A quotation from Matt Walsh which appeared on this blog:
This whole national debate [on gay marriage] is overwrought. If the state sanctions marriages (check) and confers benefits to the parties involved (check check) then anyone should be able to marry anyone.
Whatever church or cult you belong to doesn’t have to recognize it.
This to me is a perfect example of “rights thinking” with regard to everything a government does. We are used to – from Social Contract language and the rest – considering government’s job as “protecting rights” and hence being indiscriminate – all have their rights equally protected.
But this is really only a tiny fraction of what government does. Most of government work is really social and cultural self-expression, and is far more organic – it far predates any Social Contract theories or even the idea of rights at all.
A good example of this is scientific research. As we know, most university research in the United States is funded by the federal government. There is no question of protecting rights here – we are talking about research into new methods of refrigeration or better soaps or genetically engineering a really good-tasting eggplant. Of course, much of that research provides advances in life expectancy, prevents diseases, develops new military technology and so forth. But the main dynamic is that the society as a whole values research and innovation, and so allocates social money for it.
The National Endowment for the Arts is another example. You will hear bad thinkers justify this kind of government program by talking about the citizens’ “right to art,” but really what is going on is that certain people – the artists – receive privileges from the government because the society approves of having artists around in the society.
Education is the same. Education is mostly state-sponsored – even private institutions rely on both direct funding and nearly complete tax exemptions – because this is the way the society wants itself to be. It is the society’s self-expression.
In fact, most of government is like this – roads, post offices, bailout packages, all the things government does for the economy, are all questions of society’s cultivation of itself rather than protection of rights.
In doing this, society imposes restrictions. When a post office has to be built, there is no equal opportunity with the design competition: it goes to the person who fits the society’s cultural demands at that time. If neoclassicism is the expression of the society (or at least the contract-awarding commission) at the time, then you had better put some Corinthians on that facade. If cheapness is the order of the day, then build a warehouse. If you want the economic benefits of a road running through your property, you’ll have to locate yourself in between two important destinations or in the only mountain pass for miles on either side.
But just because your neighbor in the pass got a road built right to his doorstep and clear on through to the other side does not mean that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution you have a right to one too in your dead-end valley. Just because Toni Morrison got an NEH grant to sit around at home putting words into a computer doesn’t mean you have a right to the same thing. Those kind of privileges are conferred by society and under society’s conditions.
This is not the same as a license for unlimited corruption, although admittedly most corruption comes through the government this way. Theoretically, a road’s route should conform to the basic expectations for a road, such as directness, ease of terrain, and so forth. But those standards would have been the same for Ivan the Terrible, who recognized no rights but still would have known a good road when he saw one.
This is why I do not agree that in the case of marriage that merely the fact that the government is conferring benefits on some people that that means that all must have equal access to it. If the society votes a billion dollars to preserve “historical” homes, and you think your home you built last year has a lot of history in it, go ahead and try to convince other people, I say – but don’t be surprised when your neighbor’s house where George Washington slept sops up most of the funding. That’s what most people mean by “historical.” And until society’s definition of marriage changes – which it is, by the way, but not nearly enough for democratic legitimacy – don’t be surprised if the benefits go to only a portion of the population.
One Comment