To begin with, the confusion is grotesque, not the inestimable Samuel Barr – I must post if only to stress that. Said grotesquerie is an innocuous, though unfortunate, consequence of progressivism, in the same manner that my ineptitude at mathematics (which could only charitably be called grotesque) is an unfortate consequence of being a social studies major.
I think the disagreement here does stem from that idea that various state provisions are a liberty/civil right/thing of justice/commandment, and thus we must be brook no opposition! I blame the really religious language this takes on Rawls, but that’s neither here nor there.
My approach to this whole issue, as noted, is tactical, not ideal: the reason I invoke federalism, which should not be confused with the various weirdness around “states’ rights,” is that there laboratories of liberty (to paraphrase the words of a progressive hero) might function to find ways for social change to happen with as little state intervention as possible. Thinking about the issue tactically and religiously also makes me skeptical of the crusaders; I’m sure everyone was assured in the 1970s that anti-discrimination efforts would not lead to this. It is a bit rich to pretend that when the government has powerful influence over education and extends innumerable regulations on business, charities, and speech, various shenanigans will not follow.
The main problem here is completely illustrated by Sam, in short. If you believe that everywhere man is born with the right to various provisions by government, and everywhere he is in chains, it makes no sense to stop anywhere short of flattening the world (apologies to Friedman) in the quest to provide them. The extent to which equality has replaced liberty as the going concern is disturbing; these ideas had been around in the 19th century, instead of abolishing nobility and its abuses, everyone would be one a la gondolieri.
If you believe that liberty comes out of planning committees, there ain’t space left in this blog post to convince ya. But if you are concerned with the idea of relative liberty, I’d propose that when the state is unfairly privileging some group over another, doesn’t it make sense to abolish privileges rather than make everyone a dependent of the state?
In news only related by the fact that Zuma has noted gay issues, South Africa just had an election. I believe the badness of Jacob Zuma is something that everyone can come around to here, unless we have some unreconstructed ANC that want to set me straight.