The Intellectual Incoherence of Conservatism

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | March 4, 2005 | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[pissant]

Well its great to be a "redical libertarian" in theory. Unfortunately, the world is governed by those with powerful militaries. Always has been, always will be. Either you pony up the tax $$ to defend your national interests, or you get swallowed by an evil opponent.

[snarks_when_bored]

Still reading this piece, but a comment on the following:

There is no recognition that the natural order in education means that the state has nothing to do with it. Education is entirely a family matter and ought to be produced and distributed in cooperative arrangements within the framework of the market economy.

It's a confident claim, but one which would be difficult to substantiate. Since modern humans appeared, the social group has almost always been larger than the isolated, single family, and the social group has always had an interest in educating its young members in the ways of the group. The author is either wrong about what the 'natural order' is with respect to education, or else is using the words 'natural order' in an idiosyncratic way.

[thoughtomator]

I didn't say he was radical. I said he was fringe and of questionable sanity.

This article epitomizes strawman arguments. A socialist result from the political process is not derived in any way from conservatism. He consistently mischaracterizes conservatism by assigning the policies of socialists within the GOP to conservatives, which is not true, and which he does not and cannot prove.

[Semaphore Heathcliffe]

By relieving individuals of the obligation to provide for their own income, health, safety, old age, and children's education, the range and temporal horizon of private provision is reduced, and the value of marriage, family, children, and kinship relations is lowered. Irresponsibility, shortsightedness, negligence, illness and even destructionism (bads) are promoted, and responsibility, farsightedness, diligence, health and conservatism (goods) are punished.

The compulsory old age insurance system in particular, by which retirees (the old) are subsidized from taxes imposed on current income earners (the young), has systematically weakened the natural intergenerational bond between parents, grandparents, and children. The old need no longer rely on the assistance of their children if they have made no provision for their own old age; and the young (with typically less accumulated wealth) must support the old (with typically more accumulated wealth) rather than the other way around, as is typical within families.

Consequently, not only do people want to have fewer children—and indeed, birthrates have fallen in half since the onset of modern social security (welfare) policies—but also the respect which the young traditionally accorded to their elders is diminished, and all indicators of family disintegration and malfunctioning, such as rates of divorce, illegitimacy, child abuse, parent abuse, spouse abuse, single parenting, singledom, alternative lifestyles, and abortion, have increased.

Nails it.

[thoughtomator]

I disagree completely. How anyone can assert such a thing in the face of the Reagan Revolution is ridiculous! If there's one thing that all conservatives of every stripe agree on, it is in the reduction of taxes, which is pretty much the definition of the diminuition of government power.

[Durus]

Since modern humans appeared, the social group has almost always been larger than the isolated, single family, and the social group has always had an interest in educating its young members in the ways of the group.

What is your definition of "modern humans" the last 50 years? The last hundred? The most basic social group has always been the family. All social group larger then a family were, until very recently, products of multiple and interrelated family groups. Again it is only until fairly recently that anything other then higher education or specialized training was done outside the home. How long have we had government run schools in this country? How long have their been government run schools globally?

[SalukiLawyer]

If you believe there is nothing wrong with this country that the election of more good Republicans wouldn't fix, then yes, you and I will simply have to disagree.

The piece doesn not set out a practical political program. But it does invite people to think about the values and principles that should guide their politics.

[Al Gator]

BRILLIANT, SIMPLY BRILLIANT!!

[sitetest]

Dear snarks_when_bored,

I think that your criticism of Hoppe has some validity, although Hoppe acknowledges that the provision of education extends beyond the family. But Hoppe is right that in the natural order, the state has nothing to do with it.

Hoppe allows for involvement of entities outside the family when he says, "produced and distributed in cooperative arrangements within the framework of the market economy."

Where I think your criticism is valid is that Hoppe restricts the extra-familial involvement in education too narrowly, at least as I read it.

As a homeschooler, I can tell you that Hoppe has outlined approximately how we operate. Education is entirely our responsibility. And, we do engage in cooperative arrangements to further the education of our children. We buy a private curriculum, we buy other educational enhancements from other private and semi-private offerors.

But the language Hoppe uses seems to miss an important feature of our experience, which is the cooperative arrangements that are not really oriented toward the market economy. We do a lot of things with other homeschooling families that are not really "commercial" or "market-based" in conception, motivation, or practical application. I guess if you want to draw the definition of "markets" broadly enough, you could possibly include all these other activities, but to me, that's a mindless reductionism.

Many of the cooperative arrangements in which we homeschoolers participate are based on bonds of friendship, social cooperation, fraternal sentiment, religious identity, caring for one another, altruism, and principled morality. I think that they are not well-described by "the framework of the market economy."


sitetest

[Just another Joe]

This is a long read and I'm going to have to study it in more detail to make coherent arguments - but what I see right off the bat....

He doesn't like Buchanan.
He lambasts Buchanan, almost, from the get go.
Can't say as I blame him but he spends an awful lot of time on a man that conservatives have already turned from.

He doesn't like the, "Leviathan state".
Well, that's good. Some government is needed but as the saying goes, "That which governs least governs best".

He's a libertarian.
That's not all bad, as long as it's a small 'l' and not a large 'L' libertarian.
I would put myself into a conservative, small 'l' libertarian category.

As for having to become a radical to be a conservative.....
To change, almost, anything in the govt nowadays you have to be somewhat of a radical.
Just don't take it too far.

[thoughtomator]

Where did you get that from? Where did I state or imply anything even close to "there is nothing wrong with this country that the election of more good Republicans wouldn't fix"? Or did you mean to post to someone else and accidentally ping me?

[yoe]

Multiculturalism = Balkanization = loss of country

Loss of authority = non-caring parents = disrespect

Sexual libertinism = social disintegration = illegitimacy

Social nationalism = entitlements = government control

Liberalism = talk the talk = “the people’s rights” = litigate = then sit down

Conservatism = duty = responsibility = non government control

Through Political Correctness all truth is censored and history is re-written; this breeds moral and cultural decline and degeneration. Tinkering with the Republic’s duty, the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence is the work of the Socialist; maintaining the Republic and all it stands for is the work of the Conservative; the latter does the heavy lifting to keep our nation free from other ideologues who don’t want the responsibility of maintaining a Republic...Duty, Honor, Country.

[yoe]

Multiculturalism = Balkanization = loss of country

Loss of authority = non-caring parents = disrespect

Sexual libertinism = social disintegration = illegitimacy

Social nationalism = entitlements = government control

Liberalism = talk the talk = “the people’s rights” = litigate = then sit down

Conservatism = duty = responsibility = non government control

Through Political Correctness all truth is censored and history is re-written; this breeds moral and cultural decline and degeneration. Tinkering with the Republic’s duty, the United States Constitution and Declaration of Independence is the work of the Socialist; maintaining the Republic and all it stands for is the work of the Conservative; the latter does the heavy lifting to keep our nation free from other ideologues who don’t want the responsibility of maintaining a Republic...Duty, Honor, Country.

[snarks_when_bored]

All social group[s] larger then a family were, until very recently, products of multiple and interrelated family groups.

And that disagrees with what I said, how? "Multiple and interrelated family groups" define what a social group is among humans. And it is in the interest of social groups (so defined) to educate their young.

[Al Gator]

I think you are still strapped into your chair, and you believe reality is the shadows the puppet masters are casting on the walls in front of you.

The author of this piece has left the cave, and come back to describe what he has seen.

You aren't ready to accept that reality.

[snarks_when_bored]

Home-schooling is fine with me. But most of today's parents are either unqualified to do it (they just don't know enough) or else lack the time to do it because of their work requirements. Public education is an old idea—the ancient Athenians employed it, for example. So it's not as if the idea suddenly popped into existence in the minds of the cabal behind the 'modern welfare state'.

[Terabitten]

Why do I somehow not trust a piece written about "correct" socialist conservatism written by a German? Didn't they try that once? Oh yeah.... back in the forties.....

[PGalt]

Bump for later read. Thanks for the post.

[thoughtomator]

I am a conservative.

I am also aware of the radical changes in our government necessary to fully implement the conservative agenda.

However, I am not engaged in a betrayal of conservatism in order to promote global social democracy, as is the essential crux of the author's article. I am adamantly opposed to socialism, and more so I regard oppostition to socialism as an essential component of conservatism, hence my reference to the Reagan Revolution.

The entire article is therefore premised on a fallacy.

And until those here who disagree with me resort to logic rather than mysticism and come up with a persuasive argument, I will steadfastly hold to this conclusion.

[AntiGuv]

Well, I am a moderate libertarian. The main point upon which I agree with this author is that modern conservatism has by and large embraced big government.