Posted on 04/26/2010 4:55:01 AM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson
Jonah Goldberg once opined, "Whenever I read liberals reporting about the goings-on of conservatives I always get the nature-documentary vibe. A liberal reporter puts on his or her Dian Fossey hat in order to attempt to write another installment of Conservatives in the Mist." In a similar way, I believe many conservatives regard professed libertarians with a combination of academic curiosity and instinctual fear, keeping a healthy distance to avoid contamination.
The 2008 Ron Paul presidential campaign and the Tea Party movement have drawn libertarians and conservatives together, attending the same rallies, railing against the same excesses of government and, increasingly, sharing the same party. Many libertarians have registered as Republicans, viewing the party as the best hope for effectively mobilizing against the progressive establishment. This makes social conservatives a little nervous, concerned that issues they care about may remain on the back burner while fiscal responsibility and limited government take the spotlight.
Fellow True North contributor Master of None expresses the concern:
Social conservatives who are perhaps willing to put aside issues that were previously important to them, namely abortion, and same sex marriage, are growing increasingly wary of what they see as a libertarian streak to the Tea Party movement.
What is the nature of this streak? Is it really a threat to traditional conservatives? Like many questions, the answer depends on definitions.
As labels go, "libertarian" is a lot like "Christian" in that far more profess than hold a distinct set of beliefs. Preacher David Guzik, in a sermon on repentance, shares the amusing tale of Hustler publisher Larry Flynt's "conversion" to evangelical Christianity under the mentorship of Ruth Carter Stapleton, sister of then President Jimmy Carter. Noting the fact Flynt's personal behavior continued unabated, Guzik jokes the publisher became a "born again pornographer." For Flynt, and many others, Christianity is defined by the mere claim. The same can be true of libertarianism. Some professing libertarians define themselves as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." The Cato Institute defines libertarians as those who believe "government is doing too much AND that government should NOT promote any particular set of values." I subscribe to neither of these. While there is room for subjectivity in ideological definitions, one can generally look to root words as a starting point. Christianity has something to do with Christ. Libertarianism has something to do with liberty. I submit a libertarian is best defined in the dictionary - "a person who advocates liberty."
Liberty is defined as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control (emphasis added)." Liberty is not absolute freedom or anarchy. It is a condition which can only exist within the confines of law. Liberty requires proper government, both external (civil) and internal (moral). The chief objective of proper government is to recognize and protect inalienable rights.
Accepting this definition helps us understand what libertarianism is not. It is not "socially liberal" in the modern sense, because modern liberalism is actually Progressive, which is to say statist, which is to say authoritarian and antithetical to liberty. The social liberal wants to impose his morality upon others, and is not content to merely live and let live. With all due respect to the Cato Institute, it also seems clear libertarians cannot be devoid of values, or against government promoting a particular set of values. Indeed, a particular set of values lead one to uphold liberty as an ideal. Government cannot be value-neutral. In the absence of values which uphold liberty, liberty will not be upheld.
Let us consider how this translates to the issues of concern to Master of None. Abortion becomes a point of agreement between libertarians and social conservatives when both regard the unborn as human beings with inalienable rights. A mother may no more deprive her child of life than an adult. Surely, there are libertarians who do not believe the unborn are human beings. However, that stance is not a product of their libertarianism.
"Gay marriage" is an issue which separates the genuine libertarians from the social liberals. There is no right which straight people have that gay people do not. Gays are free to marry as marriage is defined by common law, a lifelong union with a member of the opposite sex. An alternative proclivity does not redefine a fundamental social institution. The demand for "gay marriage" is a demand to impose such a redefinition. Where libertarians and social conservatives part is advocacy for laws antagonistic to gay relationships, such as sodomy laws. The libertarian position would seem to be, on the one hand, stay out of the bedroom and, on the other hand, leave people's sacred institutions alone.
It is important to recognize much of what we today consider "socially conservative" originated in the Progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Libertarians distinguish what one ought to do from what one may rightly be forced to do. Prohibition of alcohol demonstrated the folly of blurring these lines, as has the failed "War on Drugs."
While social conservatives and libertarians certainly disagree on some things, the former have less to fear than they may imagine. Both have much to gain in working together.
..and what are Libertarians willing to 'put aside'?
Most everything. They don't use government to have their way.
..let me rephrase.. as they expect Conservatives to give up some of their issues they differ on, what issues will Libertarians give to meet Conservatives? Legalization of drugs? Isolationism (or whatever term they want to use to call it these days)?
Chris Matthews is a great example of one who refuses to separate the two ideas. He will go through each law one by one and ask : like it, or not ? and dismiss the roll of federal vs state power.
“..and what are Libertarians willing to ‘put aside’? “
Big Government, ASAP
Within that framework, I will accept candidates that appeal to social conservatives provided that such candidates strive for reducing taxes and limiting government power.
Fair enough?
George Gilder on [Ron Paul, Tea Party Movement], Austrian Finance, the Internet & Supply-Side Economics
Sunday, April 11, 2010 - with Scott Smith
http://www.gold-speculator.com/appenzell-daily-bell/26569-george-gilder-austrian-finance-internet-supply-side-economics.html
George Gilder
The Daily Bell is pleased to present an exclusive interview with George Gilder
[snip]bttt
Daily Bell: Do you see differences between the Austrians like FA Hayek and the Fresh Water school of Milton Friedman?
George Gilder: Yes. The Austrians stress entrepreneurial creativity over free markets. When I went to China in the 1990s with Milton Friedman, he urged the Chinese to “take control over their money supply” as if the communists needed any further recommendations for “controls.” I urged them to “let a billion flowers bloom.” As I have said, there can be no free markets without free entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are not tools of the market, they are creators of new tools. The entrepreneur precedes the market. Without him, there is no market. The computerized markets of the quants careened to a predictable crash.
Daily Bell: Did you at the time you were writing Wealth and Poverty, a great book in our opinion.
George Gilder: Yes, I always preferred the Austrians for their stress on entrepreneurial creativity, but even the Austrians, beyond Von Mises, fell for the temptation of seeing entrepreneurs as products of “the free market” rather than its creator.
Daily Bell: Would you define yourself today - Republican, Conservative, Libertarian?
George Gilder: Yes.
Daily Bell: What do you think of the growing movement of Austrian economics?
George Gilder: Ever since Ludwig von Mises, the Austrians have been supreme in economics. But as far as I know no one has excelled the master.
Daily Bell: What do you think of Murray Rothbard?
George Gilder: Murray always struck me as a brilliant dogmatist, letting the ideal always trump the possible advance and allowing his hatred of bureaucracy to blur his ability to distinguish between totalitarianism and mere political muddle, between the Soviet Union and the United States, for relevant examples.
Daily Bell: What do you think of the Internet?
George Gilder: I have written several books on the Internet, beginning with Life After Television in 1990, which predicted “worldwide webs of glass and light.” I think the Internet is now close to the end, because TCP-IP has become a cumbersome obstacle to communications in an age when video is the dominant form of traffic and thus the governing determinant of optimal technology. The new network will resemble a broadband synchronous version of the old telephone network, optimized for video. The current Internet, as Henry Gau has said, resembles an old telegraph system patched and upgraded for video.
Daily Bell: Is the Internet a force for freedom?
George Gilder: Yes. Communication is a form of freedom.
Daily Bell: How has your opinion of technology evolved over the years?
George Gilder: I have strengthened my view that government financed science and technology (such as global warming or “alternative” energy) are nearly always reactionary.
Daily Bell: Why did you stop writing about free-markets when you were such an eloquent proponent? Your voice has been missed.
George Gilder: I never stopped, but I wrote more about the fruits of enterprise and creativity than about the perfection of “free markets” themselves. Like “perfect competition,” a cant of “free markets” has become an excuse for oppressive regulations and controls. As markets are never finally free or competition ever perfect, critics can always find reasons for new beadles and bureaucrats. Ostensible advocates of free markets, such as Paul Romer, end up denying the existence of real entrepreneurial invention (de novo) by depicting it as the mere materialist “reassembly of chemical elements.”
Even Austrians depict the entrepreneur as a mere “scout of opportunities” or “arbitrageur” rather than as a creator of radical novelties based on imagination and original inspiration. They see the entrepreneur as a tool of markets rather than a creator of markets. Creation is a real thing in the world. Treating it as some kind of material process is arrant reductionism which leads to the notion that computer based financial markets are ideal. As we have seen in the recent financial crash, markets cannot function without human creativity and judgment.
Daily Bell: What do you think technology is capable of?
George Gilder: Empowerment of capitalists to defend themselves without retreat to Galt’s Gulch.
Daily Bell: How is it going to change the future?
George Gilder: Enable global individualism and enterprise.
Daily Bell: Will it have a political impact? Is it?
George Gilder: Technological progress renders totalitarianism impotent. Only freedom can enable innovation and empower progress. Despots impoverish themselves.
Daily Bell: Where do you stand on fiat money versus a gold and silver standard?
George Gilder: Although I do not believe a restoration of the old gold standard is possible or desirable, I believe that gold is the monetary element and provides an extremely valuable gauge of the appropriate monetary policy. Ignoring the price of gold is perilous for any nation, such as the U.S. Gold will prevail over blind monetarism.
Daily Bell: What do you think of Congressman Ron Paul?
George Gilder: Like many movement libertarians, he always prefers the quixotic ideal (radical spending cuts) to the feasible improvement of lower tax rates. By opposing defense spending and American power he has become a shill for the enemies of capitalism and freedom.
Daily Bell: What do you think of the Tea Party movement?
George Gilder: A fully beneficial force as long as they stress tax cuts rather than spending cuts. Lower tax rates are good in themselves. Lower spending always ends up focusing on defense.
The chief damage of the new health care “reform” will come from the 16,500 new Internal Revenue Service Agents, each with $600K, assigned to enforce it. To focus on spending is wrong. It is coercive taxation that is the problem. It destroys capitalism.
Daily Bell: What do you think of the European Union and the move toward globalism generally. A good thing?
George Gilder: Global capitalism is good. Global socialism and bureaucracy is evil.
Daily Bell: Is America in good shape these days? Are you encouraged or discouraged?
George Gilder: America is in relatively bad shape. But it is showing strong signs of a revulsion against the ascendant socialism.
Daily Bell: What are some of the most influential books and web sites you can recommend to our readers?
George Gilder: Panic: the betrayal of capitalism by Andrew Redleaf and Richard Vigilante is the definitive account of the financial crash. Bret Swanson’s EntropyEconomics website is excellent.
Daily Bell: Please recommend further reading from your own oeuvre as well.
George Gilder: My new book, The Israel Test, explains how anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are chiefly forms of anti-capitalism.
Daily Bell: Thank you for your time and insights.
<>
George Gilder is Chairman of George Gilder Fund Management, LLC and host of the Gilder Telecosm Forum. He is also a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute where he directs Discovery’s program on high technology and public policy, and the former Editor in Chief of the Gilder Technology Report (published by Forbes Inc., 1996-2007). Mr. Gilder pioneered the formulation of supply-side economics when he served as Chairman of the Lehrman Institute’s Economic Roundtable, as Program Director for the Manhattan Institute, and as a frequent contributor to A.B. Laffer’s economic reports and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. In the 1980s he also consulted leaders of America’s high technology businesses. According to a study of presidential speeches, Mr. Gilder was President Reagan’s most frequently quoted living author. In 1986, President Reagan gave George Gilder the White House Award for Entrepreneurial Excellence. Mr. Gilder hosts the web’s premier technology investment discussion forum, the Gilder Telecosm Forum, and co-hosts (with Steve Forbes) the annual Gilder/Forbes Telecosm Conference.
I dunno. I had some FReeper libertarians telling me its just fine that kids, kids, in California are getting prescribed pot for laziness and ADHD and uh toe jam I guess.
Libertarianism is a pragmatic failure in our system. The reason it can never work is that when libertarianism wins, it cuts all of the government programs that it can. This sounds great.
However, when it loses, it cedes all governmental policy and regulations to liberals.
Our system is an incremental one. Policy and regulation change within government from election to election. When libertarians lose, they walk away in a “principled retreat”, which is nothing more than an appeasement and surrender of the political ground.
Conservatism, not the bastardized RINOism, on the other hand attempts to cut government. Failing that it attempts to limit government. Failing this it attempts to limit the damage of the government that is being forced on us by liberals.
There is a reason Libertarians are a tiny vocal minority.
In my experience in talking with Libertarians (going back more than 30 years), they expect Conservatives to "bend a little" on issues like foreign intervention, prohibition of drugs, prostitution, immigration, etc. etc.
When I ask a Libertarian which of their own cherished political ideals they would be willing to "bend a little" on so that they might better coordinate their efforts with Conservatives, they seem to shrug and say "My ideas the right ideas. Why should I bend?"
I dunno. I had some FReeper Social Conservatives telling me its just fine that police were planting evidence and executing drug dealers without trial.
I consider myself a Conservative Libertarian, but until Libertarians bend to agreeing abortion is murder I can’t join them completely.
Therefore their attempts to regulate the behavior of others is a projection of their own fears of their own flaws onto others.
IMO Social Conservatives are no different in their approach, only the issues differ.
Social Conservatives don't trust themselves therefore they try to regulate others.
The more they regulate others the less they are promoting individual freedom or individual responsibility.
“some FReeper Social Conservatives telling me its just fine that police were planting evidence and executing drug dealers without trial.”
I’m guessing you don’t have a link to support that claim.
I very much doubt that
Be honesst and admit that some do and that you know that to be the fact.
Niether did the freeper to whom I was responding on his claim but I see you didn’t call him on that.
Are you suggesting that posting fiction is ok for some but not others, as long as you agree with one issue and not the other?
Looks like you’re being rather biased when you look for truth don’t you think?
Just as I doubted your statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.