Replies

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

”…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)

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.

Excellent arguments and post. You make your points clearly and with vigor.

I like your comments. It seems to me that many of the positions Kirk promulgates are overstated. It also seems that your responses are equally overstated.

Discussions with my libertarian friends indicates to me that our basic points of contention revolve around the issues associated with the first, second, and third items.

Your responses to the items dovetail nicely with my discussion experience. Although my friends seem to have a paranoia about conservatives, and republicans in particular, worse than you display. I cite your response to the third item as an example;

"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."

What evidence do you have of forced friendship and love? As in so many of my friends arguments there seems to be some background anger being expressed in the views. I don't really understand why but it seems to exist.

We have so much in common. I don't understand why some cannot see it. Perhaps some feel scorned.

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.

Not all libertarians. The most famous libertarian, Rothbard, advocated anarchy as most consistent with the bedrock principle of libertarianism: non-initiation of force or fraud.