Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Coming March 23: Robert Wenzel versus Jesse Ventura on Gay Rights

A special edition of The Robert Wenzel Show will air on Sunday, March 23. Robert Wenzel will debate Jesse Ventura on gay rights.

Ventura holds the position that the gay rights movement is "the civil rights movement of today."

Says Ventura:
I think it’s easy for me to look at gay rights objectively because I’m an atheist. I don’t have a book dictating to me that some people have a right to get married and some people don’t. I don’t have that prejudice in my heart. I don’t look at same sex marriage as a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. I look at it as a civil rights issue, because that’s exactly what it is. The majority is denying the minority the basic right of falling in love and officially stating that they want to live together as a couple, as a family unit, as legal partners. 
Wenzel will take the libertarian position that government should stay out of the marriage business completely and that those who choose to refuse to serve gays, should have the right of such refusal. Wenzel will also challenge parts of the civil rights movement. (SEE: About My Racist Friends, My Homophobic Friends and My Own Prejudices)

27 comments:

  1. Loving what Ventura has been doing on his Off the Grid show, sadly he thinks government can be reformed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So Jerry Wolfgang was Jesse Ventura the WHOLE TIME?!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I look at it as a civil rights issue, because that’s exactly what it is. The majority is denying the minority the basic right of falling in love and officially stating that they want to live together as a couple, as a family unit, as legal partners. "

    Let me get this straight. Prior to the enactment of gay marriage laws, gays were not capable of "right of falling in love and officially stating that they want to live together as a couple, as a family unit." But as soon as they get a piece of government paper, then somehow magically they can do all of this. If gays want to live together, go out together, love one another, sleep with one another or whatever, share each other's wealth, they are free to do this already. Why would you bother interviewing Jesse Ventura on a subject where all of his basic premises are clearly false?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm gay, and I agree 100%.

      See my comment below.

      Delete
    2. Because Jesse is a nice fella, interesting and famous...and can therefore help the cause of libertarianism/freedom.

      Delete
    3. there are current legal privileges to being married that homosexuals in most states cannot participate in. that is what makes it a civil rights issue. if you want to say that those privileges shouldn't exist for anyone, i'm not opposed to that either.

      Delete
  4. While I agree with the libertarian position theoretically, given today's politically dominated authoritarian state, I will give Jesse the early benefit of the doubt. Married people get tax breaks etc, it should at least be legal to have civil unions and call them what you like. It's discrimination to give tax breaks to hetero over homo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Theoretically my ass (no pun)!

      Get the government out of ALL marriage. Return all contracts to the local and personal level.

      Delete
    2. It's also discrimination to favor married people over single straight guy. I get punished because I don't want to put my neck in the government nose of marriage. Rick also gets the same crap since he's gay. Crazy.

      Delete
  5. As Mike (another commentator) said and alluded to, soon nobody, on either side, is going to care if a person is gay or not or, for that matter, what certain people do in their spare time. The destruction of the economy or, optimistically, the improvement of things will make people focus on what is more important. "Civil Rights" and "pro-family values" are just political games that people play because they don't have the foresight to see what's ahead. It will all be awash due to the future and the inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your position on this is inconsistent, Robert. I am tired of the "there is no libertarian position on gay marriage" bullshit. Yes, the government should be completely out of the marriage business. But it's not. There are over 1,000 benefits available to married coupled under federal law. So if you agree that libertarians can draw Social Security, that Walter Block can sue the NYT for libel, and that libertarians in general can accept benefits from the government to minimize government oppression, then the libertarian position on gay marriage should be clear. Consistent libertarians should support gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed U-

      I usually agree with you, but the point is NOT to get gay marriage accepted by the government, but getting the government OUT of marriage completely.

      I wish that I had the legal and tax advantage afforded to "regular" marriage, but I would NEVER sacrifice my principle of reducing government power for my own benefit.

      Expanding marriage laws would benefit me, but I cannot FORCE people to accept it. I WILL NOT allow anyone to use me and my gayness to advance a pro-government system.

      Delete
    2. Rick,

      as I stated above, I completely support getting the government out of the marriage business. But, as I said, given the constant of government intrusion into the marriage business, gays should be afforded the same benefits as heteros.

      If gay people weren't allowed to get driver's licenses, would you argue that the government should not regulate driving privileges (which it should not), or would you demand a driver's license?

      Delete
    3. Driving is not a privilege.

      Delete
  7. @Ed Ucation Where did you ever see me say that gays shouldn't get the same "benefits" as heterosexuals? I am against gvt involvement in marriage and any kind of "civil rights" movement for gays, beginning and end of story. .

    ReplyDelete
  8. I actually support both sides in this (to a degree).

    Robert Wenzel is entirely correct BUT the fact of the matter is that this is not what is currently happening (government getting out of the marriage business). And as long as this is not happening, government has NO RIGHT to discriminate between straight and gay couples for the simple reason that gay people are just as much forced to pay taxes and abide by state laws as straight people are. To fall under the same rules and be robbed as much as straight people, yet be discriminated against by that same government for the "crime" of being gay is intolerable and unacceptable.

    Yes, government should get out of the marriage business. But UNTIL that happens government should not be allowed to discriminate between tax payers. It shouldn't discriminate between straight and gay (through marriage) anymore than it should discriminate between rich and poor (through "progressive" taxation).

    Regardless of this, i do think Jesse Venture is still enamored with the concept of the state and thinks the state *should* have a role to play in marriage. And this would be where i completely separate from his thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, let me go out on real limb here and state that the family is the first everything. First school, business, government etc. If it goes wrong in the family, everybody else is running to catch up to straighten things out.
    The family is the best and cheapest way to raise kids to adults, period.

    Yeah, yaddad yadda yadda, adoptions, exceptions to the rule, we love each other blah blah blah.
    Well yeah, but most of the time from time immemorial, it boils down to a man and a woman and the resultant offspring. Duh. The rule is not the exception and when the exceptions swallow up the rule, look out.

    Things go better for the govt. if there are strong families, i.e. citizens that know how to both provide for and govern themselves without the necessity of electronic surveillance and machine gun towers at every intersection. How far the govt. should go to encourage families might be another question, but let's not kid ourselves.

    As in strong families are the first bulwark against the modern leviathan state.
    Which is maybe why all of the politicians are all in favor of "same sex marriage/civil rights/etc.".
    Anything that strikes at the family in the long run encourages the growth of the state - from necessity of course - to ahem, intervene and assert its authority.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "As in strong families are the first bulwark against the modern leviathan state.
      Which is maybe why all of the politicians are all in favor of "same sex marriage/civil rights/etc.".
      Anything that strikes at the family in the long run encourages the growth of the state - from necessity of course - to ahem, intervene and assert its authority."

      Really? I'm sure there are plenty of families that install their brand authoritarianism in their kids when their kids begin to understand such concepts.

      You don't think conservatives install their kids to believe bs that the police are always right, the military "protects our freedoms", the drug war is 100% necessary, the military-industrial complex is a liberal myth, taxes are necessary, our foreign policy doesn't need to change, the myths of Reagan and so on?

      Same would go for liberals that teach their kids that welfare is good, taxes are necessary, we as ordinary people don't need guns, the myths of Clinton, the rich need to be taxed 90% and so on.

      Strong families can produce government boot licking statists as much as broken family can. The only difference is what flavor the statist might turn out to be

      Delete
    2. Can i say that i just read a whole bunch of unsubstantiated conservative hogwash, contradictory to the facts (as NY Cynic has shown)?

      I'm sure i can.

      Last i checked, "family values" conservatives are very smitten with the Republican Party, not exactly known as a bastion of small government values in terms of war, nationalism, the economy, legislating morality or the police state.

      Who are these pro-family and anti-gay marriage people? Oh that's right. They are the ones who want to use the 'modern Leviathan state' to keep gays out of marriage.

      Delete
  10. Bob,

    Can't wait to hear this episode! I wonder how confrontational you will be considering you are calling it a debate; you are usually more than gentlemanly to your guests, IMO. I am not sure if you have taped the show already, but if I caught you beforehand I say go for the gusto!

    Ventura likes to call himself a libertarian, and is great on a majority of issues. However, by taking clearly non-libertarian positions on some issues- like government intervention in marriage- he is diluting and muddling the meaning of the word libertarian, and therefore should be corrected when doing so.

    Also, I find it interesting that Ventura mentions his atheism, as if it were of some relevance...Why would someone correctly reject the government shoving Christian morality down our throats, then proceed to advocate for the government to impose atheistic morality? It is not only a non-libertarian viewpoint, it is not even logical! (Granted, these two factors often coincide...) It is like saying you don't like your face being smashed into the concrete by a jack-booted thug, but it would be fine if he would just change into stilettos!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ventura also said recently that if anyone ought to be taxed, it ought to be rich people whenever they buy goods.
      Economic ignorance is putting it mildly there.

      Ventura is no libertarian. Just because someone is contemptuous of the ruling elite doesn't mean he is libertarian. Plenty of leftists are contemptuous of the ruling elite. Including people who throw molotov cocktails at international financial conventions. They also hate the rich, and want to use government for egalitarian purposes.

      I'm still wondering if Ventura does not have more in common with them than with libertarians.

      Delete
    2. If anything Ventura's economic policies puts him in the populist camp with libertarian leanings on foreign policy, immigration and big brother. I would hope Wenzel questions Ventura on NAP.

      Delete
  11. this country was built on christian belief..means no bs dr. says its breeding into them,its caled temptation,and sin..if you don't like what the founding fathers based this country on ,why stay here..fucking leave and take your aids with you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We believe in personal freedom, and discrimination against those we find objectionable. We believe that the government should stay out of marriage. We believe that ignorant fuckwads like you should move to North Korea if you believe the government should have control of the activities in your bedroom.

      You're just another NeoCon warmongering fool.

      Delete
    2. Ever notice that the biggest statist conservatives (is that redundant?) who troll on here are always the anonymous ones?

      Delete
  12. driving is a privilege, if not what is it? Certainly not a right otherwise everyone would be driving whether capable or not, as compared to voting, freedom of speech, or carrying a gun - these are rights.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am quite perplexed as to this logic, Ed Ucation:

    "Yes, the government should be completely out of the marriage business. But it's not...(and later)...given the constant of government intrusion into the marriage business, gays should be afforded the same benefits as heteros."

    Or Tony, who says:

    "Yes, government should get out of the marriage business. But UNTIL that happens government should not be allowed to discriminate between tax payers."

    It reminds me of what Rothbard wrote in For a New Liberty:

    "But after achieving impressive partial victories against statism, the classical liberals began to lose their radicalism, their dogged insistence on carrying the battle against conservative statism to the point of final victory. Instead of using partial victories as a stepping-stone for evermore pressure, the classical liberals began to lose their fervor for change and for purity of principle. They began to rest content with trying to safeguard their existing victories, and thus turned themselves from a radical into a conservative movement — "conservative" in the sense of being content to preserve the status quo. In short, the liberals left the field wide open for socialism to become the party of hope and of radicalism, and even for the later corporatists to pose as "liberals" and "progressives" as against the "extreme right wing" and "conservative" libertarian classical liberals, since the latter allowed themselves to be boxed into a position of hoping for nothing more than stasis, than absence of change. Such a strategy is foolish and untenable in a changing world."

    "Moreover, principle and strategy merged in the decay of eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century liberal devotion to "abolitionism" — to the view that, whether the institution be slavery or any other aspect of statism, it should be abolished as quickly as possible, since the immediate abolition of statism, while unlikely in practice, was to be sought after as the only possible moral position. For to prefer a gradual whittling away to immediate abolition of an evil and coercive institution is to ratify and sanction such evil, and therefore to violate libertarian principles. As the great abolitionist of slavery and libertarian William Lloyd Garrison explained: 'Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.'"

    The libertarian position on gay marriage is thus that the State should not be party to any marriages, end of story! Just as the state institutionalized slavery, so they institutionalize marriage, as well as all other areas in which the state claims to have authority over. To claim that one can embrace this authority and attempt to apply its consequences in a libertarian fashion is absurd- the only just position, if one values the NAP, is the abolition of state involvement in marriage. Rothbard's pertinent insight from the above passages would be, "to prefer a gradual whittling away (or modification) to immediate abolition of an evil and coercive institution is to ratify and sanction such evil, and therefore to violate libertarian principles." (Words in parenthesis added) (By me)

    ReplyDelete