculations fall apart.
There are silences
that no perfect number can retrieve,
omissions no perfect line could catch.
How could a man but challenge God's
impartial distrubutions?
How could a man sit among
the free and ordered movements
of stars, and waters, beasts and birds,
each movement seen or accounted for,
and not know God jealous,
and not know that he himself must be?
So you go over the pages again,
looking for the one thing
that will not reveal itself,
judging what you have received,
what you have shaped,
believing it cannot be strange
to the man you address.
But you are strange to him
-your skin, your tongue,
the movement of your body,
even your mysterious ways with stars.
You argue here with the man and God,
and know that no man can be right,
and know that no God will argue right.
Your letter turns on what the man knows,
on what God, you think, would have us know.
all stars will forever move under your gaze,
truthfully, leading you from line to line,
from number to number, from truth to truth,
while the man will read your soul's desire,
searcher, searching yourself,
losing the relations.
By Jay Wright From C.A.P. 1990
Published: April 5, 2005 2:36 PM
iw
Well I do suggest you scroll the balance sheets of the vatican state...seems they have to sell properties since the economic governace with this pope was seemingly destroying finances to create social dumpings accross europe..
do not forget his connection with the obscurantistic and medieval opus...
not least consider that in the last decade he made same statements as for the eastern world economic/political system as for the capitalistic free global anrcho/capitalistic markets
uncomplete thinking wd say
Published: April 6, 2005 9:19 AM
Mike
Under the current regime of ERISA, Medicare/Medicaid, SSI, and other externalities, homosexuals, smokers, drug users, the obese, etc. enjoy an insurance subsidy.
If drugs were legalized they'd be much safer to use. If needles could be bought freely there would be no sharing of needles that has helped cause the spread of aids.
If you feel there's a problem with homosexual promiscuity, then you should be all for the legalization of same-sex marriage. I find no greater amount of hypocrisy than I find from the folks who kvetch about homosexual promiscuity while at the same time opposing homosexuals entering into an anti-promiscuity marriage contract.
Compare the ettiquete and mores of times past when government was much more limited with the ettiquete and mores under the current regulatory state.
Compare the etiquete and mores of times past when the Pope and other religious leaders had more control of society: Book burnings, Human burnings, general oppression, crushing poverty, dire ignorance.
Published: April 6, 2005 10:11 AM
Doug
Mike,
Unsurprisingly, you cannot grasp the point. But to indulge your libertine rant:
Nothing is currently stopping homosexuals from entering into an anti-promiscuity "marriage" contract, if that is what they want to call it.
Nothing is currently stopping drug addicts from refusing to share needles, or even taking the simple expedient of boiling their needles. Or ending their drug use.
The objection is not to homosexuality or drug use per se, though I personally object strongly to both, but to the cost-shifting by their participants.
Published: April 6, 2005 11:24 AM
Mike
Doug,
Earth check. The laws of 49 states outlaw same-sex marriage.
If drug users could buy their needles as well as their drugs without government hinderance or inteference the costs and dangers of using drugs would be lower and in some cases non-existent.
I'm against all government enforced cost-shifting. Even such cost-shifting as red states shifting the cost of their lifestyles on blue states. Do you differ?
Published: April 6, 2005 12:07 PM
Doug
Mike,
There is no law that prevents two homosexuals from drawing up a contract that outlines their rights and obligations in a domestic relationship. None. Nada. Not in a single one of the 50 states. Homosexual couples are perfectly free to own property as joint tenants, will their estates to each other, grant each other powers of attorney, and contract for the parties' rights and obligations in the event they dissolve the relationship.
Since they already have this freedom, why do they want state sanction for a relationship in which they are already free to enter? One motivation is to procure health insurance benefits for partners who would otherwise be uninsurable.
It's still beside the point but,
Clean, cheap needles will not eliminate the health risks associated with putting a refined chemical into your bloodstream. Drug addicts will always be a poor risk for any kind of insurance, regardless of the legal status of the drug.
Published: April 6, 2005 12:27 PM
Mike
Doug,
There is no law that prevents two homosexuals from drawing up a contract that outlines their rights and obligations in a domestic relationship. None. Nada. Not in a single one of the 50 states. Homosexual couples are perfectly free to own property as joint tenants, will their estates to each other, grant each other powers of attorney, and contract for the parties' rights and obligations in the event they dissolve the relationship.
Get on the same page, Doug. We're talking about full marriage rights not a select few privileges and rights that some well-off individuals can afford to obtain. There are 1000s of rights and privileges granted to married couples. Most of these are not available to just anyone who draws up a power of attorney and deeds property.
Since they already have this freedom, why do they want state sanction for a relationship in which they are already free to enter? One motivation is to procure health insurance benefits for partners who would otherwise be uninsurable.
Ask them same question of heterosexuals. Why do they want state sanction for a relationship in which they are free to enter outside of marriage? Is there motivation to secure health benefits for partners who would be otherwise uninsurable?
Published: April 6, 2005 1:13 PM
Doug
Mike,
You can whine all you want, but there is nothing that prevents homosexuals from structuring their relationships identically to those of married couples. Homosexuals are in fact in the upper percentiles of household income.
Your arguments are, as they have been from the beginning, beside the point. You are debating policy issues over homosexuality. To briefly respond, there are compelling policy reasons of hygiene and social cohesion for giving special status to monogamous, heterosexual relationships. I don't expect to convince you of this, but that is not what the debate is about.
Published: April 6, 2005 1:21 PM
tz
I don't think I would want a "free thinker" accountant or engineer. Addition and multiplication aren't something I would desire to experiment with, nor stresses and failure points for bridges.
Usually people want to allow "free thinkers" up to the point where the other person's free thinking threatens their person or property.
The Church asserts that some things are - gasp! - true. Factual. That holding other opinions would be wrong. Or worse, that people will (eventually) be unhappy if they do certain things.
Another earth check: 50 states outlaw incest, bi/polygamy, and marriage of children. Only for humpty dumpty and the MA judiciary does the word "marriage" mean whatever they want it to mean.
Published: April 6, 2005 1:42 PM
tz
Or to plaguarize another analogy,
Am I more free when I keep my car (4wd, but not designed for off-roading) on the pavement or when I assert the right to get stuck in the mud or have it sink to a bottom of a lake where I misjudged the thickness of the ice?
Freedom must be based on truth. The Catholic church claims it has a larger quantity and/or quality of truth. (You may disagree with this premise, but follow the logic as if you agreed). So people with a firmer foundation are more free - not to do things that would enslave them to their passions or to systems, people, or whatever else - but to do things that can expand their horizons.
For some composers, melody, harmony, and rythm are too restrictive, but their product isn't recognizable as music.
Grammar rules english order word restrictive too are and? Intelligent freedom more I sound do I in?
Published: April 6, 2005 1:50 PM
Mike
Doug,
You should be more humble in your defeat.
Notice how your incapable of providing one rational argument for your beliefs. So confused are you, one minute you're arguing same-sex marriages are legal in all 50 states, the next minute you're arguing same-sex marriages are illegal for good reasons.
My libertarianism leads me to believe that government has no right dictating the personal decisions of individuals. Your statism leads you to believe that government has a roll to play in micro-managing the private life of individuals. It's freedom versus anti-freedom.
Published: April 6, 2005 1:52 PM
Doug
Mike,
My point was that ERISA, Medicare/Medicaid and SSI shift the costs for cigarette-smoking, homosexuality, drug use and obesity (all known high-risk conditions) on to non-smokers, heterosexuals, and teetotallers.
You responded that I should not oppose same-sex marriage.
I responded that first, that was not the point and second, that the government does not prevent homosexuals from structuring their relationships identically to married people. That being the case, I question why homosexuals would agitate for government sanction (and control) of their "marriages."
If it is because they want the same privileges that government extends to married heterosexuals, my response would be that, as a matter of policy, there are compelling reasons to favor heterosexual unions over homosexual unions. (I'm not going to get into it because it appears your mind is already made up and more importantly, that's not the topic of this thread.)
Published: April 6, 2005 2:07 PM
David Heinrich
Mike,
You have completely misconstrued what Doug has said. He did not say that same-sex marriages were legal in all of the states. He said that there isn't one state which prevents homosexuals from drawing up a contract between themselves to structure their relationship in the same manner as a heterosexual marriage.
Doug,
Regarding homosexuals/heterosexuals and various tax-benefits of marraige, there is no justifiable reason why homosexuals shouldn't also be offered the same tax-benefits as heterosexual married couples. Given that all taxes are robbery, there's no justification for reducing them whenever and wherever possible.
That said, it is also unjustifiable that various groups (such as homosexuals) effectively receive subsidies from the State, which requires insurance companies to consider them in the same risk-class as heterosexuals.
Published: April 6, 2005 2:11 PM
Mike
Another earth check: 50 states outlaw incest, bi/polygamy, and marriage of children.
Who said there should be laws against incest, and polygamy?
The laws against children marrying is different. You should be above the age of reason to enter into any contract not just marriage contracts.
Only for humpty dumpty and the MA judiciary does the word "marriage" mean whatever they want it to mean
You forgot to mention that the majority of the citizens of Massachusetts, Canada, Netherlands, Denmark, etc agree with humpty dumpty.
Published: April 6, 2005 2:14 PM
Mike
Doug,
Here's my final response to you.
My point was that ERISA, Medicare/Medicaid and SSI shift the costs for cigarette-smoking, homosexuality, drug use and obesity (all known high-risk conditions) on to non-smokers, heterosexuals, and teetotallers.
You responded that I should not oppose same-sex marriage.
My response was, and it still holds true, I find it hypocritical for people to criticize homosexuals for their promiscuity while at the same time wanting to bar them from the low-sexual-risk marriage. You did mean promiscuity by high-risk conditions.
I question why homosexuals would agitate for government sanction (and control) of their "marriages."
Why do they have to provide you with a reason. Because they want to should be a good enough reason for you or anyone else.
If it is because they want the same privileges that government extends to married heterosexuals, my response would be that, as a matter of policy, there are compelling reasons to favor heterosexual unions over homosexual unions. (I'm not going to get into it because it appears your mind is already made up and more importantly, that's not the topic of this thread.)
Heterosexuals and homosexuals will both pay to support heterosexual privileges. You're against government enforced cost-shifting, but not government enforced wealth transfers.
Published: April 6, 2005 3:12 PM
Mike
David,
I clearly said that same-sex marrriages were illegal in 49 states. Doug replied that I was wrong. What was I wrong about? Is same-sex marriages legal in all 50 states? Or was my number of states incorrect? Is same-sex marriages only illegal in 40 states?
Published: April 6, 2005 3:23 PM
Doug
Mike,
There is not a single law on the books anywhere that prohibits homosexuals from being in low-risk, monogamous relationships, complete with all the legal forms necessary to make it a "marriage." The fact that so many of them choose not to do so is no one's fault but their own.
Published: April 6, 2005 3:39 PM
perrosuelto
In MO, Doug in deadly wrong on thi suject: the CC ALWAYS act in accordance with States. Take a look next friday funeral and their stupid faces. Why? CC for tradition is a arm-army (Jusuites=army of god) of powerful state. CC want basically, in accordance with positive law, people PRO-CREATE:homo did not this. The interest to procreation is to submit more people to be educated and/or sujected to enforcement of law of state and law of catholic belief, more workforce, more taxpayers, more potentially dumbs to manipulate with strange fable, less fredom for self-determined guys to make choose on his body and mind destiny. After all, no one has asked to born, the man is TOTALLY proprietor of his destiny. It's also a symbolic and cultural sign that CC-State bless an etero marriage meanwhile the homo have to make a contract aside, like the buy-selling of a cow. If a common sense has to have advanced, not to say the Reason, there was no matterto enter this kind of discussion like that a buntch of bishps, archibishops, cardinals and similia are performing to spend their time in unproductive fashion. Let the people, one for all, be free to do with their body and mind what their want.
Published: April 6, 2005 5:20 PM
Mike
There is not a single law on the books anywhere that prohibits homosexuals from being in low-risk, monogamous relationships, complete with all the legal forms necessary to make it a "marriage."
I already answered this question. I'll answer it again. Marriage entails 1000s of rights and privileges granted by government. It isn't possible to obtain all of these rights and privileges without a government recognized marriage. To give you just one example: Your spouse dies, you can collect your spouse's social security. No will and deed that you can draw up will allow your significant other to collect your social security outside of government recognized marriage.
Even if same-sex couples could obtain 100% of the rights and privileges of marriage by paying lots of money to lawyers, the next question is why should homosexuals have to pay for what heterosexuals can get for free? My libertarianism leads me to oppose government privileges and group rights, period. Your statism leads you to support group rights and affirmative action for heterosexuals.
Published: April 7, 2005 7:03 AM
Doug
Mike,
Other than preferential tax treatment, what are these "thousands" of rights and privileges that heterosexual couples get from the government? A key to the city? A free yacht?
Is the fact that the government doesn't grant them "thousands" of rights and privileges the reason that homosexuals are promiscuous and refuse to spend any money on a will or a simple contract?
Are you for state recognition of homosexual unions? If so, I can tell you that the only people who will benefit will be divorce courts and their attendant lawyers.
Your rants remind me why, as an acquaintance once said, homosexuals are the state's model citizens: they seek validation from the state; they enshrine and enforce their victim status; and they have a zero-sum view of human relations.
Published: April 7, 2005 9:10 AM
Mike
Other than preferential tax treatment, what are these "thousands" of rights and privileges that heterosexual couples get from the government? A key to the city? A free yacht?
I don't really feel like listing all 1000+ benefits and privileges enjoyed by married couples. Here's a few, though
Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments
upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian
partners receive no Social Security survivor benefits — resulting in an average
annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.
Immigration. Americans in binational relationships are not permitted to
petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate. As a result, they are often
forced to separate or move to another country.
Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical
coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide
coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay employees who
do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on
the value of the insurance.
Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of
his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer
is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner
Retirement savings. While a married person can roll a deceased
spouse’s 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes, a gay or lesbian
American who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up to 70 percent of it in
taxes and penalties
Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from
their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to
family leave to care for their partners.
Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in
nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples
do not have the right to spend their last days living together in nursing
homes.
Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell
their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no
such protection.
Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor
benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are
excluded from such pension benefits.
Is the fact that the government doesn't grant them "thousands" of rights and privileges the reason that homosexuals are promiscuous and refuse to spend any money on a will or a simple contract?
If you agree that marriage promotes monogamy, then you would have to agree that same-sex marriage would promote homosexuality monogamy. That you're against same-sex marriage only proves your hypocrisy in the matter. Your not against homosexual promiscuity, you're against homosexuals. Plain old bigotry.
Are you for state recognition of homosexual unions? If so, I can tell you that the only people who will benefit will be divorce courts and their attendant lawyers.
If you feel that way, let us get rid of all state marriage licenses, heterosexual and homosexual.
Your rants remind me why, as an acquaintance once said, homosexuals are the state's model citizens: they seek validation from the state; they enshrine and enforce their victim status; and they have a zero-sum view of human relations.
By wanting the same rights as heterosexuals: homosexuals seek validation from the state; they enshrine and enforce their victim status; and they have a zero-sum view of human relations?
Do you have lots of muddle-headed acquaintances?
Published: April 7, 2005 10:21 AM
Rolf
A clear poem by Allen Ginsberg is about human relations which Allen undersood so deeply.
"Don't Grow Old"
Twenty-eight years before on the living room couch he'd stared at me, I said
"I want to see a psychiatrist-I have sexual difficulties- Homosexuality"
I'd come home from troubled years as a student. This was the weekend I
would talk with him.
A look startled his face, " You mean you like to take men's penises in your
mouth?"
Equally startled, "No, no, " I Lied, "that isn't what it means."
Now he lay naked in the bath, hot water draining beneath his shanks.
Strong shouldered Peter, once ambulance attendant, raised him up
in the tiled room. We toweled him dry, arms under his, bathrobe over his
shoulder-
he tottered thru the door to his carpeted bedroom
sat on the soft mattress edge, exhausted, and coughed up watery phlegm.
We lifted his swollen feet talcum'd white, put them thru pajama legs,
tied the cord round his waist, and held the nightshirt sleeve open for his
hand slow.
Mouth drawn in his false teeth in a dish, he turned his head round
looking up at Peter to smile ruefully, "Don't ever grow old."
II
At my urging, my eldest nephew came
to keep his grandfather company, maybe sleep overnight in the apartment.
He had no job, and was homeless anyway.
All afternoon he read the papers and looked at old movies.
Later dusk, television silent, we sat on a soft-pillowed couch,
Louis sat on his easy-chair that swiveled and could lean back-
"So what kind of job are you looking for?"
"Dishwashing, but someone told me it makes your hands' skin scaly red."
"And what about officeboy?" His grandson finished highschool with marks
too poor for college.
"It's unhealthy inside airconditioned buildings under fluorescent light."
The dying man looked at him, nodding at the specimen.
He began his advice. "You might be a taxidriver, but what if a car crashed
into you? They say you can get mugged too.
Or you could get a job as a sailor, but the ship could sink, you could get
drowned.
Maybe you should try a career in the grocery business, but a box of bananas
could slip from the shelf,
you could hurt your head. Or if you were a waiter, you could slip and fall
down with a loaded tray, & have to pay for the broken glass.
Maybe you should be a carpenter, but your thumb might get hit by a
hammer.
Or a lifeguard- but the undertow at Belmar beach is dangerous, and you
could catch a cold.
Or a doctor, but sometimes you could cut your hand with a scalpel that had
germs, you could get sick & die."
Later, in bed after twilight, glasses off, he said to his wife
"Why doesn't he comb his hair? It falls all over his eyes, how can he see?'
Tell him to go home soon, I'm too tired."
III
Resigned
A year before visiting a handsome poet and my Tibetan guru,
Guests after supper on the mountainside
we admired the lights of Boulder spread glittering below
through a giant glass window-
After coffee, my father bantered wearily
"Is life worth living? Depends on the liver-"
The Lama smiled to his secretary-
It was an old pun I'd heard in childhood.
Then he fell silent, looking at the floor
and sighed, head bent heavy
Talking to no one-
"What can you do ...?"
Buffalo, October6,1978
By Allen Ginsberg From Collected Poems 1947-1980
Published: April 7, 2005 2:58 PM
Mike
Certain stuffed shirts around here aren't going to like that poem. You know, it doesn't even rhyme.
Published: April 7, 2005 7:02 PM
Rolf
As you know Mike it is blank verse, not meter.
Published: April 7, 2005 11:45 PM
Jacob Steelman
Having lived in both Nazi occupied Poland and Communist occupied Poland Pope John Paul II knew of what he spoke. Under totalitarian regimes there are lots of rules enforced at the discretion of the local, regional or national despot. Read the Black Book of Communism to fully appreciate the arbitrary and capricious nature of totalitarian rule - it is the rule of the thug.
Published: April 8, 2005 2:43 AM
Rolf
Jacob
Wrote: It is the rule of the thug
The words Nazi and Communism have through the years lost all semblems of meaning other than they having the meaning of discribing the exact same type of human behavior.
At one point in history they were disciptive words discribing the extremes of the political spectrum from the extreme right to the extreme left. Now the extreme right call themselves "Compassionate Conservatives".
Published: April 8, 2005 3:39 AM
Dennis Sperduto
Rolf: From an economic perspective, the major difference between Nazism and Communism was one of economic organization. In both systems, the government dictatorially controls economic activity, especially what is produced, so there is little difference from a property rights perspective. From this viewpoint, the Right/Left distinction is nonsense. However, under Nazism, the price system for the factors of production, while extremely hampered, is not abolished, as it would be under true Communism. Hence, Fascist economies can still function with some, although admittedly reduced, efficiency, while true communist/socialist economies collapse from their inability to economically calculate and rationally allocate the factors of production.
Published: April 9, 2005 4:55 PM
Rolf
Dennis Sperduto
Thank you for the economic distinction and clarfication. My primary focus is the human behavioral factor. I do not believe in the idea that "The end justifies the means" when it involves life forms. When I am creating a piece of sculpture then of course "The end justifies the means" as the distruction of one form is necessary for the creation of another. The extermination of millions of people is not justified in the creation of any economic system.
Be it nazi or communism or ruthless capitalism or any other form of fascism.
Published: April 10, 2005 1:39 AM