Blagnet.net

They graciously hand down our rights

We should…be able to see that our interest would be best served not by asking the state to promulgate our values but by forbidding the state to promulgate any values at all. If the state can espouse some value that we love, it can, with equal justice, espouse others we do not love.
—Richard Mitchell

One of my friends’ Facebook status currently is: “completely thrilled about the California Supreme Court decision today!!!” She is referring to that court’s ruling that California’s ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional.

Since many people, including most of my friends and especially her, believe in the legitimacy of the State declaring things legal and illegal and then forcing everyone within its boundaries to comply with its decrees, it is easy to understand why they celebrate their side winning one in this culture war that the left and right wage on their Statist stage. It is less easy for me to understand why more people don’t catch on and realize that we shouldn’t be fighting and cheering for the State to make favorable decrees for our side, but rather for it not to arrogate to itself the power to make any such decisions at all.

This is the latest in a seemingly unending succession of examples of how the State divides good, caring, well-meaning people into factions and pits them against one another. Maybe if I write about every major example, such as this one, some more people will come to realize that the State promotes hatred, violence, and discord, not order, peace, or good will. I’m not sure how much more obvious it could be that this very issue is created entirely by the existence of a monopolistic State that enforces its dominion over a geographical area. In the absence of a single, final legal authority that arrogates to itself the unique power of legislating values, people would not be directing the guns of the government at others whose lifestyles they abhor, and, to the extent that they would consider it their business to interject, they would do so peacefully and respectfully, not violently and intolerantly. It is also obvious that in the absence of the State even defining what marriage is and in the absence of legislation granting tax/financial/insurance/other preferences to married couples but not to unmarried couples, people could call themselves married or not and neither suffer nor benefit legally from it.

Perhaps you would argue that the simple fact of the existence of the State doesn’t necessarily have to lead to exclusionist legislation on values and lifestyle. Perhaps you are an unrealistic, Utopian dreamer who sees the State through rose-colored glasses and refuses to admit its faults, its contradictions, and its impossibilities.

Logically and in principle, it was exactly as right (that is, wrong) for the state of California to outlaw gays from obtaining marriage licenses as it was for it to legalize it. As Mises argued and in contrast to Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, human values are subjective and therefore not the object of moral philosophizing and certainly not for any (just) laws. Therefore, it is not correct to say that one of the rules is better than the other. “But,” you say, “the ban forcibly prevented people from doing something peaceful! It certainly is good from a libertarian perspective for courts to allow gays to marry legally and, better yet, for governments never to ban gay marriage to begin with!”

You have much to learn, young Jedi. What about the fundamentalist nutjobs who supported the ban and vehemently oppose the legalizing of gay marriage? They are forced to live under this new State-enforced value system. They are forced to pay taxes to it and subject themselves to its court system, which is unjust in their minds. I am not defending their desire to wield violent, deadly power over others; I am defending their right to live free of the legal and financial tyranny that is embodied by monopolistic government. Whatever the State decides on any matter, be it favorable to a minority or a majority, it will be unjust to some, usually to many. Although it is right to allow gay couples to give themselves the same marital status as heterosexuals, it is not right to force dissenters to live under the morality that such a governmental decree establishes.

This does not represent a decrease in State intrusion into our lives or a lessening of violations of our rights by the State. The State still defines what marriage “is”; it still makes people fill out legal documents to call themselves married and enjoy a status only legally “married” couples have; it still gives benefits to married couples that it doesn’t give to others. When the State keeps doing the same things it always was, but to more people more equally, that doesn’t entail a decrease in State power.

The only solution to this and every other problem caused by government is the complete abolition of all monopolistic government, everywhere and forever.

I will admit, I have to agree with the supporters of the decision, to this extent only: It is always a good thing for the State to be repealing laws and declaring them unconstitutional, and if it leads to a decrease in State influence in our lives, it should be celebrated. It should be celebrated only to the extent that it makes people realize the State shouldn’t be legislating anything like this at all, not to the extent that it represents a good decision or a decision in favor of the right side, because what is right for some is wrong for others, and that is precisely why Statism is an impossible, Utopian dream (nightmare, rather) and why it will always be the least just system of governance.