narcissistic sloths at LRC
in one of the more ludicrous preens from the LRC/LvMI disgrace, steffy P cantsellya advertised his retarded ruminations on gay marriage as if they’re instructive — as if him being a dolt on the subject for years pales when held aside his now illuminated position. today, wanker-in-residence anthony gregory refers to this elongated pile of bleh (check secondary links) and says it’s his position as well. funny stuff. BTW, anyone using seriously the execrable fiction “positive and negative rights” should be shunned. surprised he didn’t say “talking points” and “effect change” in the same paragraph.
though hardly the first to hold the correct position, as a comparative newbie to the ethics of liberty i asserted it without hesitation on the LRC blog in 2003 (my posts now deleted on my request):
re: Privatize Marriage?
Posted by Charley Hardman at July 6, 2003 01:41 AM
Michael Kinsley’s article nicely sums up two contrary wish lists of coercion: “Having just gotten state governments out of their bedrooms, gays now want these governments back in. Meanwhile, social-conservative anti-gays, many of them southerners, are calling on the government in Washington to trample states’ rights and nationalize the rules of marriage, if necessary, to prevent gays from getting what they want.”
“And in this corner” it appears that for some on the LRC Blog non-aggression depends on whose sensitivity ox is being gored, and that “we” should fight for continued government interference in something which isn’t, never should have been, and will never be its business.
I’m surprised (on the heels of the Malkin weirdness even) to see the arguments used to support the position. Government “benefits” for any social practice is social engineering we must do without. Yes, there’s a dilemma; gays are a state-protected class and should not be. I don’t see how liberty can be served by supporting one flavor of coercion (marriage “benefits”) because a supposed balancing coercion (special protections for gays) will probably not go away despite our opposition. Isn’t that scheme the very definition of leviathan’s food supply?
There is also the implication that it is the state which gives weight to the “moral” sanction of the church. That is highly disturbing even to this pure agnostic. How much more so should it be to Christians? Oppose the rampant favoritism shown by the state toward gays by strengthening the marriage of your chosen private institution, and work to reduce government “benefits” for everybody. If it’s benefits that gays are after, and you don’t like, for whatever reason, gays to be gay, then why not help stamp out their alleged strongest incentive for corrupting the beloved institution of heterosexual marriage?
However it’s sliced, those supporting continued state “benefits” for marriage are simply empowering the state. Count me out on that score as with any other government interference in private matters. I had decided long before all this recent homo debate to have my marriage be purely a bond between me and whatever woman I’m able to disorient long enough for her to agree to marry me. Witnesses? Would love to have them. State, church, or private institution participation? Not a chance. If a man and woman’s words are worth nothing, all of the window dressing in the world won’t change that.
My bond will be solely with my wife. Argument that I may not have that freedom and joy without the penalty of disincentives, in whatever coercive form, is merely the crime of parenting without license. Haven’t we had enough of that?
takes little thought and no hand-wringing. i was refuting, among others, marcus epstein — an obvious latent queer and obedience fetishist then at LRC, who advocating state opposition to gay marriage wrote on the LRC blog, “This is one issue that we actually have a good chance to win. At the very least, we ought to put up a fight.”
what’s this “we”, king wasabi?
the downfall of LRC was its club mentality, wherein a monstrous demonstration of intellectual deficiency is pointed to as a desirable prototype. steffy cantsellya, one of the stupidest psychos at LRC/LvMI, is regularly sucked up to by others there. obvious reason: they see lew do it. what of intellectual power has steffy created? nothing. his one-trick-pony “IP” ranting, as with most such stuff at LvMI, centers on destructive utilitarianism — terrible, and wrongly supposed an advance in thinking on the subject (while he prosecuted, and may still, pro-”IP” cases at his day job).
weighed by ASCII character, cantsellya produces megatons. he and his bastard cousin ian at “Free Talk Live” remind me of the quote attributed to stalin:
Quantity has a quality all its own.
spew enough stupid shit regularly, and your audience will emerge. audience of fools. something happens to the average man when exposed to a bigger audience, and this something encourages more of what brought it.