|
April 23, 2009
So where does the state belong?
From Glenn Reynolds' link to Larry Kudlow, my attention was drawn to an earlier Kudlow piece which (after noting a near-300 point stock plunge over new fears of bank nationalization), Kudlow looks at the vexing question of what to call all of this: An old friend e-mailed me this week about how to characterize Obama's economic interventions into the banking and auto sectors (with health care next on the list). He says it's not really socialism. Nor is it fascism. He suggests it's state capitalism. But I think of it more as corporate capitalism. Or even crony capitalism, as Cato's Dan Mitchell puts it.To call it "very disturbing" may be understatement, as it's scary as hell to watch this country's dramatic slide from economic freedom to socialism in a period of months. More ominously, the environmentalist schemes may be the final nail in the coffin. It's not enough for the government to regulate the economy; they want to interfere with virtually all use of energy, and even regulate the air we exhale as a "poison" -- in supposed furtherance of a theory that retarding human progress will beneficially cool the planet. (Hardly a cheerful thought when contemplating the 32 degree April weather this morning.....) Dick Morris looks at a key feature of the Obama plan (changing the nature of the acquired stock), and sees pure, unadulterated socialism: ...by changing this fundamental element of the TARP plan, Obama will give Washington a voting majority among the common stockholders of these banks and other financial institutions. The almost 500 companies receiving TARP money will be, in effect, run by Washington.Under these circumstances, no one ought to be surprised that venture capital is under assault. Once again, the question seems to involve whether this is incompetence or design: Obama is either in clearly in over his head, or else he is working to undermine the foundations of the capitalist system from within in order to strengthen the centralized power of the state.Notwithstanding my penchant for finding humor in such things, this is starting not to be funny anymore. However, hypocrisy and double standards often amuse me -- especially in the context of the "Culture War." So naturally, I found it amusing that when a pleasant young woman I'd never heard of before had the temerity to echo Barack Obama's position on gay marriage, she found herself savagely insulted by intolerant gay activists. Via Glenn Reynolds, who asks, "Why is it okay for Obama to oppose gay marriage, but not okay for Miss California to?" Apparently it's OK if he's lying. (Well, he says opposes it for religious reasons. Does that mean invoking religion in a dishonest manner is OK?) Anyway, while I did feel sorry for Miss California (as I don't like seeing people unjustly attacked), the gay marriage activists may have inadvertently caused career doors to open for her. So the joke is on them, really. Perhaps Ms. Prejean should thank her rude and thoughtless critics. Meanwhile, some conservatives think it's time for a big showdown on gay marriage. Unless we are married to the state, I'm not convinced of the worthiness of either "side" of such a cause. Marriage has long seemed to me to be more of a personal matter between two people than an "institution," and the clamor over a "right" to a marriage license thus strikes me as side-stepping the issue of whether the state is just being given another invitation into the bedrooms of people who in historical terms only recently succeeded in getting the state out of their bedrooms. I can understand the philosophical debates about whether same sex marriage is a good idea, but I think debates over state regulation (like federalization of marriage) miss the point. If only it were as conservative to advocate getting the state out of marriage as it is to advocate getting it out of the economy... MORE: It is entirely possible that I (along with many others who attempt serious analsis of Barack Obama) could be barking up the wrong tree. According to Frank J. Fleming, All of these goofy gaffes by the president prove that he's really Sacha Baron Cohen and we're all in his next movie.Borat Obama? Say it isn't so! (As seen on Google!) posted by Eric on 04.23.09 at 09:51 AM
Comments
Actually, state sanctioned marriage is a matter of contract law and the state can not discriminate against one group of people in this matter. Donavon · April 23, 2009 05:02 PM Marriage is a peculiar legal relationship that has come to be governed by the state -- especially family law, which is not the same as contract law. Civil unions would be a matter of contract law. Eric Scheie · April 23, 2009 07:44 PM Oddly, the few gay people I've actually talked with about the idea of not having the government in the marriage business at all thought it was a horrible idea. I don't get it. Or maybe I do and I don't want to think about it. I don't get GroupThink. silvermine · April 23, 2009 08:49 PM State subsidized intellectuals. Rope. Tree. Brett · April 24, 2009 01:17 AM I swear I didn't read this before my latest post "Plural Marriage". Great minds... :-) M. Simon · April 24, 2009 11:20 AM |
|
June 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2009
May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
It's An Absolute Disgrace
The Seeds Of Stupidity Remember D-Day Newton's Cradle Taxes Send Jobs Offshore The law is the law! A teaching moment? You Can't Do It At Random In debt to Islam? For Western thought? David Carradine Is Dead
Links
Site Credits
|
|
"the issue of whether the state is just being given another invitation into the bedrooms of people"
That's my thought. I don't want the government to approve homosexual marriage. I don't want the government to approve heterosexual marriage. I want them the hell out of the marriage business entirely.
And out of just about every other business as well.