Both sides have put so much trust in government that they have forgotten the history of marriage licenses. It was not always the case that couples had to have marriage licenses. George and Martha Washington never had a marriage license, and most Americans didn’t need them until the mid-1800s.

Various states in America had laws outlawing marriage between blacks and whites (in some cases this also included Native Americans and Asians); this occurred until 1967.   All these laws primarily banned marriage between spouses of different racially or ethnically defined groups, which was termed “amalgamation” or “miscegenation.” However, it was in the mid-1800’s that certain states began allowing interracial marriages as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words, they had to receive permission to do an act which otherwise would have been illegal.

An examination of Black’s Law Dictionary will give us a better picture:

Marriage license – A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry… By statute in most jurisdictions, it is made an essential prerequisite to lawful solemnization of the marriage.

What does “intermarry” mean? Black’s Law Dictionary states:

Intermarry – See Miscegenation.

Miscegenation – Mixture of races. Term formerly applied to marriage between persons of a different race. [Now called “intermarry”.] Statutes prohibiting marriage between persons of different races have been held to be invalid as contrary to equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Mildred and Richard Loving, pictured left, were arrested in Virginia because of their interracial marriage. It was their case that overturned the law. In 1967, in the Loving v. Virginia case, the Supreme Court declared anti-miscegenation laws a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore unconstitutional; however, state granted marriage certificates still exist as a relic of a forgotten era. States have now even written into law that those performing marriages must also be licensed by the state. Of course all this is provided for a fee paid to the state.

Before these historical events the government was never involved in marriage. Marriage was a private and personal matter; not public or state controlled. Some individuals chose to marry under religious institutions, and others simply entered what is often termed common law marriage. Of course the issue runs even deeper today because states have created certain benefits and subsidies for married couples; benefits everyone wants to have. Supporters of civil unions often seek these benefits and subsidies. When they are advocating for equal rights, they are essentially advocating for recognition, or the “right” to government subsidies. There is no “right” to government benefits.

The reality is that government cannot provide a right to anyone. A right is something you can do without asking. On the other hand a privilege is something that another entity or authority allows you to do. For example, I can walk out of my house onto my land. I can walk back and forth on my land all day long. I don’t have to ask anyone for permission; I have a right to walk on my land. If I want to walk across your land, perhaps to go to the store and take a shortcut, I have to get your permission. At any time and for any reason you can revoke my permission.

Rights and privileges are opposites. We all remember the famous words, “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Unalienable means that they cannot be taken away.  Even if you support the concept of government, one must concede that the people grant government privileges; in the U.S. Constitution we can find the term “granted” in Article I. The government cannot give rights to anyone since it had none to give in the first place. Same sex couples have no right to benefits just as opposite sex couples don’t have a right to them.

Do same sex couples have a right to marry?  The real question is, do we as individuals have the right to deny another person from marriage? Can I prevent my neighbor from walking across his land? The answer is no; I don’t have a right to do so. If I organize a group of 50 people together, can they prevent my neighbor from walking across his land? Again the answer is no. It doesn’t matter how many of us there are, we are never justified in preventing my neighbor from walking across his land. Why? Because if we, as individuals, don’t have the right to do so we can’t give permission for someone else (or a group called government) to do it either.

Opponents of same sex marriage or civil unions often claim that their primary reason for their actions is to protect children, and thus they say we should give the power of marriage to the state to protect the next generation. To them opposite sex parents are the best option for the healthy upbringing of a child.

This begs the question: by only legalizing the optimal, do they agree that anything suboptimal should be illegal? If the conditions for raising a child vary, and run along a spectrum from the worst (say, being raised by wolves in the forest) to the possible optimal (being raised by loving, talented, intelligent, brilliant billionaires) would those who could run government determine that anything below the billionaire level was suboptimal and therefore illegal? Would someone have to undergo a wealth and intelligence test before being married, because marriage could lead to childrearing, and that child could possibly be raised in a suboptimal environment? A standard is arbitrary, and dangerous to a free society.

Moreover, what about single individuals who never choose to marry?  These people are often forgotten in this debate. Are they not discriminated against as well, since they are not given the same privileges as married couples?  There are those couples who live together for life and never choose to marry.   However, the state has decided to tax them at a higher level and punish them for their choice.

It is time the government got out of the business of marriage and left it in the hands of individuals. Only they, as individuals, know what is best for them, whether it be through religious institutions, contracts, or common law. They did just fine before government got involved.

In the early 1920s, Germany’s economy and people were depressed until along came the charismatic Adolph Hitler who lulled the German people into surrendering their state and their freedoms in exchange for what he called the Third Reich. By 1945, the mandate that the people had given the Nazi Party for prosperity had brought Germany to ruin, and instead of a thousand year reign as promised by Hitler, the German people would spend the next five decades divided between East and West.

Today, the American people have been similarly sold by often charismatic state and Federal leaders into believing that an expansion of state powers and government spending will provide security abroad and prosperity at home. In 1979, U.S. Federal spending was $504 billion. Today, Federal spending is $2,979 billion. The onset of the post-9/11 security state through the establishment of the PATRIOT Act, Real ID, warrantless surveillance of American citizens and the Global War on Terror leaves one to wonder whether the land of the free and the home of the brave has silently transitioned into fascism.

Fascism, or state run capitalism, is often sugar coated by calling it “economic democracy” or “the government-business alliance.” The collapse of the American banking system that took place in September and October of 2008 only helped to further advance America’s fascist leanings. Capitalism was blamed for these failures, but one can’t blame what doesn’t exist.

Capitalism never existed because government always had its hands on business. Then, just as now, the problem was a lack of belief in the free market system. They cannot conceive of a social institution based on voluntarism and free choice. They will believe anything but this. They think of themselves as defenders of the free market, but they do not grasp the power of the free market to enforce consumers’ decisions. They believe that only the central planners, not individuals, are capable of making decisions. As such, the American political system has been soft-core fascist for almost a century.

Everyone who believes in the efficiency of government run business is a fascist. The fascist state has always attempted to control private industry by means of inflation, taxation, and regulation. Fascism has always been a system of keeping the fat cats alive and happy at the expense of the taxpayers. The face change, but the system has always been one gigantic system of cartels, regulation, and fiat money. It is everything that the critics of modern capitalism say is wrong with capitalism.

The modern economic system is one gigantic interlocking system of special interest and government control. With government taking such a large stake in failing businesses the roots of fascism are ever more prevalent. As such, the central economic idea of all forms of fascism is corporatism. The most important claim made by fascism was that it alone could offer the creative prospect of a ‘third way’ between capitalism and socialism. Hitler, in Mein Kampf, spoke enthusiastically about the ‘National Socialist corporative idea’ as one which would eventually ‘take the place of ruinous class warfare.’

Corporatism is government control of the economy by promoting collusion among favored firms in an industry. The result is that government gets control and power, the favored firms get to fix prices and/or create barriers to entry and obstacles for competitors. Fascist governments exercised influence over the economy differently than that of communists, in that individual private property was controlled but not nationalized. This gives the illusion of individual ownership.

Benjamin Franklin warned that people willing to trade their freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both. The answer to our problems has been and always will be limited government, free markets, and free people.

Anyone with even minimal training in economics understands marginal productivity and its effect upon the income one receives for services rendered, and it is a fact of life that some people are going to have skills that will be compensated higher than others. Most miss this fact with a misguided belief that there must be equality of outcome, rather than simply equality of opportunity. It is possible for the State to make all incomes equal; Lenin and his cohorts tried to do that in Russia from 1917-1921. Should we believe that 1917-1921 was a golden age for the Russians, rather than a time of war, famine, and death?

Higher income taxes reduce the incentives for highly productive people to spend years in school obtaining needed skills, and then work hard in producing goods and services desired by society. It encourages the misallocation of productive resources by encouraging people to find ways to minimize the tax burden rather than to use their labor and savings for the highest and best use. It reduces the mobility of families up and down the income scale, and freezes the advantages of those who have substantial inherited wealth.

The fact is that the upper income class provides much of the opportunity for others in society. For example sole proprietorships that are taxed as individuals are in the upper income class level. Yet taxing these small businesses would prevent them from using their marginal productivity to expand their business or provide new jobs. One would be hard pressed to find someone that has worked for a poor man.

The higher taxes for upper income classes punish them for their productivity. It is by no accident that these individuals with higher incomes are productive. Most of them had to use special knowledge, talent, or skills to achieve a higher degree of income. It is not the unproductive individual that earns more income. Even in cases of inheritance the money is often transferred from a productive individual. By taxing high income individuals the State is saying that their productivity and efforts are in vain. As a result they will have one of two choices: make less money or move their assets to a protected location.

If the individuals choose to earn less money in order to avoid higher taxes, the State will ultimately earn less revenue. This is because the State will have less income available to tax. If the individuals choose to move their assets, the State won’t earn more revenue either because there is no income available to tax. It is for these reasons that many upper income individuals and businesses leave states that tax higher in favor of states that tax less. The end result is that the higher taxed states will be in worse economic condition due to less revenue and higher unemployment.

In addition, when people become poorer because the State taxes them then they will have to forego some of the things they want and only use their money for things they value more highly. This means that the marginal utility of additional money increases because of the increased poverty. For example, a family who wanted to go on vacation but who loses their money because of taxation will clearly be forced to work instead of going on a vacation. The additional money lost will not be used or spent in other productive sectors of the economy.

In the case of the State of Hawaii the legislators have taken a short sighted approach in an attempt to eliminate the deficit under the veil of income equality. They have not taken into account the effects that must be foreseen. The result will be an exodus of individuals and businesses from the state. Further the state will earn less revenue and face higher unemployment. The state will inevitably be in a worse economic condition. With the legislature hearing nearly no tax cutting bills and supporting tax and fee increases during a time of economic recession, they seem to believe that the way to prosperity is to destroy wealth.

After the internet bubble burst, the Fed decided to keep interest rates low to buffer the effects of recession that would follow such an event. This excess amount of money increased buying. This pushed up prices. Because the supply of homes is inflexible housing prices would begin to rise rather quickly. During this time rising house prices and a rallying stock market increased the perception of worth among homeowners. Many believed that they didn’t have to save as much as before because they could borrow against their increasing home equity. This money was then used to buy more goods, services, stocks, and real estate.

Yet all the increase in real estate values and the spending it supported was a fantasy. The economy’s ability to produce is determined things such as labor and raw materials. It is not possible to simply create more money in order to create more production. This is the problem of inflation. Even Keynes suggests that, “by a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.”

Eventually the Fed had to control this easy money policy and borrowing money became more expensive. As a result people began to spend less or sell their assets to maintain their former lifestyle. This put pressure on the price of real estate and stocks. Eventually prices began to fall.

Despite Keyne’s own admission to the effects of inflation, he advocated an increase in spending to the same levels during the boom. This is a practice that many government officials still believe is the best policy. Everyone seems to believe that more money must be pumped in to further stimulate the economy. This is more than likely out of political cowardice since no politician wants to be seen as “doing nothing.” Yet simple logic would dictate that you can’t solve an excess spending problem by spending more. History supports this.

President Barack Obama stated that the goal of his economic stimulus package is to create employment. According to Obama, he will spend money wisely with essential projects such as fixing roads. However this is no different from what a centralized system like the former Soviet Union attempted. It is impossible for the government to create jobs by taking the wealth of one segment and redistributing to another. Ultimately no real wealth is created but wealth is destroyed. Similarly it would be a great idea for every person in America to drive a luxury car but it would be rationally wrong to imply that the government should purchase a car for every American.

It is a shame that our politicians can’t understand this concept and continue advocating the pumping of more money into the economy. This is a recipe for disaster. To prevent further destruction of the economy, Congress must stop its intervention in the market. The solution of digging holes and filling them up won’t work. We can’t dig ourselves out of this recession; the hole we dig will only get deeper.

On January 15, 2009 Rep. Neil Abercrombie in his latest piece entitled, “A Strong Jump Start is Urgently Needed to Revive Our Economy” attempts to sell Obama’s economic plan using economic mythology.

Economic booms are the artificial high resulting from the Federal Reserve’s inflationary economic and monetary policy.

Rep. Abercrombie demonstrates a lack of thorough understanding of economic fundamentals.

While I agree with him that Hawaii, just as the mainland, is suffering severe economic downturn it is impossible to assume that government can stimulate growth and more jobs.

See more about this in my recent oped “Government Does Not Create New Jobs”

As such the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is an absurdity.

Abercrombie’s solution is to have government pump more money into the economy. The U.S. government has already introduced billions without result, yet he advocates more at the expense of the productive taxpayers.

Government officials and economists seem clueless and puzzled about what is happening. The answer is simple: the credit market was artificially inflated and it eventually popped. History is filled with these types of booms and busts thanks to the government’s artificial expansion of credit.

Just as with Hoover and FDR, one government program leads to another. What happened with the government programs between 1933 and 1939 that were meant to fight the Great Depression? Economic growth went nowhere. Per capita GDP was actually lower in 1939 than in 1929. Unemployment was at 17.2 percent in 1939, which was higher than it was in 1931. This was despite 100% increases in monetary expansion. Taxes had tripled. Employing people became ever more expensive due to unions and national income guarantees. Rep. Abercrombie and the Obama administration’s policies will have similar outcomes.

The real solution is to allow the economy to deleverage and correct itself due to the artificial expansion of credit. The only way this can occur is to allow for deflation; however, the government seems bent on preventing deflation at all costs. They have done this to the point of lowering interest rates to near zero.

Contrary to politicians and so many others, deflation is not falling prices but a decrease in the quantity of money and/or volume of spending in the economy. In other words, deflation is a general fall in demand. Falling prices are a consequence of deflation, not the phenomenon itself. Falling prices are also a consequence of increases in the production and supply of goods, which are an essential feature of economic progress and a rising standard of living. Falling prices are actually the antidote for deflation. Yet with the government continuously pushing for inflation, prices will continue to rise.

There is no pleasant way out of the current crisis other than through the free-market. This means a fall in wage rates and prices. We must go through a recession without government intervention, this is the cough medicine that may be hard to swallow but will make us better in the long run. We must once and for all end the boom-bust cycle of inflation and credit expansion followed by deflation and contraction. The free market is the only solution.