Replies

This article very persuasively shows that libertarianism does not imply "cultural libertarianism," which is objectionable to many conservatives. Yet it fails to examine the other side of the issue --namely, that many conservatives, especially those grounded in religious principles, believe they are justified in forcing others to conform to their definition of morality. Of course, libertarianism can encompass everything from cultural hedonism to ultra-traditional conservatism to everything in between. The problem is, cultural conservatives, almost by definition, are not so "liberal" in allowing others the same freedom. This doesn't mean that libertarians cannot cooperate with conservatives on certain issues (as they can with liberals); but it does limit the possibilities for fusion.

Of course, libertarianism can encompass everything from cultural hedonism to ultra-traditional conservatism to everything in between.

Hence, IMHO, a tremendous weakness in libertarian thought.

What is it? If it comprised of such a wide spectrum of thought, it is likened to the story of the two blind men examining an elephant from the opposite ends.

I am a cultural conservative. Yet, I am not one to tell others how to live their lives. Many take the pro-life position as trying to enforce women what to do with their bodies. My position is not so. I want Roe v. Wade overturned, knowing full well that this will not be the end of abortions being performed. It does belong on the state, not federal level.

To Leftists and many libertarians alike, my mentioning of my pro-life stance is taken as if I want to force my views on others. That's not the case, and any intellectual honesty can attest to it.

Now, again, just what is libertarianism? I have "Libertarianism" by David Boaz, and "What it Means to Be a Libertarian" by Charles Murray. Boaz does a nice job in defining it, yet Murray's interpretation is different.

How do you sell a point which can be defined in so many different ways? The non-initiation of force and laissez-faire economic stance of libertarianism is highly attractive. But is that all there is to it?

"Yet it fails to examine the other side of the issue --namely, that many conservatives, especially those grounded in religious principles, believe they are justified in forcing others to conform to their definition of morality."

This is true and shows a misunderstanding of the nature of morality. Philosophically, morality presupposes the reality of Free Will. An action can not be considered "moral" unless it is freely chosen, which is why we do not charaterize the behavior of animals as either moral or immoral. The whole notion of imposing morality via force is an oxymoran which will undermine precisely what it seeks to promote.

When talking about common ground between the libertarians, and the conservatives or the liberals, you should bear in mind that "conservative" and "liberal" are politically relative terms. The degree of overlap will be determined by the "conservatives" and the "liberals" as they exist in the current political environment, and not by the libertarians.