Since I picked on Andrew this week, it is only fair that I praise him for this.
“The maintenance of a free society is a very difficult and complicated thing. And it requires a self-denying ordinance of the most extreme kind. It requires a willingness to put up with temporary evils on the basis of the subtle and sophisticated understanding that if you step in to try to do them, you not only may make them … worse, but you will spread your tentacles and get bad results elsewhere …
The argument for collectivism, for government doing something is simple. Anybody can understand it. If there’s something wrong, pass a law. If somebody is in trouble, get Mr. X to help him out. The argument for a free – for voluntary cooperation, for a free market is not nearly so simple. It says, you know, if you allow people to cooperate voluntarily and don’t interfere with them, indirectly through the operation of the market, they will improve matters more than you can improve it directly by appointing somebody. That’s a subtle argument, and it’s hard for people to understand,” – Milton Friedman, back in 1975.
I cannot imagine what he thinks of a president who said: “We have a responsibility that when somebody hurts, government has got to move.” But then there are many things that this president seems to find hard to understand.
In a world where Kos is making a pitch to small government types of all stripes it pays to remember he doesn’t understand Friedman either. What are we to do?
While I am on a roll here are the types of things that I can really appreciate about Andrew. I wish I saw it more.
There is a link and discussion of Max Boot’s latest. A link to the Belmont Club. A fantastic and hopeful statement on Islam, Reason and War. A wonderful, and in a change from recent tendencies, humble discussion on marriage and the Catholic Church based on C.S. Lewis.
Finally, Andrew weighs in on the gay witch hunt and does so briefly and eloquently. Please read.
I owe Pejman a hat tip.
Speaking of Pejman, he has read my post on Mona and Greenwald. He is really happy to have her favoring his proposal now;^)
[tags] Andrew Sullivan, gays, Iraq, Milton Friedman, Bush [/tags]
Interesting piece by Sullivan on the marriage issue. I’m not really sure where I stand on this. Theoretically, what he is proposing is the de facto policy in most European nations, where you get married in your church of choice (following their rules), then you apply for your civil marriage license and follow the standard government rules. In the US, we meld the two by granting temporary civil authority to our ministers/priests/rabbis/etc. so that at some point in the religious ceremony, the happy couple is legallay married as well (the cleric acts as a JP). Or at least, that’s my understanding of it.
What would happen if we did adopt the European model? It would definitely make getting married a bit more of a workout, as we’d need to go down to our local county office to register our marriage or head to a JP, then go to our church to have the religious requirements taken care of, rather than have it all done at once. It also raises the issue of what happens, legally, if a person is married in his or her church under their rules, but is not married under civil law. Are they just granted de jure common law marriage status or what? I don’t really know. It certainly would create some friction between religious and secular authorities. Think of the implications amongst religions which allow a man to have multiple wives, as well. If he no longer needs to obey civil marriage laws, and can simply get married in his church, can he legally be accused of polygamy? Dangerous thoughts, guys. Dangerous thoughts.