Monday, February 21, 2005


I just had a eureka moment in the Rec. My libertarian side and my conservative side actually met together to produce a coherent argument against gay marriage. This is huge, for me. I have been schizophrenic over this: my libertarian side saying "to hell with marriage" and my conservative side saying "we need to make a stand by this tradition." I have managed, I think, to reconcile these two wildly different points of view. I think. It will require more thought, but one of the most difficult spots has been plugged.

I don't have the time to write about it now, and my thoughts are still at a preliminary stage, but it just feels really great to finally have my two ideologies cohere together. Before, I was tepidly for gay marriage, but now I might actually be against, if this argument coheres the way I think it will.

Here's four cryptic points that are helping me work these two disparate views together:

1) Definitional disassociation.

2) Hayekian conservatism.

3) A legitimate government goal is the welfare of those that cannot protect themselves.

4) The very worst culmination of a paternalistic, welfare state, is when that state adjudicates* "love**." [see update for asterisks]

That shouldn't make any sense yet. But mayhaps it will, eventually.

update: did I mention how excited I am? I checked out about every book by, or about, Friederich Hayek in the library.

I don't know what it is about the Rec. Whatever it is, whether its the serenity of lifting weights, the brief liberation from studying, or the fact that I am surrounded by taut, greasy man bodies, the Rec is just the perfect place to think about taut, greasy man bodies.

update II: gay marriage, I mean. It's the perfect place to think about gay marriage. Yup, taut, greasy gay marriage.

update III: *should be "legislates" not "adjudicates" and **should be "taut greasy man love" instead of ... er, no it shouldn't. Scratch that last one.


Post a Comment

<< Home