Posted on 11/09/2006 1:18:32 PM PST by Keltik
[Final two pharagraphs]
So in the nature of things conservatives and libertarians can conclude no friendly pact. Conservatives have no intention of compromising with socialists; but even such an alliance, ridiculous though it would be, is more nearly conceivable than the coalition of conservatives and libertarians. The socialists at least declare the existence of some sort of moral order; the libertarians are quite bottomless.
It is of high importance, indeed, that American conservatives dissociate themselves altogether from the little sour remnant called libertarians. In a time requiring long views and self-denial, alliance with a faction founded upon doctrinaire selfishness would be absurd-and practically damaging. It is not merely that cooperation with a tiny chirping sect would be valueless politically; more, such an association would tend to discredit the conservatives, giving aid and comfort to the collective adversaries of ordered freedom. When heaven and earth have passed away, perhaps the conservative mind and the libertarian mind may be joined in synthesis-but not until then. Meanwhile, I venture to predict, the more intelligent and conscientious persons within the libertarian remnant will tend to settle for politics as the art of the possible, so shifting into the conservative camp.
(Excerpt) Read more at emp.byui.edu ...
"In a time requiring long views and self-denial, alliance with a faction founded upon doctrinaire selfishness would be absurd-and practically damaging."
Is the author really advocating collectivism as the answer to Conservative's lack of victory?
"Criminals are the problem. The most destructive, most value-destroying criminals are politicians and bureaucrats."
I agree, and that is why I am almost to the point where I think that this country no longer deserves my vote. I am very close to just letting it go down in flames......
Everyone with a brain knows libertarian anarchy is the way to go.
No government? No problem!
Hu-yuck!
"The Founding Fathers were conservatives, not libertarians."
True. But where is today's Conservative to turn?
That's pathetic. One might expect such appalling ignorance from liberals, but not from supposedly stalwart conservatives.
Professing to admire conservatism and not knowing who Russell Kirk is, is like professing to admire objectivism and not knowing who Ayn Rand is.
Sure, there is only 2 choices. Anarchy or Collectivism. No other state is possible.
For some people, the notion that Government exists only to protect our rights, and not to impose someone else's morality on us, IS anarchy.
Therein lies a paradox that produces no end of misunderstanding and friction in these debates.
The Founding Fathers were revolutionaries. A conservative revolutionary is a blatant contradiction in terms.
Perhaps, but they must be few and far between, because I've never had one agree with me that keeping drugs illegal is a good thing.
But any objections to legalizing drugs falls flat when you consider the current kick-down-the-doors failure of a drug policy.
If this is truly your yard-stick for what should or shouldn't be legal, then we should legalize murder since the policy against murder doesn't seem to be working.
VOLUNTARY cooperation is, of course, basic to libertarian society. As for the other kind, the quote needs a slight correction:
"We are made for cooperation, like the hands, like the feet," replies theReally, much of Kirk's other writings reveal him to be much too intelligent to write this sort of twaddle. I wish I knew what motivated him to prostitute his mind in this manner, or what psychological quirk impelled him to shut down his intellect when the subject turned to libertarianism.conservativecollectivist, in the phrases ofMarcus AureliusHillary Clinton.
Since libertarianism is an organizing principle for government, not society, I fail to see the relevance of this observation. (A libertarian society is what arises organically when the government is restrained from interfering -- if anything, it is more, not less, in accordance with Burke's view than a society upon which the conservative version of social engineering is imposed by the state.)
Automobiles arose out of the problem-solving efforts of people who hoped to serve both their fellows and themselves, and the widespread adoption thereof is precisely the sort of "organic" evolution of society that Burke described. Kirk's complaint is thus inconsistent with his professed philosophy -- worse, it is itself a utopian "vision of the anointed" claim that society should be (forcibly?) reordered to fit a romantic ideal.
This is a rather frail straw man. The libertarian view that interpersonal relationships are properly based on voluntery agreement is not necessarily joined to "cash payment" (most human relationships are obviously based on other rewards).
As for it being based on "self-interest", this is true in the sense in which every political or social principle is based on self-interest (libertarians think people would be better off if they followed libertarian recommendations, conservatives think people would be better off if they followed conservative recommendations, marxists think people would be better off if they followed marxist recommendations, etc). Thus, Kirk's statement is technically correct, but trivially so and useless in weighing the merits and demerits of libertarianism.
Again, my other readings show that Kirk knows better than this, and I simply don't see what caused his usual level of argument to sink to that normally found at a bar or (present company excepted) on some Internet argument forum.
I would like to slightly modify the "every" claim. Some political philosophies are in fact based on cynical self-interest (e.g. Nazis don't claim that everyone would be better off if they subscribed to Naziism -- they believe that the Aryans would be better off, the untermenschen would be worse off, and that's simply the way it should be).
This caveat does not really change the underlying point, since libertarianism does not claim that some people are and deserve to be more equal than others.
As I noted upthread, there are two types of self-denial (voluntary self-denial in order to gain greater rewards later or to meet one's obligations, and involuntary self-denial imposed so that others can loot what rightfully belongs to you). Inasmuch as the former is perfectly consistent with libertarianism, the author can only be referring to, and implicitly praising, the latter.
Oh, puh-leeze. As explained upthread, the reason the first few dozen posts are filled with snark rather than discussion of Russell Kirk is not ignorance of the latter, but rather dismissal of the original poster as a troll.
Dumb_Ox,
Sorry again for the silly response I posted to your original comments to me. At 2 AM EST, my mind was not working too well, and I believe I confused Russell Kirk with Robert Nozick if you are familiar with his work.
If I recall correctly from reading Kirk in college (20-plus years ago) he was a big believer in the idea that custom and tradition, manifested as culture, were the foundation of any rational society. And since he was a big believer in Natural Law and the idea that religion was the driving force behind culture, he would naturally have disdain for ideological labels. Correct me if I'm wrong on that since you seem to have a better recollection of Kirk than I do.
If my reading of Kirk is correct, then I would argue that his version of Conservatism was pretty much rejected by the vast majority of the people in the United States in the post-FDR era. I think modern Conservatism has taken the best of what Kirk had to offer, which I would argue is the strong reliance on Property Rights as the ultimate expression of Freedom and a healthy respect for the concept of Natural Law, while ignoring what seems to be the weakness...the idea that class differences and convention were static and necessary aspects of a just society. The so-called "Fusion" concept I would guess.
This is naive. In the first place, the automobile was the solution to a problem many people didn't even know they had. In some cases, demand had to be stimulated by undermining what was previously a satisfactory status quo.
Second, the spread of the automobile was enabled by massive government spending on highways and roads.(and probably oil subsidies too.)
In urban areas, living "organic" neighborhoods were bulldozed to pave the way for rootless commuters and interstate commerce. Those neighborhoods were generally chosen because they had the least politically organized communities--in other words, they were people not just least likely to resist governmental action against their interests, but also the least likely to agitate for government action in their interests. The result of such action was, in effect though perhaps not in intention, ethnic cleansing.
I find it sad that some libertarians are pushing for toll roads, when the road system itself is often the result of raw governmental power. Their criticisms do not go deep enough.
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.