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:

The above began as a reply to another essay, which, broadly speaking, addressed the same sort of concerns as this one does, but from another viewpoint. Several FReepers asked me to embellish and restructure it so that it would stand alone, and this is the result.

Political homelessness can be a difficult thing to cope with. When I first encountered libertarian ideas, I thought my search was over, but subsequent reflection caused me to continue my quest. The refinements discussed here are my response to the widely expressed opinion that political libertarianism, particularly as promulgated by the Libertarian Party, is still "three or four feet from home."

Your comments are invited.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

Marshall Fritz is pro-life, as are about one-third of libertarians. My position is as a small 'l' libertarian is to ask pro-lifers, what penalty they propose for women, who have abortions. If it is true that abortion is a clash of rights, then the person denied rights needs to be compensated with the punishment of the women, who aborted them.

I find about one in 50 pro-lifers support punishment for women. I typically get all kinds of nonsense about how women are "victims" of abortion, etc.

So, should I be condemned as a "pro-abort" and worse for opposing the criminalization of abortion?

I'll move on to other issues between conservatives and libertarians later.

This has some things going for it.
I would be a little more precise on
the question of abortion, though.

The position most
compatible with other American
ideals is to protect the weaker party

...is simply that. American idealism.
However, the construction
of libertarianism is the subject, not what
Americans conceive as being ideal. Using
American idealism to generate a philosophy
seems roundabout, inasmuch as the latter will
be constructed so as to satisfy the former.
Just define American ideals as a philosophy
and let libertarianism arise from its own
fundamentals.

This will have the effect of counterposing
the right of an individual to decide for herself
whether or not to carry a pregnancy to full
term with the question of when a fetus
approaches personhood. That is the question.
Subsuming this to whatever is in fashion
in America today is not rigorous enough.

You make some very good points. Certainly wherever possible, we need always to work on amicable terms with those with whom we are in agreement on any issue. Those who insist on some form of ideological purity, to the extent where it later makes it impossible to work with others where the grounds are common, would doom us all to endless defeat. Their fanaticism is a form of madness, but it explains why Conservatives who are more numerous than Leftists in almost every society, have been in retreat for the past century. The Left never hesitates to make common cause, when it will advance any part of their agenda. Why must we tie our hands by refusing to respond as effectively?

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

Pretty good work!

I describe myself as a libertarian-Christian patriot fusionist, and it's pretty tough sledding!

The Christians cannot survive a government powerful enough, as this one is, to come after their children. The power of the state must be reduced, radically in order for them to get their children back.

This reduced state will be permissive to all sorts of misbehavior which Christians abhor, but that is a small price to pay, IMHO, for the souls of their kids.

OTOH, the libertarians have to give up, "if it feels good, do it" because a lot of things that feel good, although they "don't hurt anyone" are socially destructive in the long run.

Can't we all just get along?

-- I'll address your most difficult point first.

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.

At some point, near viablity, so conceded.

But a womans egg, fertilised in the lab, is obviously not a being with rights. Therefore, it is a moral dilemma as to exactly when a developing fetus has rights that supersedes its mothers.

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.

Exactly, and that decision is presently based on murder law. -- The state must prove, in a trial by jury, that a human being was killed with malice.

The state does not have the power to sequester women to prevent such 'murder'. -- Thus, the human dilemma is left up to state/local prosecutors as to whether a crime has been commited in each individual case. Such is individual freedom.

Constitutional law on individual rights is a very serious thing, agreed - and present abortion law is well balanced, imo.
- Medical advances may soon make it possible to grow a fetilized egg to term in an artifical womb. -- Should the state do so to preserve the developing fetus's 'rights'?

I will never vote Libertarian, and I will make sure that all my Christian friends truly understand what the Libertarian Party is all about, and why NOT to cast votes for them. I have heard every argument the LP has made for Republicans to jump ship and vote for them. NO SALE. The LP is an atheist party that supports policies that no informed Christian ever would. They prefer Dems in ofc to the GOP, something no real conservative would ever want, much less work for. (See the current LP's goal to spoil elections for GOP candidates if you have any doubt about it). I will do anything I can to make sure Christians know to stay away from it. So far, every one who has asked me about the LP, has easily agreed that they will not vote for it. Easiest sell on the planet. Like their allies, the Greens, they're comprised of exetremists, Chicken Littles who have an enemy, and a ready solution to save the world, if you'll only vote them into ofc, that is. It is a party for atheists, homos, and those who need the "freedom" to take drugs. It isn’t for those of us who KNOW the facts about the LP, that's for sure!!!

As a conservative (not a Republican) I believe many of the tenets of the Libertarian Party as I think most conservatives do also. But on many of their beliefs I put into the category of just plain goofy or it's never going to happen. Like legal drugs. Marijuana may be legalized some day but you can forget about the legalization of all drugs because the average American will not tolerate it. So why fight that issue? Maybe the LP should hire outside consultants to tell them what will not flush with Americans and put those issues on the back burner. Fight for the issues you stand a good chance of winning on.

One thing I've found with Libertarians is they have attracted a lot of bozos. I've had several email "fights" with Libertarians on this board who had no respect for my right to believe what I do and I felt they would force me to believe what they wanted if they could. No different than a commie. However, I have also run into great thinkers in the LP. Look at the example of Ron Paul. I have not heard him say one thing that I didn't whole heartedly agree on. Seems he is fighting the battles he believes can win or inject into the mainstream of ideas and he sounds and acts committed with conviction on his views.

I will probably remain "politically homeless" the rest of my life because I will not vote for another right wing party unless I'm thoroughly convinced they will win or at least be close in an election because I will not waste my vote and put a commie/lib in office.

The LP is an atheist party

I know lots of religious libertarians.

that supports policies that no informed Christian ever would.

Libertarians support smaller federal government.
Are you saying no Christian would support smaller federal government?

They prefer Dems in ofc to the GOP, something no real
conservative would ever want, much less work for.

I voted Republican at the top of the ticket
in 2000 and libertarian from there down.

Like their allies, the Greens, they're comprised of exetremists,

        Libertarians are allied with the Greens? I shudder to
        think of what other "advice" you are giving to your
        friends.

. It isn’t for those of us who KNOW the facts about the LP, that's for sure!!!

       You don't know the facts, as I have pointed out. By the way,
      if you really have a Bachelor's degree in Political Science,
      you'd better ask for your money back. I have attended Georgia
      State as well, and came away with some eduction in my field.
      They saw you coming.

A fine article. You seem to have given the matter much thought, and it looks like you write and think clearly.

A lot of what people take for libertarian-conservative conflict might be more the conflict between those who think radical changes are needed and those who don't. Many Republicans accept a lot of what's happened since FDR, though there are always some policies they are adamantly against. Let sleeping dogs lie seems to be a Republican precept. Libertarians seem to favor a more thoroughgoing rollback. On the other hand, conservatives are deeply concerned about prevailing moral laissez-faire of present day America and many libertarians take it more in stride.

Lately, I note two stripes of libertarian. There are those who strongly believe a rollback of government bureaucracy will make people more moral and responsible. And there are those who are more or less indifferent to this argument, favoring such a rollback in any case. I suspect the answer is that some people would be motivated to become more responsible, others to simply shuck off all responsibilities and live for the moment. This is pretty much what did happen before the rise of the welfare state. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" can be understood as an effort to move people from the second group into the first.

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.