Comment: The term "Social Conservative" ...

(See in situ)

The term "Social Conservative" ...

... is usually used in the context of being a code (euphemism) for an anti-liberty position regarding peoples' personal lives.

Social conservatives are often people who are opposed to freedom in drug use, prostitution, gambling, marriage, and other non-crime activities.

Social conservatives are not libertarians because they want to use the force of government to prevent freedom in the personal realm (even though they are generally in favor of freedom in the financial realm).

Some social conservatives think of themselves as maintaining tradition. But if you think about it, throughout most of human history, the state did NOT license marriages. The state played no role. It was a tribal, religious, and/or personal ceremony and way of life, but had nothing to do with the state.

It was not until 19th Century America that the marriage license came into being as a means of the state regulating interracial marriages.

Today, the marriage license is evidence of state recognition ... but recognition in what sense? Really, it is ONLY recognition in state-related matters, namely (a) tax brackets and (b) default legal positions regarding inheritance, and (c) default legal positions regarding dissolution.

If a person is viewed as "married" by the state, then their spouse is the default inheritor of their assets upon death and can be included in their tax bracket. But those things can be overridden by agreement, trusts, or other legal entities (for inheritance or dissolution), or by filing separate tax returns (for taxes).

Since we can walk into any bookstore and buy books with forms on creating corporations, partnerships, trusts, and wills, complete with suggestions on which clauses to include or not, there is no reason we cannot have a society whereby we ELIMINATE the state from marriage, and people can create their own agreements (bookstores would then start carrying books on "How to Create a Marriage Agreement").

The state's laws are really just the default position, but everyone treats it as the ONLY way it CAN be done.

No. The state should get OUT of validating marriages or not validating them. This would end the arguments at the political level, and make it irrelevant.

Then, we can ask "social conservatives" why they are against liberty when it comes to alcohol, other drugs, gambling, prostitution, and other non-crime activities.

Is it just their own personal desire to control other people? If so, they are no better than leftists who want to control people in the financial realm.

Liberty applies to ALL areas of life -- provided one does not violate the equal rights of another. The state can just get the hell out, unless and until a violation has occurred (which does happen, but not all that often in most peoples' lives).