Conservatism and Libertarianism

In closing, I will briefly respond to each point thett3 brought up in the final round. Because each of these establishes a foundational difference between conservatism and libertarianism, it should be clear by the end of this debate that conservatism and libertarianism are not ideological allies. Family and Statethett3 claims conservatives are opposed to the position that "individuals are unable to care for themselves. " Then, thett3 claims conservatives believe individuals "HAVE TO" rely on their family. As such, thett3's position is incoherent. thett3 admits the weight of my objection, and attempts to defend his position with the following statement: "remaining within ones family unit is a voluntary, non aggressive action. " But this defense fails because it, too, is incoherent. First, thett3 says "remaining within ones family unit is a voluntary, non aggressive action. " Then, thett3 claims individuals "HAVE TO" rely on their family, which suggests that our obligation to our families is involuntary. In light of an irreconcilable difference between conservatism and libertarianism (the conception of the self as a free rational agent as opposed to a situated agent), thett3's response exposes the same false dichotomy as before. The dichotomy is false because libertarians believe individuals are not forced to rely on anyone, whereas conservatives believe individuals pick up involuntary social attachments during the course of their upbringing. The key difference is that conservatives believe these involuntary attachments entail a moral obligation, whereas libertarians do not. Hence, a libertarian would not take any issue with a person who abandons their family (it's voluntary, isn't it? ), but a conservative would generally see that same action as impermissible. Therefore, I'd like to extend my argument from previous rounds: libertarians believe the individual is the fundamental unit of political life, whereas conservatives believe the family is the fundamental unit of political life. History and MoralityThe following statement is the crux of thett3's argument: "I doubt any of us rationally believe that the state needs to tell people that something is wrong for it to be so. "A public morality in and of itself does not make an action right or wrong. The question at stake in my argument is, should the government reflect or condemn a particular moral doctrine? Consider the example of abortion: most conservatives believe abortion should be illegal, but a libertarian would say morally controversial issues like abortion should be resolved in the private sphere, not the public one. The problem with the libertarian position is that it neglects the symbolic importance of an official political concern with moral issues or problems. This empties history and morality of its meaning because it refuses to pass judgment on it. Evolution and Subjectivitythett3 mispresents my argument, as I never said conservatism is "subjective. " I explicitly stated that humans are not in a position to determine which moral doctrine is correct. Hence, my conception of conservatism is clearly opposed to a subjective (human-centered) morality, because conservatives look at what happens outside themselves to discover the truth. The objectivity of conservatism is established by a gradual, bottom-up social evolution. In R2, I gave the example of gay marriage: gay families happened. It was the result of a bottom-up social evolution. Therefore, the proper conservative response is to gradually legalize gay marriage. thett3 claims my position is self-refuting because there is no "brightline. " But the lack of a brightline does not mean an objective truth does not exist - it means humans do not have access to the truth. Only God can have a complete understanding of nature (which explains why many conservatives believe in God, although personally I'm atheist). Because humans cannot see the world from's God's vantage point, conservatives combine empiricism with pragmatism - look at history to figure out what works. Historically, this is how conservatism was initially established: an empiricist epistemology developed by Hume (a conservative) as opposed to a rationalist epistemology developed by Kant (a liberal). Liberalismthett3 misrepresents liberalism. As I pointed out in R3, liberals do not believe in "total" equality, they believe in "procedural" equality. This allows for substantive differences in private property, as long as each individual is treated equally under the law (that is what procedural means). The procedures of government applied to each individual must be the same. Hence, liberals uphold equal opportunity laws and non-discrimination laws, because their goal is to create equality under the law. Liberalism is not opposed to private property. LibertarianismA libertarian ideology is fundamentally liberal. A libertarian government does not dictate the opinions of its citizens (the premise of liberalism, as I highlighted in R2 and R3). thett3 exposes other inconsistencies in his position when he says the non-aggression principle is a "sacred" value. The non-aggression principle is not a moral value, it is a procedural principle just like the procedural equality of liberalism. Think about it: nothing substantive follows from the non-aggression principle. Unless "aggression" or "force" has already been defined (in which case it has been defined by a set of values separate from non-aggression), the non-aggression principle is an abstraction with no content. It is the libertarian equivalent of John Stuart Mill's harm principle (a fundamental principle of liberalism). thett3 claims the harm principle and non-aggression principle are not equivalent. I disagree - they are ethical equivalents because both are substantively empty, which is to say, they don't actually say anything about what is and is not moral. How do you determine when someone has been harmed? How do you determine when aggression has been initiated? Either way, you have to appeal to a set of values that stands apart from these abstract principles. As such, both principles are substantively empty, as neither principle establishes whether an action is right or wrong without appealing to a set of moral values outside itself. Hence, the irony of the non-aggression principle is that it doesn't actually say anything - it is the moral equivalent of saying 2+2=4 or of saying we should drive on the right side of the road as opposed to the left side. The point is, conservatism is diametrically opposed to libertarianism insofar as conservatives believe the government should establish an official political concern with moral issues, whereas libertarians believe the government should establish a procedural framework that removes morally controversial issues from the public agenda. Conservatismthett3 has not provided a single reason to believe conservatism is incompatible with statism. I pointed out countless conservative positions that are explicitly statist, so on this point alone, I think it can be established that conservatism and libertarianism are not ideological allies. thett3 claims the "welfare state is responsible for much of the decline of conservative values. " Consider the bizarre implications of thett3's logic - if atheists and theists both oppose agnosticism, does that make them ideological allies? No. Just because conservatism opposes one thing that libertarianism opposes does not mean the two are, on balance, ideological allies. Out of room, so here is a final point: conservatives believe in an involuntary moral hierarchy. The point is, we have a greater moral obligation to our families than to our country, and a greater moral obligation to our country than to other countries. This is a fundamental part of conservatism. But libertarians do not believe in a moral hierarchy - on the contrary, they only believe in the non-aggression principle, the moral obligation to not initiate violence.