The Conservative - Libertarian Schism; A Harmonization

In 1987, a California organization called the Advocates for Self-Government, led by a brilliant polemicist named Marshall Fritz, set forth to persuade the nation that the libertarian political philosophy could answer most, if not all, of the most vexing questions in public debate. To aid in opening minds to his message, Mr. Fritz composed a short quiz, whose results were intended to determine where a man's opinions placed him in the overall distribution of political opinion. Mr. Fritz built a campaign around this quiz, and called it "Operation Politically Homeless," to emphasize the considerable gap that had grown up between the major political parties and the typical American. It was upon meeting Mr. Fritz and being exposed to his presentation of the libertarian idea that I first decided to call myself a libertarian.

Yet I'm still a politically homeless man, and am still made uncomfortable by it. Yes, I call myself a libertarian; note the lower-case L. However, I differ with "party" Libertarians -- note the upper-case L -- on several important topics. And the people I get along best with, by party affiliation, are not Libertarians but Republicans.

Many conservatives find themselves at odds with the official positions of the Republican Party on one or more important points. Yet most of those persons would not be comfortable with "pure" libertarianism, and for good reasons. It's too wholesale. It attempts to answer every question, to be all things to all men. And it fails to recognize where it ceases to provide palatable answers.

Please don't mistake me. I think the libertarian political philosophy, where applicable, is a very good one. It's more accurate in its assessment of human nature and its controlling influences, and leads to better societies and better economic results, than any other political concept ever advanced. But the "where applicable" part is very important; in fact, it's the most important part of this paragraph, as it explains in near-totality the "conservative-libertarian schism."

Where would the libertarian postulates of individual rights and individual responsibilities fail to apply? Three generic places:

On the subject of international dealings, including military excursions, American libertarians have strained under the tension of conflicting desires. On the one hand, the State's warmaking power is the most dangerous thing it possesses, at least superficially. On the other, no one has yet advanced a plausible market-based scheme for protecting the country that would operate reliably enough to satisfy us. Moreover, the American military, with a few exceptions, really has been used in a wholesome, life-and-freedom-promoting way, against genuinely deserving targets, and has met high ethical standards wherever it's been sent.

Immigration is another area of real agony for American libertarians. There's much truth to the old saw that you can't be anti-immigrant without being anti-American, for America is largely a nation of immigrants. Yet the demise of the assumption of assimilation has rendered large-scale immigration to these shores a positive danger to the commonalities on which our national survival depends. It's unclear, given world trends, that we could re-invigorate the mechanisms that enforce assimilation any time soon. Until we do, the path of prudence will be to close the borders to all but a carefully screened trickle from countries with compatible cultures. Our collectivity must preserve its key commonalities -- a common language, respect for the law and a shared concept of public order, and a sense of unity in the face of demands posed by other nations or cultures -- if it is to preserve itself.

Milton Friedman, one of the century's greatest minds, wrote in his seminal book Capitalism And Freedom: "Freedom is a tenable objective for responsible individuals only. We do not believe in freedom for children or madmen." How true! "Pure" libertarianism has wounded itself badly by attempting to deny this obvious requirement of life: the irresponsible must be protected and restrained until they become responsible, so that they will be safe from others, and others will be safe from them. Madmen who were granted the rights of the sane nearly made New York City unendurable. If the "children's rights" lobby ever got its way, children would die in numbers to defy the imagination, and the American family would vanish.

Of course there are difficulties in determining who is responsible and who isn't. No one said it would be easy. Yet our court system, excepting the obscene, supra-Constitutional "Family Courts," works quite well to determine competence, and would work still better if it were relieved of the burden of all the victimless crimes that swell court dockets nationwide.

Finally, abortion. Let it be conceded that a woman has the right to control her body and its processes. But let it also be conceded that a fetus in the womb is a human being with human rights, not to be deprived of that status by any sophistry. The clash is absolute; rights theory cannot resolve it. Therefore an arbitrary political decision must be made. The position most compatible with other American ideals is to protect the weaker party -- the developing baby -- from destruction by the stronger, unless doing so would demonstrably endanger the life of the mother.

Pure libertarian thinking must concede these bounds -- the bounds of individual action, individual responsibility, and clearly defined, non-contradictory rights -- before "orthodox" conservatives will take it seriously.

By contrast with the above, matters such as the War On Drugs are minor bagatelles. Most conservatives are open-minded enough to consider the possibility that the Drug War might be misconceived. Indeed, there are far more conservatives in the pro-legalization ranks than liberals. The harmony between rights theory and the argument for legalization only buttresses the practical evidence that the Drug War's massive invasions of privacy, erection of unaccountable vice squad bureaus, and sanctification of police-state tactics has done far more harm than good. The conversation will continue, the evidence will accumulate still further, and eventually the Drug War will end.

On the purely practical matter of political efficacy, the Libertarian Party should not be expected to produce electoral victories. It can't, in the nature of things. It's not pragmatic enough to play to the populace's current desires or demands. As a particular "libertarian" position becomes popular enough to command wide support, it will usually be adopted by the Republicans. This is as it should be; third parties do their best work along the margins of the debate, by addressing the more "daring" ideas that the institutionally committed major parties can't afford to play with while they're still controversial.

There's no shame in adhering to either the LP or the GOP, whether your convictions are libertarian or more conventionally conservative. The only shame is in insisting that you must be right, that all precincts have reported now and forever, that your mind is unchangeably made up regardless of whatever new logic or evidence might be presented to you, from whatever source. But this was put far better by the polemicist admired by more conservatives and libertarians than any other, the late, great Ayn Rand:

As to your first point, I did not object to maintaining criminal penalties against women particularly for plea bargaining purposes to force testimony against the abortionist. If a woman has an abortion or five abortions, her crimes are somewhat limited in scope compared to our local professional baby-killer here who kills nearly eighty per week, weekafter week after week after week. I practiced criminal law for decades. Trust me that as to any other crime, the ring-leader, if successfully prosecuted will pay a much higher price. The abortionist is the ring-leader. The woman is the opportunity for his profit. Whatever we pro-lifers may be tempted to think, the abortionist is not a disembodied contradeus ex machina. He is regrettably not yet an inanimate object. In a sane society, he would be executed, but that seems unlikely. He ought to be the prime target however. The woman may well have mitigating circumstances which may not reduce her guilt but may justify reduction or elimination of punishment. The abortionist is to abortion what the queen bee is to the hive. Every one criminally punished will deter others. Jail the woman and you may stop another abortion or two. Jail or legally execute the abortionist and you will save thousands.

Second, the Catholic Church never taught that life began at three months. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that in his Summa Theologica. One of his very rare errors. He was not pope. He was not infallible as he would have freely conceded. He believed that the female in utero was not "ensouled" until midway through the pregnancy but that the male was "ensouled" earlier. The inference was that humanity was not present until the soul was present. Nonetheless, if St. Thomas Aquinas were alive today and learned simply what the teaching of this pope is in Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas would smack his forhead and exclaim: Of course, of course, why didn't I realize that. He is not a Doctor of the Church to rewards rebelliousness. Also, obtain a copy of the freely available Didache which is the earliest Church writings that are not Scripture (ca. 120 A.D.) and see that abortion, all abortion, at ANY stage of pregnancy was prohibited from the outset. So, yes, you are wrong.

Who cares if conservatives of libertarian bent are comfortable with libertarian atheists and agnostics? Well, we got along without you before we met you and we can get along without you now so I guess you ought to care. If you want to coalition build in order to lower your taxes or ome such thing, count us out unless you are willing to also address our issues. There is no issue more important than the mass murder which is abortion. I have no interest in promoting to political power (or sharing conservative power with) those who do not believe in God, heaven, hell, the afterlife, et al., for the reasons I have previously stated and which you, as an apparent non-believer do not see fit to address for obvious reasons. You will find yourself an infinitesimal minority of godless capitalists or whatever you may be or you will find yourselves allied with the godless Left.

I have previously stated my admiration for the moral efforts of those sincere atheists or agnostics who nonetheless strive for moral results and heroically, I might add. Nonetheless, like Rand's, theirs is a lonely path, strewn with major obstacles and void of serious assets. In the last analysis, libertarianism is a sterile creed and a poor substitute for the real thing. It has its moments as noted by Frank Meyer, but after struggling with himself and his atheism and then agnosticism for nearly twenty-five years, Mr. Meyer was baptized a Catholic on his deathbed, advanced lung cancer having dramatically focused his attention. He was a wonderful and insightful man of stupendous personal integrity and is still missed thirty years later by those who had the privilege of knowing him. Murray Rothbard, also died a fervent Christian and devoted his last years to explaining that to libertarians. It was in all the papers.

If by Natural Rights, you mean the anarchistic excesses of the French Revolution or the various miniRands of our own era, thanks, but no thanks. Natural Law, on the other hand, proceeds from God and is a very well-developed idea particularly in such works as Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas who is even more worthy of attention after 800 years than even Murray Rothbard or John Stuart Mill.

If you simply disagree on some matters of policy, you MAY still be worthy of alliance but if you think that the issue of the implications of belief in God, heaven, hell, afterlife, etc., are not worth discussing intelligently and respectfully, then what are we missing by not allying with you? It is easier to convert misguided and ignorant liberals negatively indoctrinated in government schools and to turn them into knowledgeable and effective warriors for actual freedom than to convert self-obsessed libertarians.

The cost-benefit analysis of coalition building does not militate in favor of people whose assumed personal right to keep themselves drugged occupies a high priority or who would sooner the poor die and get out of their wallets or think that Bruce and Lance make a lovely couple and ought to be allowed to marry, or whatever. I personally don't care if anyone wants to spend their lives medicated legally or otherwise unless it affects me, my family or the society in which we live.

Many of us are simply not impressed with the pseudo-profundity of a "movement" which is of temporary use to the hard left as were the Spanish anarchists of the 1930s but will be crushed by the left when the time comes. We are not drafting anyone. Believe as you wish. This is America in which you ought always to be free to believe anything or nothing.

And no, we are not liberals, but grown-ups who understand that with rights go responsibilities. I say this as one who has read the Lysander Spooners, the Robert Nozicks, and a raft of other libertarian authors, each, oh so impressed with the absolute imperative of his or her every whim as to his or her own life, with nary a care for the hard work necessary to give them the opportunity and freedom to publicly speculate. I must have read Atlas Shrugged and most of Rand's other books five times each so thrilled was I with her authoritarian tione in service to the absolute value of her own self-worship. I served in my misspent youth as a state officer of the Libertarian Party. Eventually, I grew up and put away the things of a child.

Could the constitution be so amended? Such an amendment would violate several other inalienable rights, imo, and thus be unconstitutional on its face.

Without a doubt, YES, it would be Constitutional.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as established by the people. Furthermore, the Constitution includes provisions for making ANY amendment to the Constitution that the people (three fourths of the several states) may deem appropriate. If the people were stupid enough to vote for it, an amendment could, within the bounds of the Constitution, take away any of the rights that are enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution. Similarly, an amendment could establish a national religion.

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Note that the only restriction that was ever placed on amendments expired in 1808. In fact, if those restrictions had still been in place in 1913, the 16th Amendment would have been un-Constitutional. Come to think of it, I wish that had been a permanent restriction. Our country would not be in the bad condition it is in today, had that been a permanent restriction.

But, since there are no remaining restrictions to amendments, an amendment could establish a national religion or take away our right to worship legally, at all.

Regardless, if you want to make abortion illegal, the first step must be to amend the Constitution to negate the first phrase of the First Amendment, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". As long as that phrase remains operative, any attempt to make abortion illegal will be un-Constitutional, as it would have the effect of establishing Christianity as a national religion, over other religions that have congregations in this country, of which many, not only allow abortion, but even see it as a valid method of sex selection.

I am certainly opposed to abortion, but without our Constitution, we would likely not even have freedom of religion. Our Constitution has been eroded by both Democrats and Republicans for many reasons, using the excuse that the Constitution is a "living document", ignoring the fact that what makes it alive, is the amendment process.

We must ask ourselves a question. Do you want to further erode the Constitution or do it right and strengthen it?

Could the constitution be so amended? Such an amendment would violate several other inalienable rights, imo, and thus be unconstitutional on its face.

Without a doubt, YES, it would be Constitutional. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, --

Yes indeed, and a republican form of government is guaranteed, as are life, liberty, and property, under the bill of [inalienable, imo] rights. -- In other words, such basic rights cannot be 'amended'/prohibited/taken away by majority rule.
-- They can only be reasonably 'regulated' by local/state laws, using constitutional due process.

--- as established by the people. Furthermore, the Constitution includes provisions for making ANY amendment to the Constitution that the people (three fourths of the several states) may deem appropriate. If the people were stupid enough to vote for it, an amendment could, within the bounds of the Constitution, take away any of the rights that are enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution. Similarly, an amendment could establish a national religion.

We fought a civil war over this theory that rights are what a majority SAY they are.

-- I don't really understand the reasoning behind denying that our basic rights are inalienable.

Maybe someone, someday, can explain.

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.