Lynne Kiesling
New, fresh voices rock, especially when they are saying good things in compelling and interesting ways. Such is the case with Liberty Belles, five classical liberal women with sharp wits and intellects.
One post to illustrate the eloquence, from Clara on gay marriage:
I favor allowing people to draw up these contracts, but I reserve the right to think they are hogwash. When the government starts doling them out ? and broadening word definitions until language loses its meaning ? the result is like that of most any government action: a vocal interest group gains at the expense of the majority.
Therein lies the beauty of anarchy: nothing prohibited, nothing endorsed.
The comments are also interesting reads. It’s a good measure of a site that whether or not you agree with the author on a particular issue, you can appreciate the argument and its eloquence.
Are there really that few classical liberal women out here? Me, Virginia, Jane Galt, Courtney, Fey/Joanna. Does being a woman matter that much, or not? I don’t really travel in ideological chest-thumping circles, so maybe I’m missing the point. But I guess that it is striking to me that of all the economists out here, let alone the classical liberal economists, I am the only woman.
Huh.
Small numbers, I’d say. Classical liberal economists are not a large fraction of all economists, and women aren’t a large fraction of all economists.
And did you think Clara’s post was eloquent? I thought that it was rather mooshy in its logic. She seems to mixing the legal institution of civil marriage “I favor allowing people to draw up these contracts” with the social institution; “I reserve the right to think they are hogwash”. I’m guessing here that “they” refers to “these contracts”, and it’s mooshy because the argument about whether gay couples should have access to the legal institution is quite separate from whether or not they’ll be viewed in social terms as “married” in the same sense as any straight couple.
Unless she’s arguing that she reserves the right to view all marriage contracts as “hogwash”. The rest of the quote, though, suggests that she’s not going there.
Eloquent in its rhetoric in the excerpt. That’s why I didn’t comment on the logic or its mooshiness in her argument per se. But you know I’ve always been a “I don’t need the approval of the state or an organized religion for my choices” kinda girl, so you can extrapolate how I would firm up the logic.
Rhetoric and logic work best as complements, often hard to accomplish. Since I wanted to focus on her forceful rhetoric I let the logic slide. But you are holding my feet to the fire … ! As I would expect.