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.

[Roscoe]

The self-described "Party of Principle" is made up of members that reject its principles.

Funny.

[nopardons]

Correct ! When the LP platform is quoted, here, many Libertarians ( and libertarians, for that matter ), claim that they do NOT agree with what has been posted. How they can call themselves Libertarians, and condem, vocifforously , everyone who isn't one, whilst NOT agreeing with much of anything, that Their party stands for, is beyond me.The LP stance on Abortion ? Well, noooooooooo, they say. The LP stance on the war ( after 9/11 )? Well, noooooooooooooooooooo, they say. The LP stance on KIDDIE PORN ? Well, nooooooooooo ( though a few have said YES ! ), they say. The list is endless ! About the ONLY thing they ALL agree on , is the legalization of ALL dope. Ooppppppppps ... even that is incorrect; sorry ! Some only want pot legalized.

[wattsmag2]

You know, if you don't accept the platform, can you be a Libertarian? What would you be? A Neo-libertarian? A Nouveau-libertarian? Fracturing of parties leads to one thing and one thing only, DEMOCRATS.

Anybody who can't fathom that elections are won or lost by one of two parties is doomed to always being on the outside looking in, never even getting one of their priority legislation passed.

[Texasforever]

My only exposure to "libertarians" has been on this forum. Nuff said.

[nopardons]

You have just managed to nail every single FR fringer, in one. < b> CONGRATULATIONS </b> ! :-)

[nopardons]

Around 1975/ 1976 , in Chicago, I came in contact with a Libertarian. Outside of FR, he is THE only Libertarian, I have ever had any contact with. That first meeting was not a pleasant nor rewarding one. Neither, for that matter, have been the ones here.

My real life meeting, happened on a street corner, where a filthy, bearded, stoned , raving nutter was harranguing passerbys and attempting to hand out leaflets. He was in MY neighborhood ( no, he most assuredly was NOT living / working there ! ), and he was using foul language in front of babies, toddlers, children, and adult females, in the early afternoon. I had never even heard of Libertarians back then ; however, my friend ( she and I were taking our two small girls for ice cream ) had. As we tried to get away from him ( unfortunately, there was a red light and we had stopped for it ) , he ran after us, screaming irrational garbage about all manner of things; as well as how IMPORTANT it was to ... LEGALIZE DOPE !

[Texasforever]

Libertarianism can be summed up very easily "YOU AIN'T THE BOSS OF ME". It is the philosophy of rebellious 12 year olds hiding behind a facade of "Founding principles". I would have a hell of a lot more respect for them if they would drop the BS and just declare right up front that they want to translate the "Lord of the Flies" into a governing model of this country.

[nopardons]

Agreed ! :-)

I would also respect their stabs at refutation, at least a little bit, IF they would refrain from claiming that ALL of the FFs were Libertarians ( a patently ridiculous statement ! ); that Jesus Christ was a Libertarian ( a blasphemous, arrogant, and STUPID statement ! ), and stop CCPing cherrypicked words of the FFs, which they delusionally imagine prove their positions. Oh yes, and the Pavlovian repeatings of certain words / phrases , which are either really insulting ( to anyone with a working brain ) / meant to be a veiled personal insult.

[Roscoe]

I wonder what his FR handle is?

[nopardons]

So do I ! LOL

[WyldKard]

You are right. He wants to pursue issues of liberty and the constitution. You pretended to, but it is now clear that you are only interested in the legalization of drugs.

No, I initially opened up the discussion on POINT 2, which is listed as part of the thread.

And buddy, you don't know jack sh*t about me, or what I want, other than so far, I think the 10th Amendment should be followed, and am dismayed by the number of people who call themselves "Conservatives" who seem to think otherwise.

What is it with you libertarians? All the issues in the nation, and the only one you want to rant about is the WOD.

Probably because it's one of the few things that Authoritarian and Libertarian Conservatives actively disagree on. And because it's one of the chiefest abuses of the Constitution, upon which many other abuses hinge upon. Not much point on disagreeing on stuff that we see eye to eye on, yes? That just turns into a mutual backpatting session.

The best I can hope for, and would like to see, is the issue stop being made a Federal one and give the decision power back to the States, like it should have always been. While I am against Prohibition, I would rather have Constitutionally valid Prohibition, States-Rights based Prohibition, instead of what we have right now.

[Mark Bahner]

"Super. That means that from 1919 to 1933 you would have been an ardent prohibition supporter."

Yes, I would have encouraged people to follow the law, while simultaneously encouraging a repeal of Prohibition. (In fact, I would have vociferously opposed passing the Prohibition amendment.)

"Guess that liberty is a cheap one that comes and goes so easily."

BS. A situation where liberty goes much easier is when Congress passes laws (like present federal laws against medical marijuana) WITHOUT the required Constitutional amendment. At least with Prohibition, 2/3rds of Congress, and 3/4ths of the State legislatures, were required to come together to take away a liberty (the liberty to drink alcohol). Congress has taken away the liberty of sick people using medical marijuana with a simple majority vote.

And no doubt a significant minority, if not a majority, of people on this website...supposedly dedicated to a "Free Republic"...agree with such government tyranny. (Because it's "moral.")

"Maybe there really are issues more worthy of attention--in the real, adult world, that is. Hope you join us some day."

Yeah, right. The federal government violating the Consitution is not worth of "adult" attention. Maybe not for adult sheeple. For adults who are interested in freedom from government tyranny, it IS an issue worthy of attention.

[Cultural Jihad]

What about those people who do not want people to practise christianity. Should we make the christian religion illegal?

That is moral-cowardice: "Gosh. We must tolerate people killing each other with sodomy and polluting the culture with pornography and ripping the limbs off of babies and sticking needles in their arms because otherwise someone might someday outlaw daisies, or puppies, or saying the rosary!"

[tpaine]

Big deal. - All libertarians do not agree with the BIG 'L' platform.

You know that, as my example [the RLC position] shows.
217 by tpaine

As all Republicans do not agree with what their party sometimes misguidingly does. But, a fracture in the Libertarian Party is more devastating when you consider their already miniscule role in most all elections.

In effect then, you agree you made a meaningless generalization about libertarians, BUT that somehow, - party size makes it relevent? - Weird concept.

I find it better to work with a Party who gets most stuff right, and has a chance to win with a conservative (outside of New England, the West Coast, and several large cities).

Your 'party loyalist' concept, -- and the roscoe/tex 'Rino' cohort, have been doing political 'business as usual', - ignoring the constitution for decades. -- It doesn't work to stop big brother government.
-- We need to form a NEW political concensus, based on constitutional principles.
The RLC position could be the basis for such a coalition.

It is becoming obvious that the roscoe/tex types here at FR have no real interest in the restoration of a constitutional free republic.
-- Do You?

[Mark Bahner]

"And as it is still legal, what percentage of the population do you suppose still uses this not-OK drug?"

Based on a quick Internet search it appears that approximately 1 in 4 people in America smoke.

"What percentage use legal alcohol?"

Legal alcohol is not the same as cigarettes. Moderate alcohol consumption--at least certain types of alcoholic beverages, like red wine--can actually produce a net health benefit.

"Do you suppose that if amphetamine was legal, a similar percentage might use it?"

No, I don't think a similar percentage of people would use amphetamines as smoke cigarettes. Nicotine is much more addictive than amphetamines.

"Would that be OK with you?"

No person putting something in their body that causes a net decrease in their health is "OK" with me. People shouldn't do things that are bad for them. But that isn't the issue. A much more important issue is the federal government violating The Law (the Constitution). The problems related to the federal government violating The Law are much more severe than any problems related to adults CHOOSING to put substances in their bodies that harm their health.

"Feel any safer on the freeway at rush hour, knowing that every tenth driver was on crystal meth?"

Complete BS. We have plenty of available evidence from Europe (where drugs laws are much more relaxed) that no such thing will occur.

And in any case, all *I* have advocated is that the *federal* government stop violating The Law. A great way to test your ridiculous scenario is to remove all federal laws against drugs, and see whether states that legalize crystal meth (or any other drug) suffer significant problems relative to states that keep criminal penalties on crystal meth (or any other drug).

"Or will DUI laws keep speedfreaks from driving and using, just like they keep drunks off the road?"

NO law or set of laws will ever keep drunks off the road. During Prohibition, there were drunk drivers. There may have been fewer than immediately before or after Prohibition...but there were still drunk drivers.

If the federal government ends its completely unconstitutional War on Some Drugs, you can go live in an authoritarian state that retains laws that criminalize a wide range of drugs. I'll go live in a state that doesn't criminalize drugs (except when used in a manner that endangers others lives, such as when used in a manner that singnificantly reduces the ability to operate a motor vehicle). Because I think Patrick Henry was right: "I know not what course others may take; but as for me...give me liberty, or give me death."

[tpaine]

Big deal. - All libertarians do not agree with the BIG 'L' platform.

You know that, as my example [the RLC position] shows.
217 by tpaine

As all Republicans do not agree with what their party sometimes misguidingly does. But, a fracture in the Libertarian Party is more devastating when you consider their already miniscule role in most all elections.

In effect then, you agree you made a meaningless generalization about libertarians, BUT that somehow, - party size makes it relevent? - Weird concept.

I find it better to work with a Party who gets most stuff right, and has a chance to win with a conservative (outside of New England, the West Coast, and several large cities).

Your 'party loyalist' concept, -- and the roscoe/tex/np/cj 'Rino' cohort;
- have been doing political 'business as usual', - ignoring the constitution for decades. -- It doesn't work to stop big brother government.
-- We need to form a NEW political concensus, based on constitutional principles.
The RLC position could be the basis for such a coalition.

It is becoming obvious that the roscoe/tex/cj/np types here at FR have no real interest in the restoration of a constitutional free republic.
-- Do You?

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/rlc/721810/posts

[tpaine]

----- CRICKETS -----

Your post at #197 was well refuted at both #198 & #207.

No reply? - Why?

[wattsmag2]

In effect then, you agree you made a meaningless generalization about libertarians, BUT that somehow, - party size makes it relevent? - Weird concept.

Party size makes EVERYTHING relevent. How can any party be relevent without any elected officials, or any hope for them.

Your 'party loyalist' concept, -- and the roscoe/tex 'Rino' cohort, have been doing political 'business as usual', - ignoring the constitution for decades. -- It doesn't work to stop big brother government.
-- We need to form a NEW political concensus, based on constitutional principles.
The RLC position could be the basis for such a coalition.

When you truly feel that anything but a moderate or liberal can be elected in the portions of the country I mentioned in an earlier post, ask me this question again. We elected Jesse Helms in NC. That would not be possible in New England. One has to work within the realm of reality. Lack of realism is the Libertarians'(as well as single issue adherents') biggest stumbling block.

It is becoming obvious that the roscoe/tex types here at FR have no real interest in the restoration of a constitutional free republic.
-- Do You?

Nice concept, no easy road there though. In the meantime, I'll just plug along voting for the candidate closest to my views who has even a remote chance to win, always hoping for a sea change in public opinion that would allow for the election of constitutionalists..

[Mark Bahner]

"I feel that business left totally unchecked will resort to whatever makes the most profit and especially what makes them competitive."

Businesses are NEVER "left totally unchecked." Businesses are ALWAYS checked by whether customers want to purchase their products. If you had the choice between a shirt made by children chained to textile machines, versus a more expensive shirt made by adults not chained to machines, would you choose the first?

Nike (and others) has already learned that customers demand products made in such a manner that the customers can feel good about having them. (Look at the fur industry: 50 years ago, there was virtually no social stigma attached to wearing a fur. Now, even though women are significantly more wealthy, and could therefore afford MORE furs, the social stigma has actually reduced fur usage.)

"If a company is out performing another, the lagging company HAS to adopt the same policies of the better company or cease to exist."

Yes. Now go look at the Fortune list of the "Ten Best Companies to Work for in America." I can virtually guarantee you that those companies that are perenially among the "Best Companies to Work For" are also perenially among the most *profitable* in their industry (e.g., Southwest Airlines).

The idea that "laissez-faire" (meaning only that the GOVERNMENT "leaves alone") capitalism produces a "race to the bottom" (for worker safety, for product quality, or for the environment) isn't supported by history. The race is actually to the top.

"A dissenting worker is not going to get a job anywhere in this "laissez faire" environment because the companies will have evolved into a few giant conglomerates with shared data bases about such "disruptive" people."

I heard a story on NPR about a stock analyst at...I forget the company. The analyst downrated Enron, when everyone else was bullish. The company eventually fired the stock analyst, because his (realistic) evaluations were killing their consulting business for Enron (by lowering Enron's stock price). Do you really think that stock analyst will never be able to find a job again? SOME firm SOMEWHERE will stick only to the stock analyst side of the business, and those people will want the TRUTH. Likewise, the guy could also go to a company that's a large institutional investor.

Honesty pays. Not every single time, and not always immediately. But in the long run, and averaged out over many instances, it pays.

I agree that employees whose ONLY contribution is disruption will have a hard time getting a job. But that's because they're bad employees.

"To think that businesses in a free for all environment will NOT resort to whatever makes them the most profit ( which means ANYTHING they can get away with)..."

I'm not suggesting that companies be allowed to get away with force, fraud, or violation of contracts. (So, in fact, I would certainly oppose children chained to machines. Or even children below a certain age having to work.)

I'm only saying that laws like minimum wage laws are not necessary.

[tpaine]

In effect then, you agree you made a meaningless generalization about libertarians.
BUT that somehow, - party size makes it relevent? - Weird concept.

Party size makes EVERYTHING relevent. How can any party be relevent without any elected officials, or any hope for them.

Exactly why I posted the info about the new RLC forum formed by Jim Robinson. - Did you even bother to punch it up?

RLC Liberty Caucus | latest threads Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/rlc/browse

I'll just plug along voting for the candidate closest to my views who has even a remote chance to win, always hoping for a sea change in public opinion that would allow for the election of constitutionalists..

Dream on then, repeating the same political insanities, as you lose your constitutional rights, and our free republic.