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]

it unconstitutionally reaches into states to prohibit manufacturing, possession, and sale that occur entirely within one state.

Show me how California's medical marijuana referendum established that the sales made pursuant to its povisions involved only drugs manufactured and used entirely within one state.

[Roscoe]

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?

Good question.

[Roscoe]

You wouldn't know our Constitution from toilet paper.

No, I can tell the difference between the Constitution and the LP platform.

[VA Advogado]

I asked you not to make an ass out of yourself.

[Mark Bahner]

"Take abortion, for instance. There are Libertarians for Life, and there are Pro-Choice libertarians."

Yes, just as you'll find Republicans who are for life, and for choice. And you'll find Democrats who are for life, and for choice.

But look at the vast majority of other issues, e.g., the War on Some Drugs, federal spending on education, federal aid to agriculture...and you'll find much more solidarity of opinion among Libertarians than among Republicans. The Libertarian Party is much more ideologically consistent than the Republican Party. Which is easy to do, since the Republican Party isn't ideologically consistent at all.

[tpaine]

Thanks for reposting that one.

I've always admitted trolling for anti-constitutional agendas. --- And this does indeed inflict pain on those so exposed.
JR seems to think this is my personal failing, - well - its not, its just business as usual around here.

But of course, I have 'unclean hands'. -- How can I wash them when I'm covered constantly in anti-libertarian crap?

[tpaine]

Everincreasing roscoepap.

[tpaine]

va-pap

[HumanaeVitae]

Well, this isn't about Republicans or Democrats or capital "L" Libertarians. It's about definitions. Again, if you and I disagree on what the idea "liberty" entails, then how are you going to form a society around that "idea"?
By the way, this also works on collectivists with things like "equality". In fact, it works against all Leftists--including libertarians.

[tpaine]

Its been done here at FR ad nauseum

---

Not even once -roscoepap

---

Bull.

[tpaine]

If you're an atheist--as most libertarians are--there's no real right or wrong, only "non-rational" and "rational" behaviors.

---

Knock off the anti-libertarian and religious smears.

[VA Advogado]

You can start by taking them out of your pants.

[tpaine]

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?

---

Good question. roscoepap

---

No it is a nonsensical, pap question. What specifically does 'libertarian' or idealists have to do with this pitiful generality?

ANY society unable to agree on liberty is obviously doomed.

[Mark Bahner]

"Well, this isn't about Republicans or Democrats or capital "L" Libertarians. It's about definitions. Again, if you and I disagree on what the idea "liberty" entails, then how are you going to form a society around that "idea"?"

We don't form a society around the "idea of liberty." We form a society around a principle. Specifically, the principle which is on every Libertarian Party membership card:

"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they don't forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."

The application of this principle is that laws are stripped down to ONLY those laws that protect people from violence or fraud (i.e., laws against rape, murder, robbery, mail fraud). (In my case, I would maybe add laws against child labor. But actually, I can see that they really aren't necessary, as long as one allows a child to "leave" his or her parents, to be adopted by someone else. So I guess child labor laws aren't really necessary, after all.)

"By the way, this also works on collectivists with things like "equality". In fact, it works against all Leftists--including libertarians."

Aren't you the fellow that supposedly used to be a libertarian? If so, you're suprisingly clueless about libertarians!

The proper view of the political spectrum is that both fascists and communists are on the far left (they support state control of virtually everything) and anarchists are on the far right (no government at all).

In that context, there are NO "libertarian leftists." Libertarians are on the farrrrr right, just to the left of the anarchists. (Republicans are about 1.8 trillion dollars to the left of Libertarians.)

[tpaine]

Again, if you and I disagree on what the idea "liberty" entails, then how are you going to form a society around that "idea"? hv

---

Supposedly, all of us here at FR being conservative constitutionalists, we have already agreed on the basics of liberty, as they are outlined in the constitution itself.

I doubt you agree with much of the document, as you have admitted that in your view states can violate the BoRs at will.

So again, can you explain your agenda here?

[Mark Bahner]

"Show me how California's medical marijuana referendum established that the sales made pursuant to its povisions involved only drugs manufactured and used entirely within one state."

It's not California's job to prohibit substances that the FEDERAL government doesn't like from coming into and out of California's borders. That's the FEDERAL government's job.

If the FEDERAL government wants to make bringing marijuana into or out of California a federal crime, it presumably can do so. (In actuality, I don't think that the "commerce clause" was intended to operate in this manner...that the federal government RESTRICTED movement of commerce between states. I think the commerce clause was intended to EASE the flow of commerce, not to restrict it. But that debate could be held for later.)

If the federal government wants to make transporting marijuana into or out of California a crime, they (the federal government) should write the federal law...and then spend THEIR wasted money (which is actually extorted from The People) on that. (Monitor manifests of trucks crossing the borders into and out of California. Set up jackbooted DEA agents at roads entering and exiting California. That sort of thing.)

Your attitude--that California is obligated to do prohibit marijuana from coming into or out of its state, just because the *federal* government doesn't like marijuana--is amazingly fascistic.

You would fit in very well with the fascists in the Bush adminstration:

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1844/a06.html?204

[Mark Bahner]

From that website:

"In the past, the Justice Department has sought injunctions from judges, rather than face jurors who might be sympathetic to the idea of supplying those suffering from debilitating or terminal illnesses with marijuana."

Does any other statement illustrate so clearly the utter moral bankruptcy of the federal government?

[rb22982]

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?

That's just it, I did not ask you define liberty or force. Everyone agrees on what liberty is. You choose abortion as an example, yet you do not give correct reasons behind it. There are libertarians that are pro-life (myself), and those who are mixed or pro choice, however, you leave out the reasons. It is because a prolifer believes that at sometime in the womb, the fetus becomes a human with full rights, while the pro choice libertarian does not believe it has become a human yet, and therefore does not have rights. If one could scientifically prove that the fetus at some point in tri I, II or III is really a human scientifically, then you wouldn't see any libertarians who are pro choice.

Liberty means freedom from others, force in the political sense is forcing people to do things they do not wish to do. It is not that complicated.

As for Rand, I dont have time to read many extra books now. I work full time, go to college part time and then usually the small fraction left goes towards my social life. If I do get time, I prefer to surf the net.

[rightofrush]

Actually, I'm the latter: a conservative, although not a socialist. I believe the government has the right to regulate all kinds of behaviors.

As has every moralist dictator from Hitler to Pol Pot to...

[Roscoe]

It's not California's job to prohibit substances that the FEDERAL government doesn't like from coming into and out of California's borders. That's the FEDERAL government's job.

Exactly. Thanks for demolishing your own argument.