I’ve done entries on this topic before but today I read a really good discussion on the history of Valentine’s day and why the government doesn’t belong in the marriage business. Read the whole thing. Here’s a clip:
As we approach the anniversary of Valentine’s own rebellion and denial, shouldn’t the nation that pioneered a popular government of the people, by the people, and for the people” be the one that finally stands to assert the pre-governmental primacy of matrimonial privacy?
It is time to privatize marriage. If the institution is really so sacred, it should lie beyond the withering hands of politicians and policy makers in Washington D.C. There should be no federal or state license that grants validity to love. There should be no state-run
office that peers into our bedrooms and honeymoon suites. If the church thinks divorce and homosexuality are problematic, it should initiate the real dialogue to address these problems in-house rather than relying on state-sponsored coercion to affirm doctrinal beliefs. And if tax-codes and guardianships need some classification for couples, let’s revise civil union standards to reflect those needs.
In his second inaugural address, President Bush highlighted the preeminent importance of liberty and individual responsibility noting, “In America’s ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character—on integrity, and tolerance toward others, and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on
the governing of the self.”
This Valentine’s Day, let’s live up to this call and spark a revolution in commemoration of the occasion—the very revolution alluded to in Bush’s latest, and most eloquent speech. On February 14th, take a loved one to dinner. Reach out to those who are lonely. But if you really want to honor the martyr, join in the battle to take matters of personal character—matters that should precede governmental authority—out of the hands of the state.
Amen. Our marriages don’t need government sanction and our churches shouldn’t be threatened with the possibility of being forced to recognize a definition of marriage that is abhorrent to them because the government or our courts make a decree.
Dan has taken up the call for private accounts as a way to try to fix social security. Read his take take down of anti-private accounts “economist” Paul Krugman here. Dan also published a very good question from Nate about how this new program could affect our economy.
With all this rhetoric being thrown around, I’d like someone to address one nagging question I have about the privatisation plan. Has anyone done an economic analysis (and I mean in-depth economic analysis, not ideological beliefs, from either side) on the effects such a large infusion of capital would do to the stock market, the related financial markets, and ultimately the economy overall? I’m honestly not sure yet whether the effects would be good or bad, but I’m fairly sure they would be deep and long-lasting.
I have read a few discussions about Nate’s question and it is something to worry about. How will that huge amount of money effect the economy and who will decide how it effects the economy? Who decides where it is invested? Who decides how that investment should be protected? Will there be guarantees from the government that the investment won’t be lost? I’m against privatization because there is little doubt in my mind that after all the arguing is done and legislators start to make the compromises needed to get the program passed into law the government is going to assume a greater degree of control over our economy than it has ever had in this country.
This new forced savings program will need lots of regulation and oversight and that means more power for the bureaucrats and nannies in DC who will insist they have to protect us from our own recklessness and stupidity. I can think of any number of ways the whole thing will turn out if personal accounts happen. Because our paternalistic government nearly always tends to err on the side of regulation and control rather than individual responsibility the vast majority of likely outcomes I can imagine aren’t good from the standpoint of individual liberty. The Republicans are wrong to champion this program. The whole idea that the government should force people to save their money is inherently un-conservative.
That said the Democrats certainly don’t have anything better to offer. If we do nothing to deal with future costs only huge European style tax schemes can keep social security alive over the long run. The only rational conservative/libertarian position on social security is to advocate for phasing the program out in favor of a need based welfare program for the elderly. The government should never have been in the business of providing all Americans with a pension. The only way of solving this issue is to get the government out of that business all together. This isn’t a very popular view but it will be as time goes by and people see the potential this issue has to destroy our economy no matter who wins the current private accounts debate.
In this age of really crappy pop music I’m glad there is someone actually talented still writing and performing excellent music.
If you have an account at iTunes you should download this song.
