Conservatism and Libertarianism

As a radical conservative who is fundamentally opposed to libertarianism, I am really excited about the opportunity to defend my vision of conservatism. Whatever the outcome, I sincerely hope this debate helps clarify what conservatism is, and in doing so, helps illuminate the important distinctions between conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism. I ask that our readers go through this debate very carefully, as it will be introducing and condensing a huge amount of information into a few short rounds of debate. IntroductionModern society is characterized by a pluralism of incompatible yet reasonable religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines. This poses a serious problem for the organization of society: what political order would allow individuals with competing conceptions of the good to peacefully cooperate? John Rawls proposes to deal with this intractable conflict as John Locke proposed to deal with it three hundred years before him, by removing issues of religion, philosophy, and morality from the public agenda [1]. This is the dream of political liberalism, and conflicting fundamental beliefs (liberal theorists rename them "opinions" on the way to marginalizing them) have no place in its political sphere. The argument goes as follows: because we are all prone to error and to the overvaluation of our opinions, we ought not judge one another. None of us is God and in full possession of the truth. As such, we must allow others equal freedom to pursue the truth. In Kantian terms, this becomes the doctrine of the autonomy of free rational agents, who are to be regarded not as means but as ends. In Kant's words: "Each may seek his happiness in whatever way he sees fit so long as he does not infringe upon the freedom of others to pursue a similar end; that is, he must accord to others the same rights he enjoys himself" [2]. Or in the words of John Stuart Mill: "We must beware of admitting a principle of which we would resent as a gross injustice the application to ourselves" [3]. The logic behind liberalism sounds fine, but it employs a slippery logic whereby deep moral convictions and life allegiances are turned into mere opinions. For liberals, every belief is like every other belief, neither something to live for nor something to fight for. In effect, liberalism asks you to inhabit your moral convictions without conviction, because it asks you to withdraw from your convictions whenever pursuing them would impinge on the activities and choices of others. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it displaces morality by making all assertions equivalent and, because equivalent, inconsequential. As such, liberal thought promotes a regime of relativism by refusing to make judgments, because passing judgment would take away from the equality of persons and their opinions. LibertarianismLibertarianism begins from the same fundamental premises as liberalism. Thus, by privileging individual liberty, libertarians attempt to establish a neutral political framework in which individuals with conflicting fundamental beliefs can peacefully cooperate. This is exactly what liberalism attempts to do. The key difference between libertarians and liberals is that libertarians uphold individual liberty as the highest good whereas liberals uphold equality as the highest good. As thett3's account of libertarianism implies, libertarians are willing to sacrifice many traditional goods for the sake of preserving individual liberty. Hence, because individual liberty must be affirmed at all costs, libertarians will oppose the pro-life position, laws prohibiting obscenity, as well as laws promoting marriage, regardless of whether these are the right positions or not. Like liberalism, libertarianism requires a commitment to not take one's deepest convictions (other than the absolute value of individual liberty) seriously. But as my brief discussion of liberalism has demonstrated, this line of reasoning is extremely problematic. It quickly leads to relativism and the displacement of morality. Libertarianism thus empties history of its meaning. A truly libertarian government does not distinguish between the rantings of neo-Nazis and the proclamation of the golden rule, as both are equally legitimate actions because both are instances of individual free choice. Conservatismthett3 represents conservatism as yet another "neutral" framework (according to thett3, the "natural order"). thett3's conception of conservatism rests on the following statement from Hoppe: "The natural order is ancient and forever the same (only anomalies and accidents undergo change), hence, it can be recognized by us everywhere and at all times. " The problem with thett3's argument is that it assumes the natural order does not change (it does) and it assumes conservatives believe their understanding of nature is complete (they don't). In fact, conservatives believe human understanding is limited. Above all else, conservatives believe the outcomes of gradual, bottom-up social evolution are more revealing than humans themselves are capable of understanding. That is why conservatives place faith in history and tradition (in the wisdom accumulated through centuries of human experience) over and above abstract human reason. Does this mean conservatives are completely unwilling to embrace change? Not at all. It means that, without a compelling historical reason to believe otherwise, what has worked in the past will probably continue to work in the present. Why? Because human understanding is limited, so it makes more pragmatic sense to trust the principles developed by history and tradition rather than the abstract principles devoloped by human rationality. A good example is gay marriage. Gay families are the outcome of a gradual, bottom-up social evolution. Of course, no conservative would ever support gay marriage because of abstract principles (liberty or equality), but when conservatives realize that gay families were the gradual result of a natural social evolution, I believe conservatives will become the strongest defenders of gay marriage. ConclusionThe philosophical underpinning of conservatism and libertarianism is clearly different. If libertarianism is liberalism with a twist, conservatism is pragmatism with a twist. Conservatives invoke traditions and principles developed over millenia to determine what works and what doesn't. Libertarians invoke abstract principles developed by rationalism, outside of any time or place, with absolute faith in the capacity of human reason. It is possible that the interests of conservatism and libertarianism may intersect in a particular time and place. That does not mean conservatism and libertarianism are inherently allied. Conservatism does not value individual liberty as an abstraction, it values tradition, history, and human experience. What's more, history is distinctly opposed to libertarianism (have we ever had a truly libertarian state? ), so as it can be seen, conservatism is clearly not allied with libertarianism. Conservatives value the community and the family unit above the individual. According to conservatives, human beings enter the world dependent on others, requiring the coercive care and direction of parents, friends, teachers, police, and soldiers. A true conservative does not believe in absolute liberty. Conservatives are not moral relativists, they believe political life requires a public moral order determined by centuries of human experience. Libertarians, on the other hand, displace morality from the public agenda. Conservatives value moral intuitions, libertarians do not. That is why many conservatives support drug laws, public schooling, paper money, immigration controls, foreign aid and wars, and various other infringements on individual liberties. No true libertarian is a conservative. Sources:. http://www.debate.org...