Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
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 ...
Unfortunately we are being judged by the outpourings of the Rockwellians, just as all Muslims are held to be jihadists. The rest of us need to speak up more often.
No, but he was actually a strong influence on Jerry Pournelle.
Outstanding. An appropriate tag line, too!
You make it sound almost as if Kirk were himself a libertarian. Not so. Most libertarians seem to think that individuals are completely independent units, whose selfish and uncoerced actions will somehow work out magically to everyone's benefit in the end. Kirk valued custom and tradition for their stabilizing effect and thought societies were organic entities. He was fond of everything traditional, old, and customary. His idea that governments are instituted by God doesn't fit too well with your theory. That idea actually traces back to the New Testament, as does most conservative thinking, like the idea that man should have freedom and dignity. That's why free societies and limited government evolved only in the Christian West, not under Islam or in the Far East.
You don't really understand me, do you?? You have slapped Republicans in the face long enough by helping them lose election after election. Well, the elephant finally noticed you for who you are. You are not financed by American interests.
How so? Votes for Libertarian candidates GOES to Libertarian candidates. Libertarians don't owe the GOP anything, especially after the GOP denigrates Libertarians and then suddenly expects subservience from Libertarians on election day.
The GOP needs Libertarians more than the Libertarians needs the GOP. It is not the Libertarians' problem when RINO, moderate, butt-kissing Republicans lose close elections.
No, he obviously was not libertarian, as shown in "Chirping Sectaries" (which someone posts whenever the GOP loses an election). I'm saying that he was insufficiently cognizant of Burke's insight that tradition evolves in human societies through contact with the real world.
I think Kirk understood Burke very well. Both were deeply suspicious of people who think they have the perfect, logical system on which to reorganize society, so neither would have had much truck with today's libertarians ("Complete free trade! It's perfect! Automatically makes everybody richer!" "Open borders...'cause nobody else has a right to tell me where to go" "Legal drugs...'cause nobody has a right...." --you get the idea.) Burke defended institutions which were anything but ideal, like the British monarchy and aristocracy, because he feared radical change and supported institutions which grew organically out of societal history and were supported by custom. Very few people on FR these days seem to understand or support this brand of conservatism.
W'll pick our discussion up. For now, I must sleep for tomorrow., EEE
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Though I am unsure when this essay was written, Kirk predated Goldwater and the conservative movement. Indeed, he was one of American conservatism's foundational figures, but he was consistent enough to see the major flaws in the "fusionist" movement which has often usurped the title of conservatism.
Kirk himself would probably look down on today's GOP. He opposed the first Gulf War soon before his death. He denounced automobiles as mechanical jacobins, sacrificing real community on the altar of industrialization. He wrote ghost stories.
Libertarians are more at home in today's conservative movement than Kirk would be, and we are a poorer nation because of it.
(On another note, one of his daughters has a blog.)
Blood and soil and the workers' paradise are immanentist doctrines, like certain libertarian fantasies about materially producing our way into a paradise where the streets are lined with gold and significant state intervention is impossible.
Both libertarians and Marxists hold the whithering away of the state to be the political goal and ideal, and both dismiss any concerns about the state's fundamental relation to God and to the good life. Many believe the pursuit of happiness is fundamentally subjective and beyond not just legal but even rational consideration and criticism.
Wow, I never even looked at the Author of that article...LOL. Yes, I am very familiar with Kirk and his writings. You are correct, he surely predates the Goldwater movement. Kirk was obviously much closer to what I might call a "utopian libertarian" than the "practical libertarian" who emerged to become part of the Conservative movement during the latter half of the 20th Century. As for our being a poorer nation because libertarians moved away from Kirk's ideological purity...well...we will have to agree to disagree. While I myself am largely guided by a theoretical belief in libertarian principles, I feel it is, at best, naive to ignore the basic realities of human nature that limit pure libertarianism to a utopian dream rather than a coherent, truly viable, political ideology. I am pretty much the walking embodiment of the so-called "fusion" that Kirk held in such contempt...LOL
WAIT..I'm wrong, I'm thinking of someone else. Russell Kirk was NOT a Libertarian. He was a pure conservative. I am confusing him with someone else. My apologies.
I should not be attempting coherent thought at 2 AM on 4 hours sleep. When I return tomorrow, I'll post a more lucid reply to what has become a rather intelligent debate...despite my idiotic post a few minutes ago...LOL
Kirk analyzes the loss of this recognition in this very essay:
What binds society together? The libertarians reply that the cement of society (so far as they will endure any binding at all) is self-interest, closely joined to the nexus of cash payment. But the conservatives declare that society is a community of souls, joining the dead, the living, and those yet unborn
The Libertarians Kirk attacks are fundamentally presentist. Historical knowledge and precedents are beyond their concern. They care very little for those who have gone before. Since libertarianism can be summed up in a few pithy concepts, it cannot bear very much reality not already contained by such principles. Their philistinism should be pitiable, yet being so common it is downright tragic.
Do you know the date this essay was published? Was it pre-Goldwater?
Do you think Kirk would be at home in the modern conservative movement? As stated in my comments in #91, I think otherwise.
You might be interested in Daniel Larison's comments on Kirk here and here.
Thank you for posting this essay.
it is, at best, naive to ignore the basic realities of human nature that limit pure libertarianism to a utopian dream rather than a coherent, truly viable, political ideology.
Kirk prized prudence, convention and custom over ideology. Isn't "prudent ideology" an oxymoron? All ideologues think their system viable no matter the evidence otherwise.
Kirk considered conservatism the negation of ideology, an outlook tested by the long experience of human traditions so hated by would-be liberators.
Libertarian think tank = Toilet
>>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.<<
The author really should have capitalized "Libertarian."
The big L Libertarians won't give up any personal freedom to protect their families or country. Lately, too many conservatives have been willing to give up to much of that precsious freedom and privacy. The liberals want to compromise in the wrong places and limit freedom of speech and religion and even freedom of the press as long as its on the net and not the big liberal media corporations.
Thus I count myself as a rational conservative with (small L) libertarian concerns and I know better than to ever vote Libertarian.
Flawed premise, tedious execution, logical holes big enough to drop in a truck, this guy is an idiot. The article is little more than a juvenile temper tantrum.
Hayek predicted that Western Twentieth Century "conservatives" and followers of classic Eighteenth Century schools of liberal thought (a.k.a. libertarians) would eventually have to part company. Because the nature of conservatism is to protect and preserve the status quo, he concluded that conservatives would eventually act to protect creeping socialism and intrusive government. We have arrived and once again, Hayek has proved visionary.
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.