Skip to main content

Misplaced ideology

Freedom uber alles Jay Currie, a bright, readable guy, has done a few posts on SSM, as has every Canadian blogger in the country it seems. Jay surprised me with the suggestion that the government has no place in the dealing with marriage. None. Let it all go, he says:
The real issue in this entire debate is what the devil the government is doing involved in the solemnization of marriage in the first place. If the socons had their wits about them they would be pushing for the abolition of all legal recognition of marriage in whatever form. Get the State out of the bedrooms of the nation and let individuals, in consultation with their God, priest, imam or the guy down the street set up whatever arrangements they happen to want to.
I read this and I am left slack jawed. Despite what my detractors might say, that is not my normal position. I am immediately put in mind of all the wives whose husbands will simply walk away from them when the she begins to bore them, or when she gets a little wrinkly. Perhaps she's been a stay at home mom for twenty years. Oh well, she's in the street now and the state shouldn't do anything about it? Freedom, gotta love it. Maybe the wife in this situation has returned to work, but that ten year absence from the workplace has put a real crimp in what she can earn. She gave up work experience and education to raise those kids. Oh well, if it's in the name of freedom it must be ok. Maybe the wife in question is still young and still has kids to look after. It's hard for her to attract a new mate with the kids around. So now she's on welfare. Big state to the rescue. But it's in the name of freedom, so it's ok. Heck, sometimes her daughter is more attractive to her dates than she is. Can't have that. So the kids are abandoned to the state. That's great. Now the wife is "free" too. Now the state can raise them. Freedom, isn't it great? These kids raised by the state suffer from neglect and have serious trouble bonding with anyone - family, friend, and potential spouse. Perhaps they act out a bit, do some vandalism or worse. Now they're in jail or unable to create a lasting relationship that might lift them from poverty. Either way, there's more expensive government money to be spent on them now. Maybe Mom and Dad don't split up. Maybe they just bring another couple into the marriage. Now there's twice as many parents! Isn't that great? No, it isn't. Step parents have a wary reputation for a reason. Parents tend to favour their own kids. Favoritism now becomes another reason for the parents to fight and split up. Then again, maybe they split up because they can't figure out who brought home that nasty case of... whatever. Maybe mom is pretty enough to marry a really rich guy who has a large number of wives already. She hardly sees him but she lives well. Maybe lots of women take this route, leaving lots of guys with no one. Maybe that's what SSM might be good for! Freedom uber alles! ****** It's probably past time I stopped picking on Jay. The reason I chose to criticize his post as much as I have is twofold. First, I just expect better from him. Second, the error he makes is a very common one and I wanted to address it. I'm not mocking freedom, I'm just trying to point out that it isn't free. Never has been. It takes hard work and sacrifice to win your freedom. You have to create a society in which a certain floor of civilization is reached. We all know about protecting our borders and the right to own property. Families are a part of that floor; they are, like the other two things I mentioned, pillars of a free society. They provide labour and soldiers and yes, darn it, lawyers too. Other cultures have attempted to use different methods of family organization. We don't have to run that experiment. All we have to do is look at the results. Polygamy is an inferior institution. Playing fast and loose with familial commitments is not at all conducive to small government. The government has every right to favour that form of marriage which is the best and least expensive method of producing happy and productive citizens. Those citizens, and the low overhead, are what make a free society possible. The Free Market is a good thing, but marriage is a concept that it is almost entirely unsuited to. Free markets work in creating and distributing X-boxes. X-boxes don't take twenty years to develop, and they don't have feelings. You can store them in warehouses and have a clearance sale. Kids? Not so much. I'll close with some insights from Roger Scruton, in his book, The Meaning of Conservatism:
The family is the origin of self respect, being the first institution through which the social world is perceived. Almost nothing of the family union rests in contract or consent, and none of the values that arise from it can be understood except in terms of the peculiar lastingness with which it [the family] is endowed. ... conservative politics seeks to conserve social continuity, so that people may envisage generations which stretch out before and after them. Without that vision much of the motive for procreation is lost, and children become an accident, an anxiety, a reminder of one's isolation - and, in due course, the responsibility of not the parents but of the state who deprived the parents of power.
I also have a Amazon List with a number of books on it that present Big "C" Conservatism quite well, far removed from the hyperventilating mouth breather it is mis-characterized as. If social conservatives are a mystery to you, I'd suggest a look.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi