Medical Fascism and Marital Freedom

by Liberty and Power

[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]

The transcript from last night’s GOP debate is now online.

My favourite Ron Paul quote of the night:

Well, we’ve had managed care, now, for about 35 years. It’s not working, and nobody’s happy with it. The doctors aren’t happy. The patients aren’t happy. Nobody seems to be happy – except the corporations, the drug companies and the HMOs. You take care of poor people by turning the medical care back into the system where people have some choices. Now, we have a mess because we have – a lot of people are very dependent on health care. But I have the only way we can afford to take care of people now, because we're going broke, with $500 billion going to debt every single year. And we have a foreign policy that is draining us. I say, take care of these poor people. I’m not against that. But save the money someplace. The only place available for us to save it is to change our attitude about running a world empire and bankrupting this country. We can take care of the poor people, save money and actually cut some of our deficit. So you don’t have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work. And you can't expect the managed care system that we have today, which promotes and benefits and rewards the corporations – because it's the drug companies and the HMOs and even the AMA that comes to us and lobbies us for this managed care, and that’s why the prices are high. It’s only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices.

I’m sick of hearing people – both defenders and critics of socialised medicine – talking as though the U.S. system represented a free-market approach, and comparing the merits of U.S. and European approaches to health care as though they represented the merits of state-socialist and market-based approaches respectively. In reality the U.S. system is a fascist/corporatist system; as John Graham notes (conical hat tip to Tom Ford), “Nobody is talking about a free-market approach in health care. The spectrum today is between fascism and Communism.” Nice to see Ron Paul get that right.

My least favourite Ron Paul quote of the night:

My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The state really shouldn’t be involved. The state, both federal and state-wise, got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago.

I agree, of course, that the state shouldn’t be involved with marriage (or anything else, for that matter). My gripe is with the historical claim that state involvement in marriage in the U.S. dates from only a hundred years ago. Is Paul unaware of the state’s massive involvement in marriage during the 19th century? Has he never read of the enormous struggle that was waged against such state involvement, and the relentless legal persecution that was suffered by dissidents? What of the various legal restrictions that were imposed on the wife (such as loss of freedom over her property, her children, and her own body), or on both parties (such as denial of the right to divorce), in consequence of the state’s recognition of their marriage? What of the Mormons, who were forced at bayonet-point to abandon their religious commitment to polygamy? What of free-love activists Lillian Harman and Edwin Walker, who were thrown in jail in 1886 for daring to undergo a marriage ceremony not approved by the state? Throughout the 19th century (and of course well before) the state defined the terms of the marriage contract and punished all deviation therefrom.

In other news, good for the New York cabbies! This is one strike that even my right-libertarian friends should be able to approve of.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Sudha Shenoy - 10/23/2007

We have to distinguish between (1) marriages recognised as such by people -- whether because the couple are married in a religious ceremony or otherwise fulfill some customary requirement (2) post facto _legislative_ interference: in which legislators decide to impose additional, purely statutory requirements, for ulterior reasons.

In England marriage disputes remained a matter for the church courts until the mid-19th century. Before this: Marriages in the medieval period generally took place in private houses or in the open. By the 16th century, however, people generally felt that a 'proper' marriage had to follow Church procedures -- calling of banns, a ceremony in church, etc. Ceremonies in a private house (without banns) were legal & were accepted socially, but looked down upon.

The 16th century saw official interference beginning: officials required the churches to maintain registers of births, marriages, & deaths. NB, this was _not_ reqd by either the church or common law. In 1694, officials decided to tax marriages. Couples had to buy a license & publish banns. If they didn't, they were deemed to be committing a criminal offence; but the marriage remained 'legal'. There further remained a few areas, like the Fleet prison in London, which were not under the jurisdiction of any bishop, in which so-called 'clandestine', but legal, church marriages occurred.

In 1753, Hardwicke's Marriage Act -- statute, not common law -- did away with the Fleet & other 'liberties', ie, with 'secret' marriages. The Act _reqd_ couples to buy a license, publish banns, have witnesses, & record the marriage. All other types of marriages were declared invalid, except for Jewish & Quaker ceremonies. (Church courts had already accepted both.) This Act now suddenly pushed out Roman Catholics, nonconformists & non-believers into a legal limbo. So legislation was passed in 1823: _all_ bona fide marriages were allowed to be valid. Finally in 1836 fresh legislation introduced civil marriage in a registry; nonconformist chapels were decreed to be 'regd buildings' for the purpose of the Act. (These statutes could only apply in England & Wales, of course.)

Thus we have (1) the development of public opinion & practice as to what is considered an acceptable marriage (2) the growth of statutory interference: first, 'simple' registration; then the threat of criminal prosecution if a tax isn't paid; then untaxed ('unlicensed') marriages are declared 'illegal'. Contrast with common law: Notwithstanding the plethora of legislation, common law in Australia (in the late 20th century) has now quietly accepted 'de facto' marriages, ie, those without statutory registration. As disputes from such marriages come before the courts, judges are articulating what couples are actually practising...

William J. Stepp - 10/22/2007

Whatever the merits of the cabbies' opposition to the demands of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (it almost sounds like a mafia) to install a GPS device and a credit-card machine, a free market in taxis would solve this problem.
Taxi cab drivers would be either owner-operators or hired drivers, as they are now, but without the cartellizing conduit of medallions. They would be free to set their own working conditions, and more importantly, their own prices.
If individual owners wanted these devices, they would install them. If not, they wouldn't.
Consumers would be better served too.

The TWA would be reduced to being a social organization, like all labor unions in a free market.
So by all means endorse the cabbies' complaint, but be aware that in a free market there would be no strike. That's why a call for an end to the Taxi and Limo Commission and for freeing up the market for taxis would be better, and not just for the cabbies, but for everyone.

Roderick T. Long - 10/22/2007

I should also add that I disagree with Paul's claim that we can find out what "marriage" means by looking in a dictionary. My reasons for skepticism about this approach to contested terms generally are here and here. My reasons with regard to marriage specifically are here and here.

Roderick T. Long - 10/22/2007

I think we probably need to distinguish between the state's role in being the official institution that "recognized" marriages and its role with respect to persons who were (or were not) recognized as married, however or whomever recognized it.

I agree that it's a difference, but I'm not sure it's an enormous difference. It's just the difference between "I'm going to impose the following restrictions on you because I've decided that you're married" and "I'm going to impose the following restrictions on you because this other entity/process [the church, the common law, etc.] whose authority I've decided to accept has decided that you're married." In both cases the state is employing a decision procedure with the upshot that you are regarded as married and the state accordingly imposes on you whatever benefits and/or burdens it deems appropriate to that status.

Steven Horwitz - 10/22/2007

I think we probably need to distinguish between the state's role in being the official institution that "recognized" marriages and its role with respect to persons who were (or were not) recognized as married, however or whomever recognized it.

One could be married at common law but the wife still have all the aforementioned legal limits on her choices.

David T. Beito - 10/22/2007

I agree Paul oversimplified somewhat. Yes, marriage was considered a legal institution one hundred years ago (actually a bit more than that) but this was mostly via the common law. In many cases, marriages were not even formally registered though legally recognized. My own great grandparents, for example, did not bother to record their marriage with the civil authorities. The religious ceremony was considered more than adequate.