The Conservative - Libertarian Schism: Freedom and Confidence

FreeRepublic ^ | July 31, 2002 | Francis W. Porretto

[fporretto]

Each abridgement of liberty has been used to justify further ones. Scholars of political systems have noted this repeatedly. The lesson is not lost on those whose agenda is total power. They perpetually strain to wedge the camel's nose into the tent, and not for the nose's sake.

Many a fine person will concede to you that "liberty is all very well in theory," follow that up with "but," and go on from there to tabulate aspects of life that, in his opinion, the voluntary actions of responsible persons interacting in freedom could never cope with. Oftentimes, free men and free markets have coped with his objections in the recent past, whether he knows it or not. You could point this out to him, provide references and footnotes, and still not overcome his resistance, for it does not depend on the specifics he cited.

His reluctance to embrace freedom is frequently based on fear, the power-monger's best friend.

Fantasist Robert Anton Wilson has written: "The State is based on threat." And so it is. After all, the State, no matter how structured, is a parasitic creature. It seizes our wealth and constrains our freedom, gives vague promises of performance in return, and then as often as not fails to deliver. No self-respecting people would tolerate such an institution if it did not regard the alternatives as worse.

The alternatives are seldom discussed in objective, unemotional terms. Sometimes they are worse, by my assessment, but why should you accept my word for it?

Let it be. The typical American, when he opts for State action over freedom, isn't acting on reasoned conviction, but on fear of a negative result. Sometimes the fear, which is frequently backed by a visceral revulsion, is so strong that no amount of counterevidence can dissolve it, including the abject failure of State action.

We've had a number of recent examples of this. To name only two prominent ones:

1. The welfare reform of 1996, which limited total welfare benefits to healthy adults and imposed work and training requirements for collecting them, is among the most successful social policy enactments of our time. Huge numbers of welfare recipients have left the dole and assumed paying jobs, transforming themselves from dead loads on society to contributors to it. Yet many politicians and those sympathetic to their aims continue to argue that the welfare system must be expanded, liberalized, and made more generous. A good fraction of these are honestly concerned about the possibility that the 1996 restrictions, the first substantial curtailments of State welfarism since the New Deal, are producing privation among Americans unable to care for themselves.
2. The War On Drugs, whose lineage reaches back to the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Control Act, has consumed tens of billions of dollars, radically diverted the attentions of state and federal law enforcement, exercised a pernicious corrupting influence on police forces, polluted our relations with several other countries, funded an immense underworld whose marketing practices are founded on bloodshed, and abridged the liberty and privacy of law-abiding Americans, but has produced no significant decrease in recreational drug consumption. Yet many Americans will not even consider the possibility that the War On Drugs should be scaled back or terminated altogether. Most resist from the fear that drug use and violence would explode without limit, possibly leading to the dissolution of civil society.

In either of the above cases, could we but take away the fear factor, there would be essentially no argument remaining.

Fear, like pain, can be useful. When it engenders caution, it can prolong life and preserve health. Conservatives in particular appreciate the value of caution. The conservative mindset is innately opposed to radical, destabilizing change, and history has proved such opposition to be wise.

However, a fear that nothing can dispel is a pure detriment to him who suffers it.

Generally, the antidote to fear is knowledge: logically sound arguments grounded in unshakable postulates and well buttressed by practical experience. Once one knows what brings a particular undesirable condition about, one has a chance of changing or averting it. The great challenge is to overcome fears so intense that they preclude a rational examination of the thing feared.

Where mainstream conservatives and libertarians part company is along the disjunction of their fears. The conservative tends to fear that, without State involvement in various social matters, the country and its norms would suffer unacceptably. Areas where such a fear applies include drug use, abortion, international trade, immigration, cultural matters, sexual behavior, and public deportment. The libertarian tends to fear the consequences of State involvement more greatly. He argues to the conservative that non-coercive ways of curbing the things he dislikes, ways that are free of statist hazards, should be investigated first, before turning to the police.

I call myself a libertarian, but I can't discount conservative fears in all cases -- especially where the libertarian approach to some social ill involves a major change to established ways. Radical transformations of society don't have a rosy history.

Yet conservatives, too, could be more realistic, and could show more confidence in the ideals they strive to defend. As Thomas Sowell has written in discussing the War On Drugs, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damned fool about it."

The past two decades, starting roughly with Ronald Reagan's ascent to national prominence, have laid the foundations for an enduring coalition between freedom-oriented libertarian thinkers and virtue-and-stability-oriented conservative thinkers. Each side needs to learn greater confidence in the other, if we are to establish the serious exchange of ideas and reservations, free of invective and dismissive rhetoric, as an ongoing process. Such confidence must include sufficient humility to allow for respect for the other side's fears -- for an unshakable confidence in one's own rightness is nearly always misplaced. There is little to learn from those who agree with you, whereas much may be learned from those who disagree.

[HumanaeVitae]

"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded."

Well, first of all, Lincoln wasn't one of the Founders. But I'm not arguing here for or against the drug war. If it can be demonstrated that ending the drug war is better for social order than prosecuting the drug war, then conservatives should call to end it. The problem is that the law teaches, and by bannning drugs we teach people that it's not O.K. to do drugs.

I'm just making the broader point that we live in a culture, and we have a right, as a society, to prohibit behaviors that are corrosive to order, such as bigamy, homosexuality, bestiality, pornography,etc.

[BillofRights]

Thanks for the ping, madfly. From the commentary:

....The conservative tends to fear that, without State involvement in various social matters, the country and its norms would suffer unacceptably....

This assertion better characterizes the AUTHORITARIAN than it does the conservative. Within the Conservative wing, there is a libertarian--authoritarian schism, not a libertarian--conservative split.

[WyldKard]

Well, first of all, Lincoln wasn't one of the Founders. But I'm not arguing here for or against the drug war. If it can be demonstrated that ending the drug war is better for social order than prosecuting the drug war, then conservatives should call to end it. The problem is that the law teaches, and by bannning drugs we teach people that it's not O.K. to do drugs.

Then you believe that the Government is the sole source of morality, and that people are unable to teach proper behavior in their own homes, or that private schools are unable to teach good ethics? Once again, this is the mindset of the Socialist, not the Conversative. Do you think yourself that bad a parent that you must surrender the reigns of control over your childs development to The Federal State?

Laws are merely there to protect individual rights. Do you speed? Obviously speeding laws don't teach people speeding is wrong. Parents teaching their kids the possible conseqeuences of speeding does. Do you think that hate-crime laws alone teach people hate crimes are wrong? So you think a Neo-Nazi isn't going to vandalize a synagogue merely because there is a law against it? What is so magically specially about marijuana, for instance, that makes doing it "wrong", while alcohol is "right". Is marijuana bad merely because it's illegal? Is it illegal because it's bad? Where does the circular logic end? Alcohol was illegal once. Was the point of that law to teach people alcohol is bad? When the law was lifted, and alcohol was relegalized, did it suddenly become good? What magical event took place that changed alcohol from "good" to "bad" to "good" again?

I'm just making the broader point that we live in a culture, and we have a right, as a society, to prohibit behaviors that are corrosive to order, such as bigamy, homosexuality, bestiality, pornography,etc.

Please define "society" Please tell me where "society" lives. The Government is not design to arbitrate morality. It is merely a tool to protect the inaliable rights as endowed by our creator. Certainly, states have the rights to pass anti-homosexuality laws, and the like, but it seems folly to me. If you don't want your children engaging in certain "victimless behaviors", then you need to teach them your own damn self, intead of expecting the Government to take over for you. Thats the problem with this country. Too many people expect the Government to raise their kids for them, so as we get more and more towards Socialism, personal responsibility is DISCOURAGED. After all, Mommy and Daddy Federal Government will clean the mess up.

Certainly, States have the right to pass the laws they want. While I don't approve of some of the laws, I would rather see the States handling the issue. That makes it easier to either move to a State that is governed to my liking, or makes it easier to campaign to get the laws changed.

[A2J]

--Abraham Lincoln.

Right. Quote the father of Big government, a man who waged war upon the rights of states while claiming to hold to the Constitution.

Good one.

[A2J]

Some more wisdom from our Founding Fathers:

By the way, genius, Lincoln was NOT a Founding Father.

In fact, he was more of a "Floundering Father."

[HumanaeVitae]

I think we're agreeing more than disagreeing. The Federal government doesn't have a right to do much of what it does. But if you're arguing that the state governments don't have an interest in outlawing certain anti-social behaviors, then are you for:

Public displays of bestiality? Polygamy? I support the Second Amendment, but what about private ownership of anthrax? That's a weapon.

Libertarians always hit the reduction to absurdity at some point with maximalist freedom. I think you would agree with me that at some point government has to regulate people's behaviors. But what standard do we use?

Judeo-Christianity, IMHO.

[WyldKard]

Right. Quote the father of Big government, a man who waged war upon the rights of states while claiming to hold to the Constitution.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I don't think Lincoln was an evil man. I think he just had "good intentions", and we know where that gets you.

[WyldKard]

I think we're agreeing more than disagreeing. The Federal government doesn't have a right to do much of what it does. But if you're arguing that the state governments don't have an interest in outlawing certain anti-social behaviors, then are you for:

Public displays of bestiality?

When it's public, it suddenly becomes a "disturbing the peace issue", and naturally, it is right and proper for the Government to interfere in this issue. Now, as sick and repugnant as I find the concept of beastiality, I can't find a compelling reason to make it illegal in the privacy of one's own home.

Polygamy?

I don't see a compelling State interest in banning poligamy at all. Certainly, the State may if it wants, but again, I don't see how banning it protects the inaliable rights of the individual.

I support the Second Amendment, but what about private ownership of anthrax? That's a weapon.

Any weapon of mass destruction is a clear and presant danger to the surrounding area. Because the private ownership of weapons of mass destruction endangers the rights and lives of those in the community, there is a compelling interest for the State to interfere.

Surely, you aren't about to compare doing a couple bong hits or reading Penthouse in your living room to owning a nuclear bomb in your basement, right?

Libertarians always hit the reduction to absurdity at some point with maximalist freedom. I think you would agree with me that at some point government has to regulate people's behaviors. But what standard do we use?

Judeo-Christianity, IMHO.

Using religion as a basis of Governance is called Theocracy, which we are not. We are a Republic. In the end, the only thing the Government should be doing is protecting the inaliable rights of the individual. You don't need the Bible to tell you that it is a compelling state interest to ban murder, theft, rape, kidnapping, etc etc etc.

It's very simple: the right to throw your fist ends where my nose begins. Only Socialist Governments care to try and ban people throwing their fists in the air in the privacy of their own homes.

[WyldKard]

BTW, I'm not trying to say there is a problem with religion. I think the instruction of religion/ethics/morals/whatever belongs in the home though. You should not expect the Government to impart religious or ethical beliefs into people. Only parents can do that. The individual makes up the Government. The Government does not define the individual...

[HumanaeVitae]

Well, if you're a libertarian, there's no reason to ban polygamy, is there? What if a guy has seven wives and 36 children, living paycheck to paycheck, and then he dies and the state gets stuck with supporting the children? I mean, if you're a libertarian why would you give any charity to these people because of their "voluntary" decisions? But if you don't want to help such people, then either the state has to do it or they starve in the street.

You talk about things going on in the privacy of people's homes; what about people who beat their children? If you're an atheist, you believe that people are just material, not created by God, and thus the parents (the physical creators of the children) can do whatever they want with them. But if you believe that children are to be protected, to what moral standard do you appeal to take them away from their parents?

[f.Christian]

[13] For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
[14] For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[15] But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
[16] This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
[17] For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
[18] But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
[23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
[24] And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
[25] If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
[26] Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

---

Gal.6
[1] Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
[2] Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

[HumanaeVitae]

Yeah, I know that you're not arguing against religion; and we probably hold all kinds of similar beliefs on the size and scope of government. I wish, however, that more libertarians would see that without Christian virtue, liberty is impossible. "Equality before the Creator" is not something that Islam came up with. Or for that matter, atheism. For more on where I'm coming from, check out www.acton.org, religion and liberty together.

[HumanaeVitae]

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

And on it hangs all the Law and the Prophets. Thanks, f.Christian. Great passage.

[WyldKard]

Well, if you're a libertarian, there's no reason to ban polygamy, is there? What if a guy has seven wives and 36 children, living paycheck to paycheck, and then he dies and the state gets stuck with supporting the children? I mean, if you're a libertarian why would you give any charity to these people because of their "voluntary" decisions? But if you don't want to help such people, then either the state has to do it or they starve in the street.

Strawman argument. You could have one man and one woman with 8 to 12 kids, and his death could cause the same situation, easily. Do you now propose that we prevent people from having large families, so that they are not a burden on "society"? They are very fond of that sort of thing in China.

After all, did God not say "Be fruitful and multiply?" They were just following Judeo-Christian influences. So what if they made their own mess...it was all in the name of being Judeo-Christian and "moral".

Charity should not be extracted from the point of a gun, which is what Socialism is. If this guy dies, then, yes, too bad, but the woman and her children are going to have to find a way to get money. Life sucks, and only Socialists and Democrats think that the playing field should be leveled, Harrison Bergeron style. If other citizens want to form charity organizations so that the woman can be helped through the kindness of others, there is nothing to stop them from doing so. Expecting the Government to clean up after peoples mistakes, or misfortunes discourages people from taking personal responsibility in their lives.

Do you also believe that the Government should tell people what they can put in their bodies? Obesity costs us billions each year. Do you believe the Government should save us from ourselves and ban fatty foods? Do you believe the Government should save us from ourselves and ban smoking or drinking? After all, it would keep the State from having to clean up all those messes, yes?

You talk about things going on in the privacy of people's homes; what about people who beat their children? If you're an atheist, you believe that people are just material, not created by God, and thus the parents (the physical creators of the children) can do whatever they want with them.

That is so false, and you know it. Again, you seem to fall back upon strawman arguments. I have said time and time again, the role of the Government is to protect the rights of the individual. Theft or murder or kidnapping or rape are not acceptable at all, whether in the privacy of the home or not. The State has every right to defend children who are being abused. Because it is a crime in which the rights of one person are being usurped by another through the use of force.

Again, are you going to try to compare the act of an adult beating the crap out of a child to the act of a single, solitary adult having a bong hit in the privacy of their own home?

But if you believe that children are to be protected, to what moral standard do you appeal to take them away from their parents?

The rights of an individual are being impinged, non-consentually through force. That is the legal standard I use to protect children. Basic, universal human empathy is the moral standard I use. How would YOU like it, if you were a child being terrorized and beaten to near death by your parent(s)? Unfortunately, this is one of the very stickiest situations of Morality and Governance. How do you differenciate between discipline and abuse? No real easy answer for that one, I will grant you.

But I could make an argument that beating your child is a very Christian/moral thing to do. Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother. Spare the rod and spoil the child. The Bible is just chock-a-block with parents abusing their Children, and claiming it as a right of being a parent. By what moral right do you claim Christians SHOULDN'T beat their children?

Again, I am not saying religion is bad. I'm just saying it is folly to expect the Government to be the single source of morality and moral guidance in this world. After all you've seen with Clinton, do you honestly trust the Federal Government to understand basic human morality, and to be it's guiding hand?

[HumanaeVitae]

Actually, I'll have to bookmark this and get to it later...it's a little long and I'm a little short on time. Cheers...HV.

[WyldKard]

No prob. I think you are right, that we more or less agree on a lot of important topics, the only sticking point being the role of Government in enforcing pure morality.

[Ohioan]

As a Conservative with strong libertarian sentiments--where it comes to people living their own lives, the way they choose to live them--I never cease to be bothered by those among us who choose to stress a dichotomy, where frankly there really is not one.

While those who like to neatly categorize shades of opinion can point to issues of disagreement among us--whether on an axis of Conservative vs. Libertarian--or Northern vs. Southern--or religious vs. political motivation--from many perspectives; the emphasis on those divisions serves only the quest to neatly categorize our shades of opinion. The same effort would be better spent attacking those with whom we all disagree; those on the Left who have been sytematically undermining America throughout all of our lives.

The idea of a monolithic thought system is offensive to both Conservatives and Libertarians; but somehow, many need to pursue aspects of it, all the same. But the Left, motivated by hatred, can still pull together all those on its side who are in agreement on any subject, to further the attack on those values, which the great bulk of Conservatives and Libertarians are disposed to preserve. It is not that they stop hating one another on the Left; it is just that their greater hatred for our heritage always seems to bring out unity among them, when they need it to continue their advance.

Why can't we who are more intelligent and better balanced than they--motivated by love not hate--pull together as well when it is in our obvious interest to do so?

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[serinde]

The problem is that the law teaches, and by bannning drugs we teach people that it's not O.K. to do drugs.

Alcohol is legal. By your logic that means that we are teaching people that it's OK to drink alcohol.

But what happens when someone drives while intoxicated, causes a wreck, and kills someone else? In this case alcohol use - while perfectly legal in and of itself - infringes on the rights (to life, happiness, etc.) of others, at which time society applies the laws which are in place to handle this situation. And only in this case are the laws applied. As long as no injury to anyone else occurs, the alcohol drinker is perfectly fine, legally.

In the same way, legalizing drugs would teach it is OK to do drugs - in the privacy of your own house. Just as with drunk driving, if drug use caused someone to harm another person, laws would be in place to handle that situation.

Since alcohol is already legal, and legalized drugs could be handled in a similar manner, please tell me why the entire situation isn't hypocritical to the max, and why drugs should not be legalized.

[Mark Bahner]

"Such confidence must include sufficient humility to allow for respect for the other side's fears -- for an unshakable confidence in one's own rightness is nearly always misplaced. There is little to learn from those who agree with you, whereas much may be learned from those who disagree."

To discuss one side's "fears" versus the other side's, is only relevant if The Law is not involved. I don't care how "afraid" conservatives are of *federal* legalization of all drugs. That's a matter of The Law...the Constitution. *Federal* criminalization of *any* drug is unconstitutional, and I don't give a d@mn about conservatives "fears" on the issue.

The only way I would be willing to compromise on *federal* legalization of all drugs, would be if a conservative could make the case that the Constitution permits federal criminalization of drugs. No conservative can make such a case, in my opinion, because it's open-and-shut. There is simply no doubt, in my mind, that federal criminalization of the possession or within-state sale of ANY drug is unconstitutional.

So, conservatives, don't talk to me about your "fears" regarding complete elimination of all federal laws on all drugs. I'm too cold-blooded to care about your "fears" on that issue. ;-) Talk to me about The Law (the Constitution). If you admit that federal laws criminalizing drugs are unconstitutional, then your "fears" mean nothing to me. If you think that federal laws criminalizing drugs *are* constitutional, you'd better start explaining.

Mark Bahner (Libertarian)

[Mark Bahner]

"The problem is that the law teaches, and by bannning drugs we teach people that it's not O.K. to do drugs."

By approving of *federal* banning of drugs, conservatives teach people that conservatives don't give a d@mn about the Constitution. (We all already know that liberals don't give a d@mn about the Constitution.)

If you conservatives want *federal* laws banning drugs, you'd better start working on the appropriate Constitutional amendments, right away! Otherwise, the lesson that you're giving (that you don't care about The Law) is much worse than a "lesson" that you don't care about the harm drugs cause.

Mark (Libertarian)

P.S. By the way, it's really nonsense to claim that legalization equals acceptance. Cigarettes are legal, but you'll find virtually no one who would say that means that cigarette smoking is "O.K."