The Shotgun Blog

« Jean Chretien appointed to Order of Merit | Main | Canadians want a majority government: poll »

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Where is the gay rights movement going, and should libertarians follow?

A primary measure of systemic or widespread discrimination is income. Members of discriminated groups are excluded from opportunities, including economic opportunities, available to members of non-discriminated groups. This is what it means to be discriminated against. As a result, groups discriminated against over a sustained period generally have less than average incomes.

So how is the gay community doing by this measure? Is there any economic evidence of discrimination? Not according to these stats from US sources:

Over 60% of gay men have a college degrees
Gay men are twice as likely to work in management positions
Gay men are twice as likely to have household income over $250,000

These numbers are impressive, and reflect a general absence of discrimination against the gay community. And while this data comes out of the US, I’m going to assume that these numbers generally hold for Canada, unless someone can point to a reason why this would not be the case. (Sodomy is still illegal in some US states, so Canada is a friendlier jurisdiction.)

So should we be surprised by these stats? Of course not.

June 27th was the 40th anniversary of the repeal of Canada’s sodomy law, a repugnant government prohibition on consensual sex between gay men. Before this amendment to the criminal code, gays were treated under law as "criminal sexual psychopaths" and "dangerous sexual offenders."

But the battle in Canada for gay rights – and by that I mean the libertarian notion of “negative" rights, the right to be left alone – was essentially won 40 years ago. And since then, the gay community has gained mainstream acceptance and success.

This isn’t to say the gay community doesn’t face legal discrimination in North America. The Libertarian Party of the United States includes the Defence of Marriage Act and the Defence Department “don’t ask, don’t tell” practice in its policy objectives:

Repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act and state laws and amendments defining marriage. Oppose any new laws or Constitutional amendments defining terms for personal, private relationships. Repeal any state or federal law assigning special benefits to people based on marital status, family structure, sexual orientation or gender identification. Repeal any state or federal laws denying same-sex partners rights enjoyed by others, such as adoption of children and spousal immigration.

End the Defense Department practice of discharging armed forces personnel for sexual orientation. Upgrade all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned solely for such reasons to honorable status, and delete related information from military personnel files.

Better yet, the Libertarian Party of Canada goes further on same-sex marriage with a policy that would get the state out of the business of sanctioning marriage entirely:

With respect to same-sex marriage, we recommend that the government removes itself from the issue of marriage altogether. Individuals and groups in society decide their own spiritual and social beliefs and do not need the government to determine whether they are married or not.

So other than a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the US military and unequal access to a government-sanctioned marriage on both sides of the border, gays in North America are free to live as they please. (This can’t, of course, be said about gays living in those states that still enforce anti-sodomy laws despite a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that these laws are unconstitutional. I believe the holdout states are Virginia, Oklahoma, and North Carolina.)

Libertarians have historically been part of the battle for gay rights, and notwithstanding a few remaining bad laws, there is little evidence of lingering systemic discrimination against the gay community. In fact, there is good evidence to the contrary, including the decision by the Harper Conservatives to give $400,000 to support the Toronto Gay Pride Parade held in June. In a press release today, REAL Women of Canada wrote:

REAL Women of Canada is deeply offended that your government has given $400,000 of the taxpayers’ money to support the Toronto Gay Pride Parade in June 2009. According to newspaper reports, part of this funding was to be directed towards marketing and programming of the 10-day activity which, according to CTV.ca will “make sure that these events continue to be competitive on the world stage”. Why does your government regard this as significant?

The Gay Pride Parade is well known for its full nudity, open engagement in public sexual acts and its deliberate disregard of behaviour acceptable to most sectors of Canadian society. The parade is about hedonistic exhibitionism and narcissism, promoting a deadly form of sexuality. The parade is designed to shock and titillate and the week-long “celebration” has become an excuse for partying, drug use and promiscuity.

When a national conservative government is financing gay pride parades as part of a mandate to advance Canadian culture, it signals the mainstream acceptance of the gay lifestyle.

With all this success, what’s next on the agenda for gay rights activists, and should libertarians continue to be part of this movement?

Some libertarians say "no." In an important 2001 column titled “Gay Victimology and the Liberal Kulturkampf,” gay libertarian publisher, author and columnist Justin Raimondo wrote:

The gay activists of yesteryear demanded that government get out of the bedroom. Today a new generation of gay leaders is inviting government back in. The political program of the first activists centered around a campaign to legalize homosexual relations between consenting adults. Their message to all governments everywhere was unequivocal: leave us alone. The gay movement of the new millennium has a different message: far from advocating "hands off!" they want government to actively intervene on behalf of the homosexual minority.

....

From an essentially libertarian movement, which sought to minimize the power of government in the sexual realm, gay organizations and leading spokespersons are today calling for the expansion of state power over nearly every aspect of our lives. This reversal is all the more remarkable because it took place in a relatively short period of time, less than a decade.

Things have not improved since 2001.

With the primary battles against government restrictions on homosexual relations won, gay organizations are moving in a political direction libertarians can no longer support.

Posted by Matthew Johnston

Posted by westernstandard on July 14, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

While often correct this column ignores vast areas where the state enforces discrimination including legal rights for foreign partners to immigrate, taxation matters, inheritance rights, medical decision making, hospital visitation rights, custody rights, etc. That the author is unaware of them causes him to conclude that there is really little discrimination left. As for Mr. Raimondo, he has little credibility among gays, libertarians and especially gay libertarians.

But the idea that, other than DADT and marriage equality, gays are free to live as they please is not true. Gays are still treated as second class citizens in many other areas. Don't confuse your own ignorance of these matters as a scarcity of such issues.

Posted by: cls | 2009-07-14 12:59:05 AM

I second cls. If it's legal to fire you in 30 US states just for being gay, then you're not free.

Posted by: Chris | 2009-07-14 1:21:46 AM

Kip Esquire is my favorite gay libertarian blogger. Actually, he's one of my favorite libertarian bloggers period.

He's written several posts about the way religious bigots suddenly and conveniently become "libertarian" when their right to discriminate against gays is under fire. Here's one. They're not always fans of being discriminated against themselves (for example, do they support the right of Muslim cabbies to refuse to carry infidels? I doubt it.)

Here is the main issue, as I see it. If you are going to oppose anti-discrimination law, then you've got to oppose all of it. If you want the right to discriminate against gays, then you've got to support the rights of Muslims to discriminate against Christians, etc.

Seeking the abolition of all anti-discrimination law is a fine example of principled libertarianism. I've never denied that. My irritation stems from the habit some libertarians have of blindly making common cause with social conservatives who only want to deny the protection of anti-discrimination law to one group, a group they don't like very much.

If you really desire the end of anti-discrimination law, at least have the courage to make it plain that you would allow "no blacks allowed" signs just as much as "no gays allowed" ones.

In other words, don't discriminate with regard to your opposition to anti-discrimination law.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-07-14 3:27:09 AM

If you're going to recommend "government removes itself from the issue of marriage altogether" you should make sure none of you're members are married. Because until then, you're saying something like you wouldn't have supported overturning anti miscegenation laws for the same reason.

Most libertarians are just anti-taxarians. Socially, you're willing to sign on with extreme right wingers as long as they lower taxes. You don't love freedom, you just love money.

Posted by: Josh Jasper | 2009-07-14 6:16:00 AM

Most libertarians are just anti-taxarians. Socially, you're willing to sign on with extreme right wingers as long as they lower taxes. You don't love freedom, you just love money.

Posted by: Josh Jasper | 2009-07-14 6:16:00 AM

Blanket statement, and totally wrong headed.
I want financial and social freedom. Freedom from ridiculous by laws and laws designed to control. The right to defend my life and my property, my family. An opportunity to actually plan my life without being at the mercy of a "law" system, a "tax" regime and fascist government.
Still sound like all I want is money Josh?

Its a principle thing and may possibly be over your head.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-14 8:58:19 AM

Holy crap, Matthew! Outstanding post! When did you grow a pair? Terrence and Brock are going to freak, this should be interesting, pass the popcorn.

Gays and "Libertarians" were silent when this happened:

"
Top
Justice graphic
Man to pay $1,000 for hurtful 'fifi' comment

Updated Mon. Oct. 11 2004 11:30 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A gay man in Montreal has been awarded $1,000 by Quebec's Human Rights Tribunal after he was called "fifi" by a used car salesman.

According to the judge's decision, the man suffered emotionally from the comments. His name cannot be released because of a publication ban.

"Calling someone a 'fifi' constitutes a scornful way of referring to homosexuals," Judge Michele Pauze concluded. "The use of this term wounds and adds to the disgrace and lack of respect of human dignity a person (can suffer), homosexuals in particular."

The decision stems from an incident in November 2001. The man was driving a hitchhiker and stopped at a used car lot when his passenger, 20-year-old Dominic Lanthier, said he was looking to buy a used vehicle.

The two men walked into a dealership in Sorel, about 70 kilometres northeast of Montreal. While he was out of the driver's earshot, used car salesman Marcel Bardier said to the hitchhiker, "Fais attention a lui, c'est un fifi (pay attention to him, he's gay)."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1097519961879_92929161/?hub=TopStories

They were silent because they supported it. Gays have been enormously supportive of incursions by the state on personal liberty, they use HRCs to attack the non-gay population. They are tyrants, totalitarians only too happy to use the state as their hired goon to enforce their demands. Brock and Watson freely admit they want to use the state to force people to adhere to the gay agenda, even when they vote against it in referenda. That's straight tyranny.

Posted by: Fair Commenter | 2009-07-14 10:39:26 AM

Are you for real, "Fair Commenter?"

You say, "Gays have been enormously supportive of incursions by the state on personal liberty, they use HRCs to attack the non-gay population. They are tyrants, totalitarians only too happy to use the state as their hired goon to enforce their demands."

Heterosexuals have been doing this to Homosexuals for CENTURIES. You have passed laws AGAINST us and used ANY MEANS NECESSARY to try and keep us down. Kind of stings to be on the other side, huh fool?

Posted by: Bill | 2009-07-14 11:06:00 AM

Posted by: Bill | 2009-07-14 11:06:00 AM

Its wrong and divisive whichever way it goes. And when government gets involved, its worse.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-14 11:27:46 AM

Like any group they have some who want to use the "big stick" of government to impose their agenda and cannot foresee that the time will come when the same stick gets used against them. It is one thing for the government to be neutral and removed from the private lives of people, and it is quiet another when government seeks to implement the agenda of special interest groups, no matter who they may be, for it always opens the way for tyranny.

Posted by: Alain | 2009-07-14 12:17:26 PM

People's right to discriminate is the essence of liberty. The only faction in society that has no moral right to discriminate is the state. I support the pursuit of full (gender preference)equality before the law but also an elimination of state involvement in almost all current activities. I reserve the right to comment on the "Gay Pride" public freak-shows just as I would on a rude public display of a heterosexual f..k-fest. Legislatures will never change what people think about homosexuality despite their attempts at censorship. Gay activism in the form of hiding behind HRCs and in-your-face Gay Pride events won't do the cause of Gay acceptance any favours if acceptance and normalcy is what is sought.

Good post, Matthew.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-07-14 12:28:33 PM

"These numbers are impressive, and reflect a general absence of discrimination against the gay community. And while this data comes out of the US."

I've noticed that there is no talk of whether or not these people are openly gay. I think the attempt to appeal to these statistics is a little bit off base.

There are plenty of successful gay men in business, and of the ones I known they are/were either: in the closet, or extremely subdued about their sexuality.

A perfect example might be that: if my wife showed up for a quick visit to see me at the office, and we gave a small little parting kiss--a peck on the lips--nothing overtly sexual, there'd be nothing particularly troublesome tot he office staff about this.

Now imagine a gay man, having his sexual partner come into the office, and in sight of everyone, do the exact same thing I just described -- all of a sudden, it's considered "flaunting his gayness" and inappropriate for "pushing his homosexuality in the face of his coworkers".

When I have my cultural liberalism hat on--as a libertarian--those are the criticisms I'm making.

Gay men are often very successful, but in traditional business (or even politics) they are expected to keep their sexuality hidden and subdued, to a much greater extent than heterosexuals are.

It is these double-standards that I have a serious problem with, and why I reject most of your argument as a red herring in regards to whether or not homophobia is an issue.

In fact, there is good evidence to the contrary, including the decision by the Harper Conservatives to give $400,000 to support the Toronto Gay Pride Parade held in June.

The same one that Stephen Harper reprimanded Diane Ablonczy for embarrassing the Conservative Party with?

I mean, as a libertarian I 100% agree with you Matthew, that we shouldn't be giving government funding to events like this. But we shouldn't be bankrolling the Calgary Stampede either.

How many conservatives have complained about the subsidies provided to the Stampede by the federal government? No, they are fixated on the Gay Pride Parade. I wonder why? Could it be because the Stampede is "good, wholesome, fun for the whole family" and the Gay Pride Parade is a bunch of "deviants flaunting their offensive sexuality"? Yes, I think so.

"Gay activism in the form of hiding behind HRCs and in-your-face Gay Pride events won't do the cause of Gay acceptance any favours if acceptance and normalcy is what is sought."

I think the giant cross overlooking much of Montreal up on the hill is in-my-face, as an atheist. Why do Christians have to get all up in my face with their religious symbolism?

I say that tongue-in-cheek, of course, as it doesn't really bother me that there is a giant glowing cross overlooking Montreal, but when you use the argument that someone doesn't want to allow something because they don't approve to it, you're essentially trying to stake out ownership over the cultural domain to the exclusion of others, and that's just nonsense in a free society.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-14 12:53:53 PM

"Kind of stings to be on the other side, huh fool?"

That's a pretty clear admission that the gay agenda is motivated by vengeance, not justice. Thanks for that.

At any rate, 95% of the population restricting the liberties of 5% is vastly more just than 5% restricting the liberties of the other 95% - if there is to be tyranny, let it be tyranny of the strong over the weak rather than the perversion of justice that is tyranny of the weak over the strong.

The militant gay lobby - of which several members of the Western Standard are active soldiers - has gone too far and is wholly incompatible with liberty. We need to attack the gay lobby hard.

Posted by: Fair Commenter | 2009-07-14 12:54:45 PM

I'm going to Godwin this argument right now, but I really have no choice: Hitler couldn't have put it any better.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-14 1:24:47 PM

Mike is right, FC.

Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-07-14 2:13:29 PM

Mike

You quoted me then invented an allegation that I didn't make, "..you use the argument that someone doesn't want to allow something because they don't approve to it..." (sic). I said nothing about disallowing Gay Pride events or advocating for the same. As for "staking out ownership..." isn't that exactly what you are trying to do? I offered an opinion based on my perception that Gay pride parades are offensive to many people and not just socons and heterosexuals. I wasn't attempting to shut down the debate based on my own omniscience.

Posted by: John Chittick | 2009-07-14 2:57:12 PM

"I said nothing about disallowing Gay Pride events or advocating for the same."

Fair enough.

As for "staking out ownership..." isn't that exactly what you are trying to do?

Not quite. I am not gay, nor part of the gay culture. I am for a culture that is open and tolerant. And I oppose any one cultural position being given legal sanction. For example: I opposed the Sharia Law tribunals in Ontario with the same veracity that I oppose a restrictive definition of same sex marriage.

The position of some, that the traditional definition of marriage should remain ingrained in law, are attempting to use the law to shape the culture.

As for the cultural questions, I find the need to question even this position: "I have no problem with gay people, I just don't want (my children) to be exposed to their lifestyle".

This is an extremely interesting position that conservatives typically have. It is essentially, asking, homosexuals to voluntarily excuse themselves from displaying their sexual identity in public and in the media; two men kissing on television is "shoving it" in their (children's) faces.

It is, asking homosexuals, for the benefit of all the sexually insecure heterosexuals, to voluntarily live in the closet, because they find their sexuality offensive.

In my opinion, the question is not: why do homosexuals have to hold hands in public, or kiss in public, or appear in TV and movies? ... which is the question that the apparently "tolerant" conservatives constantly ask, but rather: why are you offended, and why do you think you have any reasonable standing to ask a sexual minority to be more invisible--for your comfort and benefit?

The only authority that you have to invoke is religious and/or tradition. But why must homosexuals be--even voluntarily--beholden to your religion or your tradition, if they do not share it?

I think Fair Commenter showed some of the most honest feelings I've seen come out of a socon: the minorities should be expected and/or forced to comply with the cultural standards of the majority.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-14 3:23:12 PM

the minorities should be expected and/or forced to comply with the cultural standards of the majority.

We see a lot of socons using this logic in regards to immigrants, too. Especially in matters of religious dress.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-14 3:24:19 PM

Mike,

I'm not even sure the so-cons are in the majority, especially not in Canada (the statistics you cited seem to indicate that.) It's more like one very vocal faction wishes to use the law to oppress another.

If that's the game being played, and I think it is, I'll side with the faction that isn't against every freedom except (maybe) the freedom to viciously discriminate against atheists, gays, and other infidels.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-07-14 5:08:05 PM

Something I've never understood... My wife and I were joined by a JP. No religion involved... a civil ceremony... We're no more or less committed to each other than a couple that has been wed in a Church. We have all of the rights of a religiously married couple as recognized by the state. Knowing that, I have to question why gay/dyke couples don't find civil unions to be good enough and are trying to use the power of the state to force religious institutions to recognize their unions.

Looking at that, I absolutely have to agree with Matthew...

Posted by: Richard Evans | 2009-07-14 5:09:04 PM

Evans,

At least in the U.S. (I know Svend Robinson and his group are more militant, and constitutional protection for religion weaker), nobody is trying to force churches to marry gays. No one is trying to force Catholic priests to marry divorced people, either. It's just not happening. The 1st Amendment in the United States ensures it won't happen.

But a civil marriage in front of a JP isn't the same as a "civil union." As far as I know, civil union only refers to a distinct-from-marriage legal status, as created in Vermont and several other states. Legally, and by design, it's distinct from marriage, even civil marriage. It provides some of the same benefits as marriage, but not all of them.

Those joined in civil unions miss out on federal benefits in particular.

Given that disparity (and others), no one would choose a civil union over a civil marriage, if he or she were able to choose between the two.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-07-14 7:26:20 PM

Where is the gay rights movement going, and should libertarians follow?

No.

Our issues are individual liberty and personal responsibility.
Its not our job to pursue anyone's personal agenda.
Property Rights, from which all natural law is born and responsibility for our actions...that's pretty much the basics.

Posted by: The original JC | 2009-07-14 8:11:28 PM

American society is deeply divided about homosexuality. The reason being that they have a powerful conservative religious component(which is effectively neutered in Canada). However, it seems like the gays have won everything in Canada. Canadian society has effectively rolled over and given them everything. Now, gays are pushing human rights commissions to go after their opponents. What did you expect? Its like every other movement that first claims a right and then tries to see how far it can push its agenda(and permanently alter the society)! The truth is that Canadians have been largely told that only pro-gay sentiments are allowed in the public arena. The result is that anyone who disagrees is branded a bigot and dismissed from the public square. Today, we hear about human rights commission probes. Tomorrow, we will throw priests who speak out about homosexuality in jail. After that, why not teach about homosexuality in grade 1 and promote it as the "preferred" alternative or the thing that every impressionable youth should try once. Oh great, welcome to Canada the world's first non-heterosexual majority country! Canada is heading towards becoming a country where heterosexual men who don't suck up to the politically correct feminist line(Alan Alda like saps) become extinct. Maybe that can be part of our overseas advertising campaign! Come to Canada! Have a good time and hand your manhood over at the door!

Posted by: Eric | 2009-07-14 10:15:38 PM

"However, it seems like the gays have won everything in Canada. Canadian society has effectively rolled over and given them everything. Now, gays are pushing human rights commissions to go after their opponents."

I think the last sentence is a dangerous generalization of the gay community. I know, personally, many in the gay community who feel extremely strongly about freedom of speech, and reject the use of the Human Rights Commissions as a method of going after their enemies.

In fact, we've seen this attitude displayed prominently in gay publications like FAB magazine, Eye Weekly, and by the countries leading LGBT activist organization EGALE.

So to take the few cases where gays and lesbians have gone to the Human Rights Commissions and paint a broad brush over the entire community is wholly disingenuous.

The problem is the Human Rights Commissions, not the people who complain before them, and certainly not the groups they claim to represent. And a broader extension of this, is that the problem is government power.

If you actually go and talk to people in the Gay Village in Toronto, you'll find a pretty interesting mosaic of political views from the queer community. In fact, the gay community has some of the most pro-business mentalities in the city. Time and time again, I hear from gay people: "I'd vote conservative, because I'm an economic conservative, but I can't abide their views on homosexuals".

So this ridiculous generalization that that gay community is "Marxist" or even overtly leftist is a terrible mischaracterization.

This is an instance of squeaky-wheel syndrome, applied to identity groups; the entire group is being typecast by the actions of the most visible activists within the group. And the visibility of those activists are often attenuated by the detractor groups; conservatives tend to focus on the left-wing nutbars in the group, and focus all the attention on them. In reality, the gay community isn't any more left-wing than the broader Canadian community, and in some cases, it may even be less so.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-15 12:55:23 PM

Mike,

Re: your observation about economically conservative, pro-business gays: I've noticed that, too.

Why wouldn't we expect gays to be as rationally self-interested as the rest of us? They pay taxes, too, and often they have more disposable income. Why the hell would they want to give more of their money to the government?

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-07-15 1:31:57 PM

Terrence,

I think the problem is that conservatives have this knee-jerk reaction about all groups that fall outside the typical conservative WASP category.

If you're an atheist, you're probably socialist. If you're a hispanic, you're probably socialist. If you're gay, you're probably a socialist, etc.

We often find this is also one of the biggest real drivers behind why conservatives are anti-immigration; the general view that minorities are all socialists, and the more of them, the more socialist the country will become, etc.

The truth is, white immigrants from Europe are probably more likely to be socialists than the scary brown-skinned men of the nether-regions of the Earth.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-15 2:24:12 PM

Conservatives don't oppose immigration. We oppose illegal immigration! My relatives had to go through Ellis Island and get tested. They followed the written law at the time. All that I am asking is that immigrants come to America legally? My relatives did. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Posted by: Ted | 2009-07-15 7:26:47 PM

"Conservatives don't oppose immigration. We oppose illegal immigration!"

Yes, you support immigration laws that effectively make it illegal for 95% of all prospective immigrants to never have a shot at making it through the US legal system "legally". Which is a far cry from the system that existed when your parents passed through Ellis Island.

Basically the only way to get into the United States is to have--at least--a relevant four year university degree to their line of work, a job offer (that has Dept. of Labour certification that there isn't a qualified American), and the luck of the draw (there's a visa quota).

This policy has directly lead to companies like EA, Microsoft and Google moving 25,000 jobs to Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. And that problem gets worse.

But hey, that's fine for me, I'm Canadian. But American companies are more and more moving their high-paying jobs and workforces out of the US because of the bullshit immigration policy that makes it impossible to do international business and hire from abroad.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-16 5:17:25 AM

Mike, do you have any figures for what the failure rate of immigration candidates was on Ellis Island? Second, are there any restrictions on immigration that you would approve of? Third, can you verify that the failure rate is as high as 95%? Fourth, the U.S. has a corrupt and unstable country next to it named Mexico. What unstable bordering country do you have people coming from illegally? We deserve and need a secure border. Ever talk to one of the ranchers in Arizonia who has thousands of illegals crossing his property? Not all of these trespassers are boy scouts. Some ranchers are afraid to let the children outside unattended. Others have even strung strings of barbed wire around their houses and surrounding buildings. I have even heard of some who spend much of the night patrolling their own property while heavily armed. Should these people be forced to live like they are in an armed encampment? Fifth, half the problem with American companies involve our corporate tax rates. The United States has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the G8(after Japan). A sharp reduction in the corporate income tax rate together with cutting the capital gains rate down to 5% will go a long way to helping this situation.The answers are tax cuts and deregulation. I am glad that Canada is so open to immigrants. Canada's low birthrate requires that you have high levels of immigration to maintain your standard of living. America's birthrate is far higher and such an emphasis is not as crucial.

Posted by: Ted | 2009-07-17 8:09:42 PM

Great post Matthew. And interesting discussions.

Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2009-07-25 1:18:24 AM

A sharp reduction in the corporate income tax rate together with cutting the capital gains rate down to 5% will go a long way to helping this situation.The answers are tax cuts and deregulation.

No it wouldn't. Why would companies want to bring immigrants TO the US if this was true? This is absurd. Microsoft had about 4,000 people they hired from abroad, clogged up in the immigration process. People they wanted to bring to the United States, employ them there, and pay US taxes. But the US government has other priorities.

Posted by: Mike Brock | 2009-07-25 6:51:18 AM

Ron Paul said it best, (paraphrased) you don't have rights because you're gay or black, you have rights because you're a person.

Posted by: Scott Carnegie | 2009-07-25 8:59:20 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Where is the gay rights movement going, and should libertarians follow?

Comments