There are many so-called hypotheticals which don't fit the axiom of 'people should be free to do what they want, unless their exercise of their freedom intrudes on the rights of others'.
- drug users
- hunters
- polluters
- developers
- drunk drivers
- prostitutes
- porn users
In what way do any of these not fit the axiom in question? In most cases, we have resolved these questions in accordance with that axiom. Drunk driving represents a clear threat to the safety of others, and a clear infringement of their right to use public facilities without undue or avoidable threat. That’s why it’s prohibited. We allow hunting, but not in populated areas, for the same reason. That’s pretty much a common sense call, just as the axiom we’re discussing is a matter of common sense. With issues like pollution and development, we try to draw a line that determines where these activities cross the line into infringement on the rights of others. That line is adjusted according to continuing public debate.
In other cases, particularly prostitution and drug use, we have chosen to set the axiom aside. Not surprisingly, our laws dealing with these issues are ineffective and frequently ignored.
Of course, there are indirect, cascading or risk effects from each of these groups, just as there are from more novel activities like gay marriage.
That doesn’t change anything. If we want to ban a given action based on “cascading effects”, we must first demonstrate that these effects are a clear and inevitable consequence of the act in question, and that these effects would infringe upon someone else’s rights. As always, the burden of proof should be on those who would restrict liberty, not those who would exercise it.
I have seen no credible argument, anywhere, to suggest that gay marriage would have any significant “cascading effect”, pose any measurable risk to anyone, or infringe upon anyone’s rights. People want to prohibit it simply because they find it distasteful. I find it distasteful: the idea of two guys kissing turns my stomach. I just don’t think my personal tastes - or anybody else’s, even if those tastes are shared by a majority – are sufficient grounds to tell anyone that they can’t do what they want to do.
should society's costs, in the form of increased taxes or insurance premiums, be factored into the intrusion equation?
That’s an issue liberals often bring up, particularly the anti-smoking crowd. I’m not comfortable with it, unless the costs are very clear and very drastic. It’s the mother of all slippery slopes: try comparing society’s cost from, say, fast food or alcohol to the hypothetical costs from allowing gay marriage or legalizing marijuana. If you’re going to factor those costs into the intrusion equation, pretty soon you’ll be banning French fries and beer.
If people have freedom, some of them will make bad choices. Some of those choices will place costs on others. If we want freedom, we have to bear those costs. If we start restricting freedoms on the grounds that they might be abused, we’ll find ourselves left with no freedom at all. |
