The Conservative - Libertarian Schism: Freedom and Confidence

FreeRepublic ^ | July 31, 2002 | Francis W. Porretto

[fporretto]

Each abridgement of liberty has been used to justify further ones. Scholars of political systems have noted this repeatedly. The lesson is not lost on those whose agenda is total power. They perpetually strain to wedge the camel's nose into the tent, and not for the nose's sake.

Many a fine person will concede to you that "liberty is all very well in theory," follow that up with "but," and go on from there to tabulate aspects of life that, in his opinion, the voluntary actions of responsible persons interacting in freedom could never cope with. Oftentimes, free men and free markets have coped with his objections in the recent past, whether he knows it or not. You could point this out to him, provide references and footnotes, and still not overcome his resistance, for it does not depend on the specifics he cited.

His reluctance to embrace freedom is frequently based on fear, the power-monger's best friend.

Fantasist Robert Anton Wilson has written: "The State is based on threat." And so it is. After all, the State, no matter how structured, is a parasitic creature. It seizes our wealth and constrains our freedom, gives vague promises of performance in return, and then as often as not fails to deliver. No self-respecting people would tolerate such an institution if it did not regard the alternatives as worse.

The alternatives are seldom discussed in objective, unemotional terms. Sometimes they are worse, by my assessment, but why should you accept my word for it?

Let it be. The typical American, when he opts for State action over freedom, isn't acting on reasoned conviction, but on fear of a negative result. Sometimes the fear, which is frequently backed by a visceral revulsion, is so strong that no amount of counterevidence can dissolve it, including the abject failure of State action.

We've had a number of recent examples of this. To name only two prominent ones:

1. The welfare reform of 1996, which limited total welfare benefits to healthy adults and imposed work and training requirements for collecting them, is among the most successful social policy enactments of our time. Huge numbers of welfare recipients have left the dole and assumed paying jobs, transforming themselves from dead loads on society to contributors to it. Yet many politicians and those sympathetic to their aims continue to argue that the welfare system must be expanded, liberalized, and made more generous. A good fraction of these are honestly concerned about the possibility that the 1996 restrictions, the first substantial curtailments of State welfarism since the New Deal, are producing privation among Americans unable to care for themselves.
2. The War On Drugs, whose lineage reaches back to the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Control Act, has consumed tens of billions of dollars, radically diverted the attentions of state and federal law enforcement, exercised a pernicious corrupting influence on police forces, polluted our relations with several other countries, funded an immense underworld whose marketing practices are founded on bloodshed, and abridged the liberty and privacy of law-abiding Americans, but has produced no significant decrease in recreational drug consumption. Yet many Americans will not even consider the possibility that the War On Drugs should be scaled back or terminated altogether. Most resist from the fear that drug use and violence would explode without limit, possibly leading to the dissolution of civil society.

In either of the above cases, could we but take away the fear factor, there would be essentially no argument remaining.

Fear, like pain, can be useful. When it engenders caution, it can prolong life and preserve health. Conservatives in particular appreciate the value of caution. The conservative mindset is innately opposed to radical, destabilizing change, and history has proved such opposition to be wise.

However, a fear that nothing can dispel is a pure detriment to him who suffers it.

Generally, the antidote to fear is knowledge: logically sound arguments grounded in unshakable postulates and well buttressed by practical experience. Once one knows what brings a particular undesirable condition about, one has a chance of changing or averting it. The great challenge is to overcome fears so intense that they preclude a rational examination of the thing feared.

Where mainstream conservatives and libertarians part company is along the disjunction of their fears. The conservative tends to fear that, without State involvement in various social matters, the country and its norms would suffer unacceptably. Areas where such a fear applies include drug use, abortion, international trade, immigration, cultural matters, sexual behavior, and public deportment. The libertarian tends to fear the consequences of State involvement more greatly. He argues to the conservative that non-coercive ways of curbing the things he dislikes, ways that are free of statist hazards, should be investigated first, before turning to the police.

I call myself a libertarian, but I can't discount conservative fears in all cases -- especially where the libertarian approach to some social ill involves a major change to established ways. Radical transformations of society don't have a rosy history.

Yet conservatives, too, could be more realistic, and could show more confidence in the ideals they strive to defend. As Thomas Sowell has written in discussing the War On Drugs, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damned fool about it."

The past two decades, starting roughly with Ronald Reagan's ascent to national prominence, have laid the foundations for an enduring coalition between freedom-oriented libertarian thinkers and virtue-and-stability-oriented conservative thinkers. Each side needs to learn greater confidence in the other, if we are to establish the serious exchange of ideas and reservations, free of invective and dismissive rhetoric, as an ongoing process. Such confidence must include sufficient humility to allow for respect for the other side's fears -- for an unshakable confidence in one's own rightness is nearly always misplaced. There is little to learn from those who agree with you, whereas much may be learned from those who disagree.

[Texasforever]

You are proof that most "states rights" supporters are in reality nothing more than authoritarian scum.

Yawn, I guess. Sue me.

[tpaine]

The constitution contains no inalienable rights. Read it sometime. 'tex'

---

Life, Liberty, Property. - 14th.

---

Where is the inalienable part? 'tex'

---

You can only take those rights away with force. -- But in essence they are uninfringable.
The minute your force is removed, my unalienable rights reappear.

[dheretic]

No, I pitty you. States rights on most issues is bull$hit. States have no right to regulate anything the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution prohibits because of the 14th amendment. Are you an atheist? I ask because you're using a very obvious form of moral relativism. It's wrong for the feds to ban my guns and send jack-booted thugs to break down my door to search for drugs inside, but hey if the state wants to, I have no recourse if its constitution doesn't forbid it. Rubbish. Be a good citizen, shoot the thugs if they come in unnanounced to sieze your guns. It doesn't matter whether they work for some jackass mayor or some agency based out of DC. If they violate a fundamental right you have no obligation to listen to them and you are totally justified in defending yourself from their violence.

[tpaine]

You should chill-out, dude, and listen to what the man has to say.

---

I did. - I didn't like his arrogant attack, as he wrapped it in his self-described 'libertarian' view.

[Texasforever]

You can only take those rights away with force. -- But in essence they are uninfringable. The minute your force is removed, my unalienable rights reappear.

The 14th clearly states that those rights cannot be denied except with due process of law. That by definition means that under the constitution, they are NOT inalienable.

[Texasforever]

The 14th amendment is doo doo. LOL

[tpaine]

Do you believe that states can violate the 2nd amendment, and prohibit the possession of arms?

---

-- yes. - texasforever -

---

Thus, you admit -- you are no conservative, no believer in a free republic. And you do not support our constitution.
- What is your agenda here?

[Texasforever]

I have no recourse if its constitution doesn't forbid it.

Sure you do, you have 50 alternatives under the 10th amendment.

[Texasforever]

Thus, you admit -- you are no conservative, no believer in a free republic. And you do not support our constitution. - What is your agenda here?

To drive you insane.

[dheretic]

That by definition means that under the constitution, they are NOT inalienable.

Locke argued that you can temporarily or permanently forfeit a right based on your behavior. You can forfeit your right to life by murdering someone. You can temporarily forfeit your right to own a gun by commiting a violent crime and thus being sent to prison. Oh wait, sorry, you don't believe that people have rights. You believe we are subject to the will of the state.

[Willie Green]

I didn't like his arrogant attack, as he wrapped it in his self-described 'libertarian' view.

tpaine = Lord Protector of Libertarian Groupthink

[Texasforever]

That's such a messy idea that gets in the way of regulating the hell out of peoples' behavior.

Locke argued that you can temporarily or permanently forfeit a right based on your behavior

You appear to be arguing with yourself.

[dheretic]

Sure you do, you have 50 alternatives under the 10th amendment

Wrong answer. A government that systematically violates the natural rights of its citizens is not a legitimate one and its citizens have no obligation to follow its dictates. Any citizen whose rights have been fundamentally violated has an obligation to make his issues with government policy known to the courts. If the courts refuse to comply then he/she has the right to dismiss the policy altogether if it is one in an area where natural law clearly is in opposition with the ruling class-i mean public's-opinion. If the public will not leave the peaceful, otherwise law-abiding individual alone then anyone who attempts to enforce the act of tyranny is no more than an armed thug. As such they deserve anything and everything that comes their way.

[tpaine]

You can only take those rights away with force. -- But in essence they are uninfringable. The minute your force is removed, my unalienable rights reappear.

---

The 14th clearly states that those rights cannot be denied except with due process of law.
That by definition means that under the constitution, they are NOT inalienable. - tex -

---

Curious idea, tex.
We have delegated to the state the power to enFORCE criminal law. We take away the unalienable rights of convicted criminals as punishment. - These rights are restored upon release.

Really, consider going back to school. Try to make the 8th grade this time.

[Texasforever]

A government that systematically violates the natural rights of its citizens is not a legitimate one and its citizens have no obligation to follow its dictates.

Absolutely. You, as a free human being, have the "right" to do anything you may wish to do and even ignore a law against that activity. However; yas gots to pay if ya wants to play.

[dheretic]

I'm not arguing with myself. I agree with Locke. You forfeit a right only based on the severity of the offense. The only legitimate case is murder where you have essentially signed your own death warrant. Some rights can never be prohibited. The right of freedom of belief is one of them. The state never has a legitimate power to force you to believe one way or another. Nor does it have the right to sodomize you every day in prison. See that's the problem with people like you, your type of state government could simply prohibit the prosecution of police officers that shove a broom handle up a guy's ass trying to get a confession out of him the way that some of NYC's finest did a while back. But oh yeah, it's the state's right to be able to allow its enforcers to sodomize people if it chooses to. Rights only exist where the state finds them convenient. Afterall, that is the position you've taken.

[tpaine]

Obviously, but then;
- you are insane, - to deny, and to mock the constitution.

[Texasforever]

Really, consider going back to school. Try to make the 8th grade this time.

Naw, I wouldn't want to make you feel even more inferior.

[Texasforever]

See that's the problem with people like you, your type of state government could simply prohibit the prosecution of police officers that shove a broom handle up a guy's ass trying to get a confession out of him the way that some of NYC's finest did a while back

That is a bad thing?

[tpaine]

Whatever;
-- but I thank YOUR god, my boyo, that I am not a willie.