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.

[VA Advogado]

The libertarians and their fellow travelers have never been able to formulate a cogent reply to those findings.

They seem to have a hard time with, among other things, grasping the concept that interstate commerce starts long before an item crosses the border.

[Mark Bahner]

"We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws..."

Whoopee! You've found a place where I don't (at present) agree 100% with the Libertarian Party platform.

Big deal. The Libertarian Party is still about a 1.8 trillion times better than the Republican Party...whose platform, by the way, is an inconsistent mish-mash, laced with socialism and tyranny.

[Roscoe]

The Libertarian Party is still about a 1.8 trillion times better than the Republican Party.

The market disagrees with you.

[tpaine]

In 1914 an unconstitutional legislative 'act' was passed, prohibiting some drugs.

---

Can you share with the audience which judge or even which court has declared that 1914 act unconstitutional?
You libertines like to cite all the provision of the constutition except the one where it says the supreme court is the ultimate arbitrator of what is unconstitutional.

---

Yep, 'we the people' delegated that power to the USSC. -- And if they abuse it, it is our right, our duty, to demand recourse.
In allowing drug prohibition, they are abusing that power, imo, -- and in the opinion of many others.
We may have to take measures if our constitutional rights continue to be ignored.

[HumanaeVitae]

He's an atheist. People are nothing more than material to him. If parents have a child they don't want, they created it so they can destroy it. Old people cost too much, so they should be euthanized, and so on. It's pretty typical stuff for an atheistic utilitarian ("whatever does the most good for the most people). I.e. we can lower health care costs by getting rid of terminally ill patients. Pretty sick, but at least he's an honest atheist.

[HumanaeVitae]

Realized that there is no such thing as an "ideal" society...not even a capitalist one.

[Mark Bahner]

"Congress has provided them with detailed justifications between its controlled substances statutes and its Constitutional powers under general welfare and interstate commerce."

1) "Controlled substances statutes" can never establish any power beyond that which is in the Constitution.

2) "Interstate commerce" (actually "commerce among the several states") is merely a subset of the powers granted to Congress to promote the "general welfare." There is NO general power conferred by the "general welfare" clause of Article I, Section 8.

3) Congress, in its Controlled Substances Act, exceeds its authority under the clause dealing with "commerce among the several states," because it unconstitutionally reaches into states to prohibit manufacturing, possession, and sale that occur entirely within one state. (For example, the unconstitutional over-riding of state referenda on medical marijuana.)

Why anyone who comes to a site with the name "Free Republic" would support such tyranny (violation of The Law by the federal government) is puzzling. The only reason I can think of is that these people must be "conservatives." (Which explains the phenomenon, but certainly doesn't excuse it.)

[Roscoe]

Empty assertions, begging the question at every turn. As near to cogent as libertarian doctrine ever rises.

[VA Advogado]

Tell it to roscoe. He wants cites for your position.

I have no trouble taking Roscoe's statements at face value. Unlike you, he does not have a history of fudging the facts.

[tpaine]

The libertarians and their fellow travelers have never been able to formulate a cogent reply to those findings. - roscoepap

---

Its been done here at FR ad nauseum, for over four years now.

Get rest.

[Mark Bahner]

"The market disagrees with you."

Yes, I know that the vast majority of people in the U.S. are like you, in that they love big, unconstitutional, government. (The remarkable thing is to find so many of them on "Free Republic.")

[VA Advogado]

We may have to take measures if our constitutional rights continue to be ignored.

What is your libertarian side show going to do? Storm the USSC and give Ruth Bater Ginsburg a nuggy?

[dheretic]

Congress has the power "[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States . . . ." U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. And before you make an ass out of yourself, please understand how this provision of the constitution works. Pay careful attention to Wickard v. Filburn where the Supreme Court in 1942 proclaimed that even activities such as a farmer's growing grain to feed to his own livestock had been meets the test of "interstate commerce.

I could give a rat's ass less about what the SCOTUS ruled during FDR's administration. They capitulated to that crippled fascist because he threatened them with what was tantamount to the destruction of the SCOTUS if they didn't give him exactly what he wanted: free reign to regulate anything. The part of the Constitution you cited backs what I said. Commerce among the several states, not in the several states. Thank you and have a nice day.

[Roscoe]

Its been done here at FR ad nauseum

Not even once.

[Mark Bahner]

"Empty assertions, begging the question at every turn."

Only "empty assertions" to someone who knows nothing about the Constitution.

If they're so "empty," it ought to be easy for you to refute them. Why not give it a try?

[dheretic]

Better than the majority of "Conservatives" who actively enlarge the government because they are nothing more than Christian Socialists.

[Roscoe]

the vast majority of people in the U.S. are like you, in that they love big, unconstitutional, government.

Don't confuse our Constitution with the simplistic inanities of the LP platform.

[HumanaeVitae]

Actually, when you ask me to define "liberty" and "force" you're proving my point. All idealistic philosophies end in either absurdity or arbitrary decision-making. If you and I can't agree on what "liberty" means, how can we have a libertarian society? Take abortion, for instance. There are Libertarians for Life, and there are Pro-Choice libertarians. Both can make equally valid points. Who's right? Who's wrong? How do you know? If you're an atheist--as most libertarians are--there's no real right or wrong, only "non-rational" and "rational" behaviors. But what's rationality?

I would invite you to read more Ayn Rand. Especially the parts about her personal life. Her small little intellectual group was called the "Collective", and she ruled it like a tyrant. If she thought one of her minions was insufficiently "rational", i.e. disagreed with her, she "excommunicated" them. In other words, here's the ultimate "rational" libertarian using her version of "force"--exile--to enforce her version of "rationality". I'm sure the losing party in these battles had just as many good points as Rand. It didn't matter. Rand had the power in the group, and she used it to settle disputes arbitrarily.

Cheers, HV

[Mark Bahner]

"Pay careful attention to Wickard v. Filburn where the Supreme Court in 1942 proclaimed that even activities such as a farmer's growing grain to feed to his own livestock had been meets the test of 'interstate commerce.'"

Yes, and the Supreme Court also declared, in "Heart of Atlanta," that a hotel in the middle of Atlanta is engaged in interstate commerce...and that therefore the private hotel owner could not, under the Constitution, prevent blacks from coming into his hotel.

So what do those decisions prove? Seems to me they prove that the majority of Supreme Court justices in those decisions were blithering idiots.

[Mark Bahner]

"Don't confuse our Constitution with the simplistic inanities of the LP platform."

You wouldn't know our Constitution from toilet paper. Because your Republican Party has helped to make the two indistinguishable.