Posted on 10/29/2006 11:39:15 AM PST by Philistone
Social Conservatism for Libertarians
As a long-time libertarian, one-time pot-smoking, shroom-dropping, coke-snorting, head banger, and short time Thomas Aquinas College student I have seen the divide between "social conservatives" and "libertarians" and today would like to address certain social conservative positions and why libertarians would do well to support them. These arguments would, obviously, work for liberals as well, but since liberals are immune to reasoned argument I will ignore them in what follows. Certain social conservatives would also do well to heed these arguments since arguments relying strictly on the Bible are not likely to sway either libertarians OR liberals.
Axioms of libertarianism
While libertarians may disagree on certain things, what makes them libertarians is their belief in the following two axioms:
1) The fundamental (and maybe ONLY) purpose of a state is to protect its citizens - this may or may not include a provision for the enforcement of contracts.
2) An individual's freedom to act is absolute up until the point where it infringes on the freedoms of another.
Would it be possible to derive socially conservative positions from these two axioms, rationally and empirically? That is our task today in what follows.
Continued at Politically Incorrect
The case for abortion is easy, you just need to convince someone that an embryo is a baby not a clump of cells. The case for other social conservative issues is a bit more difficult, but you must show how conservative values protect its citizens. Things like teaching children abstinence can fall into this category.
That's easy enough if an individual is required to take the entire responsibility for his/her actions (in the case of sexually activity - pregnancy, STD's, AIDS) rather than being able to pawn off most of it to other taxpayers.
The Libertarian Party is a lost cause ever since Noam Chomsky spoke of libertarian socialism. The far left has taken it over.
Interesting take. But, his site has a graphic exposition on global warming that's just great..chart lines ( based on current eco-think ) extending to proven extermination, no matter what man does!
Or the just plain wackadoos with no common sense or political judgement. Several Senate seats (Washington and Wisconsin, come to mind)have been lost to rats 'cause losertarians have a bee up their bonnet and vote for an unelectable candidate who is two steps beyond crazy.
> The Libertarian Party is a lost cause <
Agreed, but you're aiming at the wrong target. The article is not about the Libertarian Party. Rather it's about libertarianism -- altogether a different kettle of fish.
IMHO this essay is thoughtful and well-reasoned. It should be taken seriously. One may disagree with the writer's take on some of the "sub-issues" -- but he's obviously a sincere and careful thinker. And a good-natured intellectual dialogue such as he encourages between libertarians and social conservatives would benefit us all.
That's why I never talk about the party, only the original ideals. Many in the party are simply 60s hippies who managed to discover the money-making benefits of capitalism.
> 1) The fundamental (and maybe ONLY) purpose of a state is to protect its citizens ...
Ummm, protect the NATION from external threats, or protect the citizens from each other and from themselves? That's an important distinction you're blurring.
Should my government protect me from an invading enemy? That'd be a good thing.Fiscal conservatives want small government, just like libertarians. But the social conservatives are not for small government. They want to use government to push their social agenda, just as the social liberals want to use government to push -their- social agenda. Very little difference, other than the agendas, which both positions argue are sacred and true. Surprise.But what about from my neighbor who plays loud music and hurts my sanity -- should the government ban loud music?
What about business practices by my employer that endanger my health - should my employer be forced by the government to be protect my health?
What about the ravages of dumb personal habits - should the government protect me from being stupid?
What about my own body - should the government have control over my body, in the name of protecting me and others?
The small-l libertarian has no use for either position, having no use for government, other than to protect the NATION from the dangerous idiots external to it. Small-l libertarians want the government out of their personal lives. Social conservatives want to control people's personal lives a lot more than any libertarian could stand.
The reason I say "small-l" libertarian is that I have no use for the "big-l" Libertarian party either.
conservatives would be much better off looking at the Constitution Party instead of the Libertarian party, especially now that the Republican party is in the toilet and our only future looks like McCain or Giuliani and the Congress has done about next to nothing during the last 6 years to secure conservative values (other than appointing 2 good supreme court picks)
the Constitution Party has really taken the lead in conservative values, they're about the only party willing to talk out about dismantling social security, dismantling the Americans with Disabilities Act and converting all states to Right-To-Work status.... I haven't heard one Republican mention any of those things during the past 6 years, instead they're either being investigated, resigning or being indicted :-(
Same reason for small 'l' here. As long as Libertarians espouse a belief in open borders, they'll never get my vote beyond local office.
Should my government protect me from an invading enemy? That'd be a good thing.
Agreed.
But what about from my neighbor who plays loud music and hurts my sanity -- should the government ban loud music?
Agreed that that is a difficult one. This falls under the third-party nuissance problem (like pollution). Presumably, you could show tort and require the noise-polluter to pay you for your suffering (or, cheaper, turn down the music).
What about business practices by my employer that endanger my health - should my employer be forced by the government to be protect my health?
Find another employer.
What about the ravages of dumb personal habits - should the government protect me from being stupid?
Nope. You are entirely responsible for the consequences of your own choices.
What about my own body - should the government have control over my body, in the name of protecting me and others?
Protecting you, no. Protecting others, yes. (If you were not of sound mind and posed a threat to others, then government would have the right to restain you until such time as you regained your senses and no longer posed a threat to others).
You might be interested in my other discussion board at Multiple Utopias which addresses the question of how to develop a libertarian framework that maximizes freedom generally while allowing individuals to group themselves according to their personal beliefs and needs.
Fiscal conservatives want small government, just like libertarians. But the social conservatives are not for small government. They want to use government to push their social agenda, just as the social liberals want to use government to push -their- social agenda. Very little difference, other than the agendas, which both positions argue are sacred and true. Surprise.
The small-l libertarian has no use for either position, having no use for government, other than to protect the NATION from the dangerous idiots external to it. Small-l libertarians want the government out of their personal lives. Social conservatives want to control people's personal lives a lot more than any libertarian could stand.
The reason I say "small-l" libertarian is that I have no use for the "big-l" Libertarian party either.
Well put.
Yep. My mind changed about borders years ago when it became clear to me that in fact we are being invaded (the general lack of uniforms and artillery doesn't make it any less of an invasion). Tightening up the borders is a clean and simple answer to the problem, but it's the only one I have at present, given the risk of external terrorist attack.
> Find another employer
Exactly.
Dumb personal habits - I can't support a candidate who wants to protect me from myself. Both social conservatives and social liberals want me to act like them. Nope, sorry.
> You might be interested in my other discussion board at Multiple Utopias ...
I will check that out, thanks. Unfortunately I'm about out of time this afternoon but will be back on tonight. Thanks for the post -- good stuff.
Not entirely sure about that. Certainly there are social conservatives who won't be happy until every last American tithes and goes to church on Sunday, but most simply want to be able to practice their beliefs in peace without having liberal indoctrination thrust upon them and their loved ones.
Libertarians and Social Conservatives share the following beliefs:
You should be able to buy and sell to/from anyone. And if that means restricting what you sell to whom, or who you buy from, it's none of government's business.
Social conservatives and libertarians agree that people should be responsible for the consequences of their actions, and not be bailed out by taxpayers.
While social conservatives believe that it is not the role of government to indoctrinate people in liberal socialism, libertarians believe that it is not the role of government to indocrinate anyone in anything.
Social conservatives believe that gay people should not be "married." Libertarians believe that the state shouldn't be involved in marrying people in the first place. Most social conservatives have resigned themselves to the fact that homosexuality exists. They just don't want it shoved down their childrens' throats (excuse the imagery) by an all powerful state apparatus.
While there are differences, there are many areas where libertarians and social conservatives can find common ground to advance their agendas without infringing on the others' rights.
While there are differences, there are many areas where libertarians and social conservatives can find common ground to advance their agendas without infringing on the others' rights.
Also well put.
Of course there's common ground. There's also common ground between the libertarians and the liberals, but that doesn't mean any more or less -- the differences are what define the demarcations between groups. We all breathe air, after all.
> While social conservatives believe that it is not the role of government to indoctrinate people in liberal socialism, libertarians believe that it is not the role of government to indocrinate anyone in anything.
... including conservative morality, which is exactly the point of difference. The fact that the libertarian agrees with the conservative that the liberal agenda is whacked, does not mean that the libertarian agrees with the conservative agenda; or even if so, would want it to be advanced by the government. Social conservatives, like social liberals, are all about advancing their agendas.
If what you're proposing is that the libertarians close their eyes to the social conservative agenda, then you're intentionally ignoring the essence of what "libertarian" means.
> Also well put.
You might be interested in my reply to that in #18.
Also, I think Philistone attributed my comment ("Social conservatives want to control people's personal lives a lot more than any libertarian could stand.") to you as a result of your quoting it, but you're welcome to it; that observation is hardly original with me.
The problem isn't the libertarian theorists. It's the rank and file libertarians.
The cynic in me, developed over decades of experience, informs me that libertarianism tends to attract the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
Once there is critical mass of such people, libertarianism devolves into an anarchistic free for all and race the bottom.
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.