A DISPASSIONATE ASSESSMENT OF LIBERTARIANS BY RUSSELL KIRK

I. INTRODUCTION:“Libertarians” and “conservatives” often duke it out on Free Republic. This usually occurs over the legalization of drugs but other social issues result in vitriolic debates as well

Russell Kirk in Chapter XI of his book, The Politics of Prudence, argues most libertarians are not conservatives. They are really radicals of the right. But before we can present Russell’s arguments we must first document what a “conservative” is.

Previously, I have summarized Kirk’s views as to conservativism by summarizing another chapter of this book, Ten Conservative Principles.

Human nature is such that few will have the time or interest to go back and review this lengthy essay. Fortunately in this present article , Kirk helps out by re-defining conservativism.

According to Kirk, the typical conservative believes in an enduring moral order. The conservative also believes the culture has developed over centuries. This culture and its customs, habits and institutions needs support and protection. The typical conservative also believes that politics means prudent actions. The conservative believes diversity is necessary—meaning tolerance of ability, social, economic and other differences. The conservative denies that an all encompassing ideology can radically change society for the better.

Conservatives hold private property in high esteem as having been culturally determined by trial and error. They see human nature as fatally flawed and prone to violence and fraud. The need for government is absolute if we are to have a decent society. Conservatives prefer a smaller, less intrusive government but they do see the need for it Government intervenes on human imperfections; it is needed because people are not perfect and there must be a restraint on out-of-control passions.

II. FIRST KIRK SAYS SOME NICE THINGS ABOUT LIBERTARIANS AND THEN TAKES THEM BACK: Kirk begins by noting that neither he nor F.A. Hayekwere “libertarians.” Actually Hayek also wrote a paper indicating he wasn’t a “conservative” either but he was probably referring to European conservativism; Hayek sometimes referred to himself as an “Old Whig” or a “Classic Liberal.” In any case both Kirk and Hayek were Edmund Burke aficionados. They both disliked simplistic libertarian ideology.

Kirk describes three things he likes about libertarians. Not surprisingly, the first thing Kirk mentions is many libertarians are actually closet conservatives or sometimes even conservatives to be. Many describe themselves as “libertarians” because of a dislike for the oppressive state. Others just want more rather than less liberty. A few self-described “libertarians” are actually classic liberals in the Hayek tradition.

Second, Kirk resonates to the libertarian views on “vainglorious foreign policy.” The libertarians like many conservatives do not believe in garrisoning foreign countries. Kirk is with them on this but issues a caveat with a Burke quote. “..combating an armed doctrine not merely a national adversary… In other words, our government must be prepared to defend itself against armed might.

Third, like conservatives, many libertarians support human sized institutions and are opposed to the cult of the colossal. Besides opposing political centralization both support local efforts including voluntary associations and charities.

Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard were inadvertent recruiters for conservatives. Many of Kirk’s students came to him through “objectivism” and “libertarianism.”

Ayn Rand popularized “Objectivism” which holds all reality is objective and external: knowledge can only be based on observed objects and events. Murray Rothbard was an early member of her circle (1950s) but left for a variety of reasons. Alleged by some the falling out began when Rothbard married a woman of faith. In any case he wrote a scathing critiqueof Ayn Rand. Following this critique he went on to initiate and participate in what we now call libertarianism.

I see both Rand and Rothbard as having an underlying philosophy congruent with logical positivism. This philosophy asserts the primacy of observation in assessing truth and relies on factual observation and denies any place to spiritual or other metaphysical explanations. Kirk points out conservatives do not consider libertarians to be conservatives and surely libertarians usually do not see themselves as conservatives.

Kirk sees libertarians as radical doctrinaires, contemptuous of tradition, culture and faith. Of society’s old traditions and prescriptions they would retain only private property. Libertarians also seek an abstract liberty that has never existed. Contrary to the unlimited liberty theory of economics, the American economy is complex and requires government to enforce contracts and so forth. Government, then, is an economic necessity. Complete freedom from government of any kind would result in complete chaos.

Our Constitution was conceived and written by an aristocratic body who “sought a more perfect union.” They knew, like Dostoevsky, that “unlimited freedom ends with unlimited despotism.” Kirk sees libertarians arguments as humorless, intolerant, self-righteous, badly schooled and dull. A specific quote is:

”..The libertarians are rejected because they are metaphysically mad.Lunacy repels and political lunacy especially. I do not mean they are dangerous; nay, they are repellant merely. They do not endanger our country and our civilization, because they are few, and seem likely to become fewer…

What Kirk means by “metaphysically mad” is that libertarians refuse to consider any question not answerable by direct observation or science; no religion, no prime mover, nothing of a spiritual nature. As such they are “mad” ignoring common human emotions and experience.

Kirk feels the difference between conservativism and libertarianism is insurmountable. To buttress this view he goes on to list six reasons why.

First, Kirk asserts the big division in modern politics is not between totalitarians and those favoring democracy but rather between those who believe in a transcendental moral order and those who do not. Transcendental order includes religions and all those who believe there are transcendent sanctions for wrongful conduct. Libertarians admit to no transcendent order and neither do the objectivists. They are converts to dialectical materialism. Conservatives reject them totally on this principal alone.

Second, Order is needed in any workable society. Libertarians give precedence to an abstract liberty. Conservatives believe that freedom can only be found in a framework of social order; hence, that is why we have the Constitution of the United States.

Third, libertarians believe what holds society together is self-interest. Conservatives believe society is a community of souls, dead, living and unborn. We have a duty to each other much like Aristotle describes as friendship and Christians describe as love of neighbor. Note, that conservatives duty to the unborn need not include any religious conviction—a sufficient reason is the continuation of the culture and species.

Fourth, libertarians (like anarchists and Marxists) believe human nature is good and any deficiencies are the result of faulty social institutions. Conservatives believe otherwise; they believe that humans are capable of either good or evil. Conservatives believe we are imperfect; therefore, a perfect society is not possible. The alternative must be constant vigilance for violence, fraud and a thirst for power.

Fifth, Libertarians see the state as the great oppressor. Conservatives find the state as natural and necessary for civilized living. Kirk quotes Burke who said:

”…He who gave us nature to be perfected by our virtue, willed also the necessary means of its perfection—he willed the state—He willed its connection with the source and original archetype of all perfection.”

Conservatives see government as the final restraint on asocial passions. “The primary function of government is restraint and that is anathema to libertarians but an article of faith for conservatives.”(Kirk quote)

Conservatives see government’s chief functions are to repel foreign invaders and maintain domestic peace. We do need a government but a limited one will do.

Sixthand finally, the libertarian focuses on his own appetites and passions without any thought of the mystery and wonder of the world. The conservative thinks otherwise and the sees the common good as requiring duty, discipline, sacrifice and love. The conservative views libertarians as ”impious”in the ancient sense of the word; libertarians do not respect ancient cultural beliefs, customs and wisdom. They lack “piety” for those who lived before us.

What the doctrinaire libertarians offer is an ideology of universal selfishness. As flawed human beings we are already selfish enough; we need no exhortation to become selfish..

MY THOUGHTS:Some of Kirks statements make me wince. Especially so, since close to me is at least one objectivist. Regardless, Kirk’s critique of libertarianism is neither overdone nor demeaning. People with serious views are seldom wishy-washy. This is another great chapter in a great book. Anyone with curiosity and interest in “conservativism” simply must have it.

Of course, he didn't think much of neoconservatives either.

Russel Kirk 1988:The Neoconservatives: An Endangered Species

Be that as it may, I predict that within-a very few years we will hear no more of the Neoconservatives...........

Neoconservatives lack those long views and that apprehension of the human condition which forms a basis for successful statecraft. Often clever, these Neoconservatives; seldom wise............

I have tended to side with those moderate Libertarians who set their faces against foreign entanglements.... To expect that all the world should, and must, adopt the peculiar political institutions of the United States - which often do not work very well even at home - is to indulge the most unrealistic of visions; yet just that seems to be the hope and expectation of many Neoconservatives. Such naive doctrine led us into the wars in Indo-China - the notion that we could establish or prop up in Vietnam a "democracy" that never had existed anywhere in southeastern Asia. Such foreign policies are such stuff as dreams are made of; yet they lead to the heaps of corpses of men who died in vain. We need to ask ourselves whether the Neoconservative architects of international policy are very different from the foreign policy advisors who surrounded Lyndon Johnson.....

I had thought that the Neoconservatives might become the champions of diversity in the world; instead, they aspire to bring about a world of uniformity and dull standardization,Americanized, industrialized, democratized, logicalized, boring. They are cultural and economic imperialists.............

We are hardly "converts to dialectical materialism." We may be Lockeans, but never Hegelians. If conservatives reject us for that, than they are rejecting us for the wrong reasons.

Libertarians never deny the need for order. We deny that the majority qua majority can impose any order they wish simply because they are the majority. Individuals have certain inalienable rights that may not be infringed. Period. That is why we have the Constitution of the United States.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I may exercise my friendship and love as I see fit, but these are neither ethical or moral if I am forced to exercise them.

Nonsense. Libertarians believe that at minimum, the state must protect its citizens and allow them to protect themselves. This involves both a police force and a judiciary for the adjucation of contract disputes.

Fifth, Libertarians see the state as the great oppressor. Conservatives find the state as natural and necessary for civilized living. Kirk quotes Burke who said:

Conservatives see government as the final restraint on asocial passions. “The primary function of government is restraint and that is anathema to libertarians but an article of faith for conservatives.”(Kirk quote)

Libertarians see the state as the greatest potential threat to liberty since it arrogates the concept of justice to itself. This should be more readily apparent even to conservative FReepers here now that the Dims have re-taken power. They will re-define justice in such a way as to take away more of your liberties. This is something that other individuals do not and should not have the power to do.

Conservatives see government’s chief functions are to repel foreign invaders and maintain domestic peace. We do need a government but a limited one will do.

Sounds pretty Libertarian to me.

Sixthand finally, the libertarian focuses on his own appetites and passions without any thought of the mystery and wonder of the world. The conservative thinks otherwise and the sees the common good as requiring duty, discipline, sacrifice and love. The conservative views libertarians as ”impious”in the ancient sense of the word; libertarians do not respect ancient cultural beliefs, customs and wisdom. They lack “piety” for those who lived before us.

What the doctrinaire libertarians offer is an ideology of universal selfishness. As flawed human beings we are already selfish enough; we need no exhortation to become selfish..

So the real crime of Libertarians is "impiety", not the failure to do or act right, but the failure to do so for the right reasons. In other words, we should never act out of love or friendship because it is the moral thing to do, we should do so because tradition and religion tell us we must do so.

Libertarians see the state as the great oppressor. Conservatives find the state as natural and necessary for civilized living.

I disagree that this is Kirk's belief. "The State" is a meaningless term. It consists of those institutions and practices that have evolved over centuries. Those institutions and practices, where they have proven themselves, should be retained. Any others should be considered only grudgingly, with no rush to embrace the untried and untested.

That does't make The State "natural" or "necessary" as much as it makes it a complement to communal existence. Men have proven incapable of interacting peacefully without some form of overwatch. However, the Keepers are themselves subject to the same foibles as those they rule, so government is at best a compromise, an institution that should never be let off its leash, let alone trusted to define morality.

I don't think that view is inconsistent with Kirk's observation that "conservatives tend to favor liberty over equality."

Conservatives see government as the final restraint on asocial passions.

Nonsense. Conservatives see government as a collective entity separate from it parts, but one whose function is to address jointly those societal roles that individuals can't (effectively) address severally.

“The primary function of government is restraint and that is anathema to libertarians but an article of faith for conservatives.”(Kirk quote)

Nope. If the primary function of government is restraint, then who restrains the restrainers? No government can be better than the people who empower it. If the people are a venal, amoral race, then their government will enforce those corrupt characteristics. Government can't act to restrain people who won't be restrained. It is entirely useless as a "social conscience." To achieve that goal, it must become a tyrant.

Interesting piece, but I have a few disagreements with it:

I see both Rand and Rothbard as having an underlying philosophy congruent with logical positivism.

Rand rebutted logical positivism (IIRC, her contention was that it leaves no room for abstraction, which is necessary for progress of any kind). She also dismissed Libertarians (at least the big-L type) as being interested in freedom chiefly for the sake of degeneracy (which is true in many cases, but not all). In any case, Objectivism contains the full hierarchy of philosophy- metaphysics, ethics, and politics, with the least emphasis on the politics- while libertarianism only addresses politics.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a metaphysical one, so this is something of a non-sequiter.

Most libertarians elevate the constitution almost to the level of the Bible, so I can't agree with this one, either.

Again, this seems to be a non-sequiter, unless conservatives want a government agency to enforce this notion of a "community of souls" With regard to the unborn, there are many small-l libertarians who are pro-life. One can't have liberty if one is aborted.

Fourth, libertarians (like anarchists and Marxists) believe human nature is good and any deficiencies are the result of faulty social institutions. Conservatives believe otherwise; they believe that humans are capable of either good or evil. Conservatives believe we are imperfect; therefore, a perfect society is not possible. The alternative must be constant vigilance for violence, fraud and a thirst for power.

Libertarians believe in "constant vigilance for violence, fraud and a thirst for power" as well. I suspect the view of human nature as basically good or basically bad is mixed among them, but again, this seems to be a non-sequiter as they are a political movement, not a religious one.

Fifth, Libertarians see the state as the great oppressor. Conservatives find the state as natural and necessary for civilized living....Conservatives see government’s chief functions are to repel foreign invaders and maintain domestic peace. We do need a government but a limited one will do.

Everybody recognizes government as necessary. The size, scope, and function of government is where the disagreements lie. Libertarians would argue that conservatives have abandoned limited government in exchange for government largess that favors conservative ideals.

My bottom line here is that there is more in common, at least on big and important ideals of the proper nature and role of the state, between conservatives and small-l libertarians than there are differences.

I see both Rand and Rothbard as having an underlying philosophy congruent with logical positivism. This philosophy asserts the primacy of observation in assessing truth and relies on factual observation and denies any place to spiritual or other metaphysical explanations.... What Kirk means by “metaphysically mad” is that libertarians refuse to consider any question not answerable by direct observation or science; no religion, no prime mover, nothing of a spiritual nature. As such they are “mad” ignoring common human emotions and experience.

This "madness" was identified by the classical Greek philosophers (e.g., Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle) as a pneumopathological disorder, a disease of the soul. Then again, a logical positivist has no use for "the soul"; as a "metaphysical" entity, they deny its reality in principle.... Whatever is undetectable according to their methods simply doesn't exist for them.

You may enjoy another great book by Russell Kirk: The Roots of American Order. In it, Kirk traces our American heritage back to four historic cities: Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, and London. It's a wonderful read.

Excellent essay, shrinkermd. Thank you so very much!

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.