Au + H2O = No On Prop 8
The NYTimes today has a pretty good piece on the conservative argument for gay marriage, as it's being presented at the US Supreme Court by former Solicitor General Ted Olson. I understand that there's a "man bites dog" aspect that led them to go deeper into this one than usual, but it really makes me wish they could present a coherent libertarian perspective on other issues. Particularly those where the editors don't so obviously agree with the conclusion.
posted by QueensGuy @ 5:40 AM
2 Comments:
That sort of assumes there is a "coherent libertarian perspective"- I don't mean that libertarians themselves are incoherent but that the philosophy itself (to the extent you call it that) is very wary of big ideas, ideologies, religion and grand unifying theories of everything (rightfully so I would say)so that a "coherent" perspective on issues would be an anathema in and of itself.
That's the strength and weakness of libertarianism. Other movements have a clear idea of what they want society to look like. Libnertarians just want enough freedom for society, and the individuals in it, to discover the way they wish to go.
Post a Comment
<< Home