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.

[Mark Bahner]

"Pictures of children chained to machines or working in coal mines at age 8 will sour people pretty quick on laissez-faire capitalism."

Yeah, right. Like that's going to happen. First off, what coal company would ever be foolish enough to let children work in its mines? Mining today is highly mechanized. But more importantly, what coal company could ever withstand the publicity of children working in its mines? And maybe even more important than that, what parents would allow their 8-year-old children to work in mines?

The idea that *government*...and especially the *federal government...is what's keeping us from reverting to 19th century conditions is nonsense. What keeps us from reverting to 19th century conditions is that we're incredibly more wealthy than the poor devils in the 19th century were.

"Ask yourselves, libertarians: why do unions exist?"

Because conditions stunk in the early 20th century. No, conservative, ask yourself this: why has union membership severely declined, and will likely keep on declining? (Answer: "Because conditions don't stink anymore.")

"But it happened precisely because of the pursuit of an idiotic capitalist 'ideal'."

Capitalism is the most spectacular source for wealth generation ever devised by man. There is a direct and positive correlation between how capitalistic countries are, and how wealthy they are. For example, the median per-capita income in Sweden is now LESS than the median per-capita income of blacks in the United States. (Blacks being one of POOREST of social groups in the U.S.)

Why is India poor, and Taiwan rich (well, compared to India)? In part, it's because India's Constitution states it to be a socialist country.

[Mark Bahner]

"I challenge the libertarians to present a practical plan for moving this country in the direction of liberty; short of that they have little to add."

1) Start voting straight ticket Libertarian. Especially start voting for the Libertarian candidate for President. And don't ever stop.

2) Insist that your President and your representatives in Congress follow The Law (the Constitution).

If you think those 2 steps aren't "practical"...you're essentially saying that you can't find the Libertarian candidates on your ballot, and you don't know how to communicate with your President and representatives in Congress.

[HumanaeVitae]

Apparently you missed my point. All of this stuff happened because laissez faire capitalism is brutal by nature. Capitalism is great; unfettered capitalism ain't so great.

By the way, all that stuff I describe about children being chained to machines happened. So, anyway, I guess I'm learning not to get in heated debates with libertarians. I forgot that when I was a Randian libertarian myself that no amount of argument would convince me out of my "pure liberty" standpoint.

Cheers.

[Mark Bahner]

"Apparently you missed my point. All of this stuff happened because laissez faire capitalism is brutal by nature."

I didn't miss your point. Your point is wrong. You are mistaking coincidence for causality. I agree there was laissez faire capitalism in the U.S. in the late 19th century. And I agree that conditions were "brutal" (at least compared to today).

But you're completely wrong to think that the laissez faire capitalism is what caused the brutality. It was lack of wealth caused brutality. Specifically, each person was roughly 10 times poorer than the average person today (when adjusted for inflation). And that actually UNDERESTIMATES the level of poverty. The more appropriate adjustment in wealth is not for inflation, but adjusting according to purchasing power. (In other words, for example, how many man-hours did a person have to work to buy a hoe, back then.)

Adjusting for purchasing power, people were probably (I don't have the figures in front of me) more like 20+ times poorer than they are today. (In other words, today you could buy a hoe for about one hour's wages...but in the 19th century it was more like 20+ hours.)

THAT is what caused the brutality...the lack of wealth. The laissez-faire capitalism didn't.

"By the way, all that stuff I describe about children being chained to machines happened."

Well, duh! It's still happening, man! But WHERE is it happening, today? Answer: in Bangladesh (and elsewhere)...where people are POOR! Poverty is brutal. Laissez-faire capitalism is NOT.

This can be seen, even in America. Do the people at Microsoft work under brutal conditions? Answer: No, Microsoft is among the companies that is perennially near the top, when (Fortune?) magazine rates the "Best Places in America" to work.

Why is Microsoft a good place to work...because the federal government enforces a minimum wage? No, because Microsoft makes boatloads of money.

Is France a better place than the U.S. to live because, it is actually a CRIME to work more than 35 hours per week in France? Answer: Well, since more French people are immigrating to America, than Americans are immigrating to France, my guess is that America (where we can work 60 hour weeks, if desired) must be better.

You were right when you were a "Randian libertarian"...the absolute best government is one which only prohibits people from doing violence to or defrauding one another. If you've changed your mind, you've gone from right to wrong.

Best wishes, and hopes you'll straighten yourself out. :-)

[Mark Bahner]

Oh, and one more thing.

Bill Gates lives in something like a $40 million house. Bill Gates gives approximately $1 BILLION to charity, every year. In other words, Bill Gates gives roughly 25 times the value of his house(!) to charity, every year.

Now, how many of us give even 1/10th of the value of our houses to charity every year?

In other words, Bill Gates is more than 250 TIMES as generous as you and I are! (With me, it's more like 500+ times more generous.) But why is Bill Gates so generous? Answer: Because he can AFFORD it!

Laissez-faire capitalism is the absolutely best (fastest) way to generate wealth. As can be seen from Bill Gates (and Ted Turner, and every other really rich person), wealth generates GENEROSITY!

Ergo, laissez-faire capitalism generates the greatest amount of generosity.

Laissez-faire capitalism is not "brutal." It's the most generous economic system known to man.

[HumanaeVitae]

Sure is.

But it's brutal. And without Christianity, it wouldn't exist. On your Bill Gates example, much of the money Gates gives goes to awful organizations like Planned Parenthood etc.

By the way, it sounds like you must have recently read Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". I used to believe that stuff.

But there are no ideals. Took me six years to shake off that Rand nonsense.

[gunshy]

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

I respectfuly disagree. Lincoln killed the American republic and founded the federalist states of America.

[Mark Bahner]

"Sure is."

"But it's brutal."

??? So you're agreeing with me that laissez-faire capitalism is the most generous economic system known to man...but you're STILL saying it's "brutal"? Gimme a break! :-)

Well, yes...on the planet Utopia, there's a system that isn't brutal!

One has to go by "relative brutality." If a system is LESS brutal than any other system, it's misleading to STILL call that system "brutal." To still call the LEAST brutal system on earth "brutal" is to totally obliterate the meaning of the word!

"And without Christianity, it wouldn't exist."

Again, you're confusing coincidence with causality. Laissez-faire capitalism may have originated in Christian countries, but that doesn't mean that Christianity was required to bring about laissez-faire capitalism. Ayn Rand (you brought her up, not me ;-)) was an atheist. But she was also a laissez-faire capitalist. Milton Friedman is a laissez-faire capitalist, but...well, I have no idea whether or not he's a Christian.

The key to laissez-faire capitalism is that one thinks that people should be free, so long as they don't physically harm or defraud each other. I don't see that Christianity ties in there, anywhere. In fact, some of the most Christian parts of the world (e.g. Latin America) are NOT laissez-faire capitalists.

"On your Bill Gates example, much of the money Gates gives goes to awful organizations like Planned Parenthood etc."

Define "much," in the "much of his money..." When one gives $1 billion per year away, even giving 1-in-1000 dollars to Planned Parenthood will still be $1 million!

Here's the breakdown of Gates Foundation giving, to date:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grants/default.htm

The two biggest causes are "Global Health" and "Education." I'm too lazy to look much farther, but I'd bet the vast majority (say, 90%+?) of the "Global Health" giving is for things like tuberculosis, malaria, AIDS, schistosomiasis (nasty parasitic disease, got $30 million in research on July 17).

"By the way, it sounds like you must have recently read Rand's 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal'."

Never have read a single Rand book. Read her Playboy interview last night. Most stuff I agreed with. But she said that the way to bring down the Soviet Union was an economic boycott. Not only is that wrong, it is in conflict with her supposed ideal (that government should only keep people from hurting or defrauding one another).

"I used to believe that stuff."

I "believe" in nothing. I THINK everything. (Based on the Rand interview, I guess she'd be proud of me.) I don't "believe" laissez-faire capitalism is the most generous economic system on earth...I THINK it is. I'm open to being convinced otherwise. (But not tonight...I need to go home and get some supper, and fix my computer.)

Again, based on the analyses *I've* seen (such as the Heritage Foundation's annual Index of Economic Freedom)...the countries that are closest to laissez-faire economies (e.g., U.S., Hong Kong [obsolete], Singapore, New Zealand)...are also the wealthiest.

And they're also among the least "brutal" in the world.

G'night.

[gunshy]

I don't want people to do drugs

So that makes it ok to outlaw drugs. What about those people who do not want people to practise christianity. Should we make the christian religion illegal?

[gunshy]

and you don't know how to communicate with your President and representatives in Congress.

Please explain to me how I can communicate with Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein?. I really want to know what I can say to these two that will be heard.

[HumanaeVitae]

Nice discussing w/you...

Last point--Christianity holds that all people are equal before the law. Guess what capitalism requires to work...

[Pietro]

"If you think those 2 steps aren't "practical""

Bingo, and here's why;

In a republic, such as ours, people elect reps. that decide what the "law" is. If the plurality of those people vote for reps that promise them goodies, those reps get to make the laws. That's how it works, sorry to bust your bubble.

In order to stop this self deceiving cycle it is necessary to convince a plurality of citizens that sacrificing their safety net will, in the end, create a better society.

Telling people that if they don't like wonton drug abuse in their town they should leave is not, and I'm being kind, a convincing agruement.

The plain fact is that libertarians have not put a cogent arguement, that is palatable to the general public, together ever. EVER. That's your problem.

Where it becomes my problem is when the 2% of the dreamers that vote libertarian cost a conservative a vauluable seat in government. This enables a liberal to enact even more officious laws.

And that will be the libertarian legacy. Gratefully, the leftist had their own nuts in the last election (the Greens), and the two offset each other in mutual futility.

[Alan Chapman]

Whatever progress that may be, and admittedly it's small, it dwarfs the liberatarian contribution.

What sort of progress has the GOP made in making government smaller?

[Pietro]

oh yeah, one more thing;

"then you should agree it's "reasonable and pragmatic" for the federal government ..... to completely eliminate federal social spending."

So you're going to tell Mr. Paycheck-to-paycheck, I'm going to eliminate SS and medicare and he'll say "Gee, mom will move in w/ me AND I get to pay her medical bills, what a great idea!".

What amazes me is that you even get 2% of the vote. Must be all those motherless atheists out there.

[Pietro]

What sort of progress have libertarians made in making government smaller?

[Alan Chapman]

The GOP has been around for over 100 years. They claim to be the "party of smaller government" and claim to oppose the big-government policies of the Democrats. They've been presidents, governors, and at times have controlled both the executive and legislative at the federal and state levels. During those times when they were in power what sort of progress did they make reducing government?

[dheretic]

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

Ethics exist independently of law. When the state attempts to replace an ethical code, especially a rational one, with its own it's pure folly.

[HumanaeVitae]

The reason that libertarianism is flawed is very simple.

Sample Q&A:

Q: "By what standard should we determine public policy?"

A: "Why, reason of course. If only all people acted reasonably, we would have a perfect society".

Q: "Define reason."

A: "Well, well Ayn Rand says reason is the only standard by which we could judge human life. So, perfect reason. Ayn Rand says that between two reasonable people, disagreements are impossible."

Q:"Well, let's take health care. Most health care costs come from end-of-life care. In other words, keeping old people alive. So, I think, using utilitarian logic, we should simply put old people who are going to die anyway out of their misery. And ours. Perfectly reasonable."

A:"But that's disgusting! That's not reasonable!"

Q:"I think it is. I'm not crazy."

A: "No it's not!"

Q: "Sure it is. It's logical. If we just kill old people, we won't have socialized medicine, because old people account for almost all the costs. And because we're both atheists, to what authority are you going to appeal to show that your point of view is correct? We're both reasonable people, and we're disagreeing."

That may seem a little over-simplified, but it's about true. In an atheistic universe, any point of view can be correct. Kill old people, retarded people, whatever's expedient; they're just material and they're in the way. Oh, that's right. I forgot. Since in an atheistic universe you can't appeal to God's Revealed Word for guidance, I guess there's only one thing left to enforce one arbitrary viewpoint over others:

Brute force.

Philosophy is bankrupt. Which one a society adopts boils down to who has the guns.

[Pietro]

The last major tax cuts have come from the GOP, the welfare reform act has come from the GOP, the GOP stopped hillarycare dead in its tracks. The GOP stopped most of the clintonian bs.

The GOP has appointed judges that have pushed back the tide of judicial activism and GOP governors around the nation have demonstarted that smaller and smarter gov. can work. And the liberatarians? Nothing.

Let me repeat for the hard of hearing. Nothing.

[Pietro]

I want to thank you for your kind words before this thread winds down to its envitable snarling inconclusiveness. I also appreciate your views on societal responsibilities and how that vision is shaped by a deepening understanding of Christ.

I get the feeling that many of the posters here have never experienced poverty or privation, nor have they had loved ones trapped in those abysmal circumstances. I don't think they will ever understand what the real debate is about.

God bless you and your family, and please keep up the good fight.