From a contradiction, anything follows. That’s just a rule of logic. Supposing A and not-A, any arbitrary statement can follow. Proggertarians line up behind this same sort of methodology, except in this case, they apply it to the realm of public policy, where the state is the great contradiction. Other libertarians do this, too, of course, but Proggertarians are literally known for this. It exudes from their prior commitments to the Cathedral, and from a desire to work within progressivist bounds.
The state is not-A. “Well, in a ‘perfect, libertarian’ world, I would’ve advocated for libertarian policy X, but given the state, I feel justified in pushing a midway, progressivist solution.”
This is why Proggertarians are in favor of gay marriage. “Removing marriage from the purview of the federal, or even state, government(s) isn’t at all feasible, so we might as well get what we want, anyway. And that’s gay marriage. We just want it so badly. The reason we emphasize this so profoundly is that we strongly believe that the fate of the nation rests upon hijacking a traditional institution to desperately signal our non-deviance. Because regular people have it, and we want it.”
I think the latter half of the quote trailed off into poignant mockery, but the first sentence was a pretty good summation, even if they wouldn’t come out and say it so bluntly.
Neoreactionaries are actually strangely similar. We look at effectiveness and political feasibility as two dichotomous variables in tension with one another. If it’s effective, it probably isn’t politically feasible. If it’s politically feasible, it’s probably ineffective, or effective at achieving the wrong end-goal.
Mastering the balance is what the policy process is centered around, but it also depends whether you’re in an executive agency or trying to force the bill through the House and Senate. But a similarity in methodology between the two ideologies doesn’t make the two identical—far from it. Don’t take that point away as the main thesis, here.
We take the constancy of conditions (policy and otherwise) as a starting point. “Just abolish the FDA/state/Fed!” is a non-starter. It’s simplistic, boring, tedious.
Benefits of taxation and adoption rights are slated as liberty-maximizing reasons for pushing gay marriage, when in reality, that destruction of traditional marriage as a social institution gives rise to tremendous horizontal pressure, if not outright vertical pressure from the state, per anti-discrimination policies that kick in. And of course, of course, of course, a good number of Proggertarians would be against anti-discrimination laws when enforced, but they should’ve very well known the realistic chances of them being employed after gay marriage enters the legal arena. It’s more than realistic. It’s a virtual certainty. As if they cared.
Social institution-hijacking for tax benefits and status-signalling is a far more laudable goal, apparently, and despite the supposed primacy of liberty, liberty is precisely what is sacrificed on the altar of the Cathedral, to progressive conceptions of autonomy. Not real autonomy, but progressive autonomy. Autonomy for us, no autonomy for you. Social acceptance for our deviance, social coercion and unintended but foreseeable state coercion for your normalcy.
Proggertarians are known for focusing on horizontal issues. So while they might not advocate direct state interference, they’ll still be feminists, sympathetic to labor movements, and sympathetic to the problem of heavy-handed, non-state social coercion. Expect them to rationalize away unintended, but foreseeable state interference and substantial reductions of liberty.
It’s almost exactly like the doctrine of double effect as applied to public policy. And once applied, abused relentlessly.