The Intellectual Incoherence of Conservatism

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

[general_re]

What, the "people who disagree are delusional" argument didn't sway you? ;)

[Area51]

Wrong, REPUBLICAN RINOS have enbraced big Government.

Conservatives are still Conservatives.

[thoughtomator]

No, but the "puppet masters" has me fnording.

[thoughtomator]

I don't think you can come up with any more proof than the author has (none) to support that argument.

[AntiGuv]

The key objection to this author, in my view, is that he uses "statism" and "socialism" as if they were synonymous, and that's definitely not true. So, this is his logic:

modern conservatives are statist (true), therefore modern conservatives are socialist ( which is not strictly true).

However, this is not a proper use of the term socialism as commonly understood. Which is not to suggest that the conservative leadership hasn't acquiesced to much of the socialist welfare state, but that is distinct from the statist policies that have been advocated by most conservatives since decades ago.

[AntiGuv]

What would you cut?

[Podkayne]

while the left could win Middle Americans through its economic measures,

Why do the libs keep shoving this old cancard down everyones throat? This is their holiest and most sacred belief - that they alone know the truth that social collectivism is the one and only way to run the economies of the world.

No facts or history will disuade them, they only need better propaganda to convince the masses that they are right. There must be a gene that increases susceptibility to mass psychosis. It's the only explanation.

[Durus]

The point is while groups existed that were larger then a single isolated family group it was still, in fact, mostly a family group. That is quite unlike what we have now. A town is not a family, a state is not a family, and the country isn't a family.

"the social group has always had an interest in educating its young members in the ways of the group"

If you are referring to the actual family then that is fine. If you are referring to a govt. then that is called indoctrination and was a prime method of changing society in the USSR.

[thoughtomator]

From our federal government? Anything and everything not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. And I consider this to be the conservative position.

[Al Gator]

Mysticism? I am "mystified" about this accusation!!

Socrates wasn't dealing in spiritualism, he was trying to explain societal blinders.

All nonsense aside, the basic point of this long article is that many conservatives haven't realized that while their houses may be in order, their foundations have shifted.

Socialists have been very successful in pulling us, with microscopic incrementalism, to the left.

We are now in the position that we argue our points from left of center while thinking we are on the "right".

Try to get a so-called conservative to accept that the income tax is nothing more that theft, and you will be labeled a "kook".

[Al Gator]

I am confused.

How do YOU define "statist"?

[Durus]

The ancient Athenians practiced cooperative education which is fundamentally different from modern education.

[sitetest]

Dear snarks_when_bored,

"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."

First, I think that Hoppe would argue (and I largely agree) that it is the burdens placed upon the family by the massive state that prevent many families from having the resources to homeschool. Certainly, when up to 40% of income is taxed away, when hidden costs are built in to the tax code (Did you ever wonder how much more a house costs because of the subsidy of the mortgage deduction?), it isn't unreasonable that many families need two incomes to live decently.

I think that's actually part of Hoppe's point.

As to who can successfully homeschool, my own experience suggests that nearly every mother with the equivalent of a mediocre high school education is capable of educating her children through at least eighth grade.

However, you missed what both Hoppe and I said here, that the family is solely responsible for education, and the state is not.

Neither Hoppe nor I say that education must be provided entirely within the confines of the nuclear family. Hoppe allows for education "produced and distributed in cooperative arrangements within the framework of the market economy."

I talked about arrangements that are outside the framework of the market economy.

It's a false dichotomy to say that the only two choices are public schools (or private schools as little more than public school substitutes), and homeschooling, defined as where all education takes place within the nuclear family.

The other point that Hoppe is making, I think, is that education is just none of the business of the state. Yes, folks can make arrangements for education that make extensive use of resources outside the family. But Hoppe's point (and mine) is that these should be entirely voluntary, not forced by the state, and entirely within the control of the family.

Although education outside the home is ancient, I'm pretty sure that compulsory, universal education is a relatively modern invention.


sitetest

[AntiGuv]

Then, if I understand you correctly, you are certainly excluded from my prior statement. Do you honestly believe that most Republicans would do the same? (I mean nationwide, not just here at FR).

PS. The proof that you asked for previously is the voting record of the self-described conservative party in Congress.

[general_re]

[snarks_when_bored]

Public education is not a new idea (it's older than the Greeks of Plato's time). And I don't equate public education with indoctrination (believe me, I know the difference between the elementary school classes that I attended during the school day and the catechism classes that I attended in the evenings).

[thoughtomator]

My key objection is above, and I will restate it here, that the author has misdefined conservatism for the purpose of using it as a strawman. American conservatism - I do not speak for European conservatism - is largely libertarian in character. There are very broad areas of agreement between American conservatism and libertarianism - low taxes, gun rights, property rights, federalism, freedom of religion, association and expression, and many more.

[AntiGuv]

Socialism is collective ownership of property for the common good. Statism is centralized government planning of the economy.

[thoughtomator]

Ah, well there we have the fallacy, that the GOP is a conservative party. It is not. It merely has the support of conservatives because it is far and away the lesser of evils, and at least has some prospect for conservatives to advance our priorities, while our other choice leaves us with no prospects at all.

[Al Gator]

Awww Jeezz, looks like by trying to inject some Socrates into this, I've gone and woke up the "cookie monsters"!

Let the puppet jokes begin! (UUURRRAAAHHHH)