Conservatism and Libertarianism

Liberalismthett3 misunderstands formal equality and the public/private distinction that is the heart of liberal thought. The idea is that in the public sphere, we should regard our strongest beliefs (whether religious, philosophical, or moral) as someone's opinions rather than as truths.A neo-Nazi is given equal legitimacy as long as his actions grant the same legitimacy to others. This form of equality is not "total" (as thett3 claims). And according to liberals, it is not self-contradictory or inconsistent precisely because it is a procedural equality (in other words, it is "impartial" in the way 2+2=4 is).thett3 conflates liberalism with communism, claiming a "fundamental building block of the liberal ideology is that people are unable to care for themselves." This is false. Liberalism is inherently capitalistic, as it supports natural rights and private property.LibertarianismWhen thett3 attacks my use of the words "neutral" and "cooperate," he equivocates and attacks a straw man. As I made explicit last round, libertarianism is a political order that does not pass judgement on the religious, philosophical, or moral doctrines of individuals. It is therefore a "neutral" political framework.By preventing people from harming others, libertarianism requires some coercion on individual liberty (as thett3 pointed out). This is a form of forced cooperation, what I called an imperative to "peacefully cooperate" (notice how thett3's fallacious critique takes the word "cooperate" out of context by removing its essential qualification, "peacefully").In point of fact, I never said (as thett3 claims) that libertarianism requires people to maximize cooperation. What I said was that libertarianism requires a form of cooperation, namely, the acknowledgement on the part of each citizen to not harm others. As such, it is somewhat ironic that thett3 tries to use the non-aggression principle as a counter-example to itself.thett3's arguments consistently use this bizarre circular logic in which counter-examples are also examples of what they are countering. He does it again in the following two sentences: "a libertarian government would exist to enforce property rights, not to dictate the opinions of its citizens. his assertion that libertarianism would rob history of its value is flawed since governments do not tell us the meaning of history."First, thett3 admits that a libertarian government is "neutral" because it turns all religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines into mere "opinions" (this is the classic liberal move I highlighted in the previous round). Then, in the following sentence, thett3 uses this fact to claim that libertarian "governments do not tell us the meaning of history." In other words, thett3's argument affirms the same point it attempts to contest: libertarians empty history of its meaning by turning it into an "opinion."It should be clear that every one of thett3's arguments regarding libertarianism further establish it as an ideological ally of liberalism. The non-aggression principle finds its liberal manifestation in Mill's harm principle. And thett3 admits that both ideologies are predicated on a public/private distinction that turns the fundamental beliefs of its citizens into opinions rather than truths.Conservatismthett3 claims my characterization of conservatism "violates" his "dropped" framework. But if my argument "violates" thett3's framework, then the framework was obviously not "dropped." thett3's framework is flawed because it is inconsistent with most ideologies, including conservatism.If ideologies are "transcendent to the times," then ideologies cannot change. Yet liberalism, libertarianism, and conservatism have each changed radically throughout history. If we take history into account, ideologies obviously change.Of course, liberalism and libertarianism function by ignoring history. thett3's argument presupposes a libertarian framework, which is why thett3 insists that ideologies cannot change. The only principles that can be transcendent are the abstract principles of liberalism and libertarianism (equality and liberty), principles which are derived from rationalism alone. On the other hand, conservatism is fundamentally empirical and pragmatic, deriving its principles from history, tradition, and human experience. Unlike libertarians, conservatives look at historical facts to determine what has worked and what hasn't.thett3 claims there is no "brightline" to measure "positive" bottom-up social evolution. Of course not. That is the basis of my entire argument: human understanding is limited. Therefore, humans are not in a position where they can step back and evaluate which religious, philosophical, or moral doctrine is correct. But we are in a position to look at history and figure out what has worked and what hasn't.The principles of conservatism are established by making a coherent system of thought (which later becomes what we call a tradition) out of practices that have proven themselves historically. The epistemological basis of conservatism is thus empiricism (as opposed to rationalism).Statismthett3 dismisses many of the statist positions conservatives hold by claiming that conservates cannot be statist. Besides the obvious circularity of his argument (conservatives can't be statists because conservatives can't be statists?), thett3's argument completely ignores the historical origin of conservatism (which was explicitly statist and theocratic). As of yet, thett3 has not made a single argument that proves conservatism is inherently incompatible with statism.As I argued in the previous round, conservatives believe we require the direction of parents, teachers, our community, and the government. Why? Because conservatives believe, unlike liberals or libertarians, that human beings have involuntary social attachments, picked up during the course of our upbringing.We do not choose our parents, the neighborhood we grow up in, or the people in our country. Yet each of these facts creates an involuntary social attachment which plays a fundamental role in our life. While liberals and libertarians oppose the state because of our free rational choice, conservatives believe free rational choice is an illusion.The most essential social attachment we have is with our parents, our family, and this attachment is not a choice. Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago, was attacked for directing the city's insurance business to his son's agency. Daley responded: "isn't that what fathers are supposed to do, help their children get a start in life?" [4]A liberal/libertarian would be categorically opposed to Daley's actions, but a conservative might understand that Daley felt a moral imperative to help his son, even if it hurt his reputation (it had no practical effect on the city's wellbeing).ConclusionThe fundamental difference between libertarianism and conservatism is an epistemological one: libertarians derive their principles through abstract rationalism, conservatives derive their principles through pragmatic empiricism. The other central difference between the two emerges as a result of this initial epistemological opposition: conservatives believe we have involuntary social attachments (first and foremost to our family), libertarians don't.thett3 falsely claims libertarians value the family unit. The logic of thett3's argument rests on a false dichtomoy, as witnessed by the following sentence: "If one does not rely on the state, they have to rely on their family, and if one does not rely on their family they must rely on the state."There is no reason to assume an individual who does not rely on their family "must" rely on the state (the individual could rely on friends, his religious community, or some other social attachment). In fact, thett3's false dichotomy exposes the incoherence of his position by admitting that conservatives believe we depend on others (a point thett3 both contests and affirms).