individual rights

I am disappointed because, when push came to shove, they demonstrated clearly that flaw of democracy that we libertarians have long sounded the alarms about: the masses simply cannot be trusted with it.

I support gay rights for the same reason I consider myself a small-government libertarian - I cannot, in good conscience, demand that the State both stay out of my bedroom and impose my will on those with whom I disagree (and, for the record, I don't especially disagree with homosexuality).

What we see today, increasing with distressing frequency, is a tendency on the Right to want to use the mechanics of the State to impose itself upon those social elements with whom it takes grievance. This is an historical error: for a very long time, the free market was regarded as a liberating force in society, in which men of any background, any social status, could make good on their inherent potential by allowing the objective forces of the market to equalize any subjective discrepancy in their social relations.

That same principle ought to apply - but does not, in our allegedly 'free' society - to these hot-button controversial issues as well. Marriage is especially important: for marriage is, above all, a contract; and if we applied contract law equally to marriage as we do to every other exchange of material or moral worth, we would find that the State has no business in hindering the formulation of contracts whatsoever.

But, unfortunately, our society is hardly free.

I will push on as I always have, trying to right (and Right) the wrongs foisted about American conservatism by the New Right and its cronies in FOX and the National Review. And I want you to help me.