This is the first in a series of threads to tease out where some of the so-called libertarians around here really stand. It is inspired by the threads on the New York soft drink regulations that put modest speed bumps in the way of binging on sugary drinks.
To me, that was the city putting in a default standard - that drinks can only be served in a limited sized container - but that standard could easily be circumvented by the consumer and seller to allow the consumer to have as much sugary goodness as he wanted. Some libertarians here characterized it in more freedom-stealing terms than that. With that in mind, let me roll out another example of government defaults to see how they are seen.
For this thread, I will focus on the process of name change in Missouri when a couple is going to get married. I use Missouri, because that is the example I saw from elsewhere and I have verified the details, but the scheme is fairly common across the land.
In Missouri, the form that couples fill out to apply for a marriage license changes the woman's last name to the man's last name by default. To opt to keep her maiden name, the woman must check a box on the form. The form must be signed by both groom and bride, so she does not have the freedom to unilaterally keep her maiden name through this process - she must convince her husband-to-be to sign the form that changes the default.
For the man, he has no option on this form to change his last name to the woman's. To change his name, he must go through the court system and apply for the name change. This is more burdensome in some ways, because he has to pay a filing fee and he had to get permission from a judge. As we have seen from my thread on the Oklahoma judge that denied name change requests from transgendered people, sometimes judges can be very fickle and there is the possibility that a judge would not allow a man to emasculate himself to the point of taking his wife's last name. On the upside, the man does not need his wife's permission for the name change - just the judge's.
Of course, the woman could circummvent her man's desire that she take his last name by signing the form as he wishes and then applying through the court system to get back her maiden name, but this might face some obstacles, especially given the first name change on the marriage application.
It seems the state has set up some roadblocks for both people in the marriage and, like the New Your soda regulations, is channeling the parties to a certain result. If the defaults are chosen, the woman ends up taking the man's last name. For the woman to keep her maiden name, she needs to check a box and get the man's signature. If the couple wants to share the woman's last name, the couple incurs an additional fee and court appearance.
So libertarians (and others) - fire away. Tell me how this scheme stacks up against the New York soda regulations in terms of stealing freedoms.
To me, that was the city putting in a default standard - that drinks can only be served in a limited sized container - but that standard could easily be circumvented by the consumer and seller to allow the consumer to have as much sugary goodness as he wanted. Some libertarians here characterized it in more freedom-stealing terms than that. With that in mind, let me roll out another example of government defaults to see how they are seen.
For this thread, I will focus on the process of name change in Missouri when a couple is going to get married. I use Missouri, because that is the example I saw from elsewhere and I have verified the details, but the scheme is fairly common across the land.
In Missouri, the form that couples fill out to apply for a marriage license changes the woman's last name to the man's last name by default. To opt to keep her maiden name, the woman must check a box on the form. The form must be signed by both groom and bride, so she does not have the freedom to unilaterally keep her maiden name through this process - she must convince her husband-to-be to sign the form that changes the default.
For the man, he has no option on this form to change his last name to the woman's. To change his name, he must go through the court system and apply for the name change. This is more burdensome in some ways, because he has to pay a filing fee and he had to get permission from a judge. As we have seen from my thread on the Oklahoma judge that denied name change requests from transgendered people, sometimes judges can be very fickle and there is the possibility that a judge would not allow a man to emasculate himself to the point of taking his wife's last name. On the upside, the man does not need his wife's permission for the name change - just the judge's.
Of course, the woman could circummvent her man's desire that she take his last name by signing the form as he wishes and then applying through the court system to get back her maiden name, but this might face some obstacles, especially given the first name change on the marriage application.
It seems the state has set up some roadblocks for both people in the marriage and, like the New Your soda regulations, is channeling the parties to a certain result. If the defaults are chosen, the woman ends up taking the man's last name. For the woman to keep her maiden name, she needs to check a box and get the man's signature. If the couple wants to share the woman's last name, the couple incurs an additional fee and court appearance.
So libertarians (and others) - fire away. Tell me how this scheme stacks up against the New York soda regulations in terms of stealing freedoms.
Free Market FTW??? 
