I don’t often look to Europe for advice on liberty or economics. They rely on their governments too much for my taste. So it was my own prejudice that was knocked off my feet today when I read an eloquent and impassioned defense of the free market system from Great Britain.

(Sorry to you British who don’t consider yourselves European. The rest of the world doesn’t see it that way.)

Janet Daley, whoever she is, wrote an essay that’s just damn inspiring. Instead of parroting the false choice of capitalism versus socialism as an economic system, Daley draws out the implications of those systems for our politics. Without capitalism can we have a free society?

When we make the case for capitalism, we are defending the political principle of freedom, not arguing for one kind of rigid economic organisation over another.

Oh Janet, you had me at ‘defending the political principle of freedom’.

I don’t even want to add more. Janet Daley has it so right I just want to stand up and salute. Her essay is why I trust the free market. Sure some people will disagree but I think those people are too trusting. You can have a government that preaches it’s for “the people” but it never lives up to it. The more control government is given, the better the chance it will betray you. Government should be kept out of as much as possible. Just say no to socialism kids!

Ever since gay marriage became an issue, I’ve shared the opinion with anyone who asked that government should not be in the business of regulating marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony. You don’t see the government regulating baptisms and Catholic Communion (except Connecticut maybe). Why should the government stick its nose into who you marry? It’s a pretty militant libertarian stand, and I really never believed it would catch on anywhere.

California has proved me wrong! If 700,000 signatures can be collected we’ll get a referendum on the ballot that, if passed, would make California the first state to do away with civil marriage. Those are two big IFs, but I never expected this idea to even go this far. This proposed referendum is the idea of two college students in southern California. And they’re not gay, apparently. They made sure to slip that in.

I would be very surprised if this thing got 700,000 people to sign it, and I can’t believe there’s any way in the world it will pass. Most of the prop 8 supporters will see it as a spiteful attack on marriage. I would bet some of the no-on-8 crowd will call it a cowardly retreat. What disappoints me though is the justification these two students gave for their proposal. I don’t see this as the equal rights issue they claim it to be. This is a question of government intrusion. What justification is there for government to involve itself in religion? And yes, marriage is a religious ceremony. Don’t tell me it is a civil right or is ordained by the government. Marriage wasn’t created by an ancient Babylonian bureaucrat. Marriage evolved from religion. Your religion should decide who you can marry, not your government. And spare me the argument that government must propagate the stable family unit. Government derives its authority from the will of the people. If the people want to be a bunch of unmarried sluts, its not the place of government to tell them no. Society should influence the government, but the government should not influence society.

So really these two kids stumbled upon the libertarian solution. I doubt they realize that, and they probably would try to shy away from it if confronted. I suppose I should be content that people would embrace this idea, but I’m not. It just doesn’t feel right if people support it for the wrong reason.