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]

ANY society unable to agree on liberty is obviously doomed.

Libertarianism without falsehoods would be silence.

[Mark Bahner]

"Exactly. Thanks for demolishing your own argument."

I demolished your argument, Roscoe. It is the federal government's job to PROVE the marijuana came from a source outside the State of California. It is NOT the job of the State of California, or the citizens of California, to prove that their marijuana did NOT come from outside the state.

At the website I cited, the federal fascists (your boys) came in and dug up gardens of sick patients. The fascists had absolutely no evidence that those marijuana plants came into California from some other state.

Why in the world do you post on "Free Republic?" It's obvious from your posts you don't give a damn about freedom.

[Mark Bahner]

"Libertarianism without falsehoods would be silence."

Just keep repeating that, Roscoe. "Four legs good, two legs bad!" "Four legs good, two legs bad!"

Yeesh. As though your mindless repetition of a sentence makes it more valid...

[Roscoe]

It is the federal government's job to PROVE the marijuana came from a source outside the State of California.

Prove it.

[HumanaeVitae]

"Everyone agrees on what liberty is."

"There are libertarians that are pro-life (myself), and those who are mixed or pro choice"

"Liberty means freedom from others"

Does liberty mean that you are free from having an abortion doctor reach into your mother's womb with a pair of forecips and crush your skull so he can suck out your brain? If everyone agrees that this doesn't impinge on anyone's rights, why do I consider this murder?

We could go round and round on this. You seem like a smart guy, and I mean you no disrespect. I just disagree with you on your worldview. Please see my earlier "long" post (#275 I think) for my view of conservatism. I already know what libertarianism is about. That's why I'm not a libertarian.

Cheers, HV

[Roscoe]

"Everyone agrees on what liberty is."

"There are libertarians that are pro-life (myself), and those who are mixed or pro choice"

Libertarian doctrine relies heavily on doublethink.

[Mark Bahner]

"Prove it."

The Constitution proves it. But since you don't give a damn about the Constitution, it's pointless to "debate" you.

The Constitution only gives the federal government to "regulate" commerce "among the several states." Therefore, the only thing the federal government can deal with (under the Constitution...which you, the Supreme Court, and the Bush adminstration ignore) is commerce "among the several states."

Therefore, the federal government must PROVE that the marijuana plants were from some other state, because: 1) if it didn't come from another state, it's none of the feds business, and 2) people are (theorectically, but again, y'all don't care about the constitution) innocent until proven guilty.

I've wasted about enough time, today. G'night.

[rb22982]

Sigh you still dont get it. I'd say all libertarians are against partial birth abortion. If the fetus is human, then it has rights, if it is not, it does not have the same rights. Can you scientifically prove that the fetus is every bit as human as you and I and at what point? If yes, then you can find out who is and isn't a libertarian immediately. Otherwise, my point still stands

[Roscoe]

The Constitution proves it.

No quote, naturally.

The federal government began taxing the output of whiskey stills within the boundaries of individual states when George Washington was president. Deliberate ignorance of history is a necessary prerequisite for the Libertarian faith.

[Mark Bahner]

"Libertarian doctrine relies heavily on doublethink."

Complete BS. Libertarianism is infinitely more coherent and consistent than "conservatism."

The discussion among libertarians on abortion centers on when the embryo or fetus philosophically becomes a "person." (Legally, the case is clear...both embryos and fetuses are not persons. Only the born are persons.)

[Roscoe]

Libertarianism is infinitely more coherent and consistent than "conservatism."

Libertarianism without falsehoods would be silence.

[rb22982]

Libertarianism without falsehoods would be silence.

Look at all the overwhelming supporting evidence you give for this claim besides your own personal opinion!

[Mark Bahner]

"I'd say all libertarians are against partial birth abortion."

Hmmmm...well, you'd be wrong. :-)

I support partial birth abortion in instances where the child is going to be born with a 100% fatal and incurable genetic disease. Just as I support my family's right to terminate my life, in the event I'm incapable of advising them (e.g., coma, likely to be irreversible).

Mark (Libertarian)

[Roscoe]

Look at all the overwhelming supporting evidence you give

Well, there is nearly every "libertarian" post on the thread.

[rb22982]

I'm not talking about exceptions, even most 100% 'pro lifers' are ok with having an abortion in the rare case that the mother's life hinges on it (very rarely does it really hinge on it though)

[tpaine]

kneejerk roscoepap

[rb22982]

While that is a complete and outright lie, and distortion of the truth, what you fail to realize that just because a libertarian is wrong, doesn't make libertarianism wrong. Just like because a conservative was wrong in a case, doesn't outright make conservatism wrong.

[Roscoe]

just because a libertarian is wrong, doesn't make libertarianism wrong.

Well, if nearly every self-professed libertarian on FR is wrong about nearly everything they post, what's left?

The platform that they all run away from?

[Roscoe]

I support partial birth abortion in instances where the child is going to be born with a 100% fatal and incurable genetic disease.

And to blazes with the child's life and liberty?

What about 99%? What about 10%?

[Mark Bahner]

"No quote, naturally."

I quoted the Constitution. But I guess you've never read the Constitution, and so didn't recognize it.

"The federal government began taxing the output of whiskey stills within the boundaries of individual states when George Washington was president. Deliberate ignorance of history is a necessary prerequisite for the Libertarian faith."

I didn't say the federal government couldn't tax marijuana within states. But the federal government does NOT tax marijuana within states. It deliberate REFUSES to issue marijuana tax stamps. See the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mjtaxact.htm

I've forgotten more history than you'll ever learn, Roscoe.