In continuation of yesterday's "Conservatives and Libertarians Today," I thought a round-up of posts and articles on the subject might help clear things up a little more. First though, a brief note on government and the virtuous society.
Government is defined by its monopoly on the use of force. Generally speaking, libertarians agree it should be used to help protect our inalienable rights, and conservatives believe it should go beyond that - used to create order too.
In essence, it's Locke vs. Hobbes.
There is no genuine argument in regards to morality between the two camps. Thus,
- Conservatives who claim (imply) libertarians are hedonistic, libertine, and lawless;
- Libertarians who claim (imply) conservatives desire a theocratic authoritarian state;
are people engaging in useless partisan bickering and hyperbole.
Our differences arrive when the causation of moral decline is considered. Where the conservative sees government as a tool to "fix" society, the libertarian sees government as the cause of the decay which needs to be fixed.
As Albert J. Nock said:
In a society without the State, for example, the "court of tastes and manners" would be the thing that guides the operation of society, and this "court" would have a much larger role in society than law, legislation, or religion. If such a court were not in operation, because people are too uncivilized or too ill-educated to maintain it, there was nothing the State could do to uplift people. No matter how low a civilization is, it can only be made to go lower through State activity.
Please discuss in the comments below.
You can also learn more about this by reading the first article linked below.
- I Am a Reactionary Libertarian: Or Why I Believe in Fusionism
- Is Libertarianism Amoral?
- Conservative, Libertarian, Culture and Fusionism
- The Conservative-Libertarian Schism
- What is Libertarianism?
- The Liberty Pen
- The Conservative Case for Ron Paul
I hope this helps. Maybe one of our conservative friends will help bridge the gap too, by providing a clearer picture of conservatism for libertarians. (hint, hint ...)
Hey, CL!
I'm late. Very, very late. But Happy Acres wanted a reply:
http://washingtonrebel.typepad.com/washington_rebel/2010/04/manoamano.html
[...] first I found through The Classic Liberal’s blog, who btw, has another followup piece to the Conservative/Libertarian [...]
[...] The CL has more Libertarians and Conservatives [...]
I can't buy this argument.
The very essence of the difference between libertarians and conservatives is the basis of morality. (No, I'm not going to use words like epistemology because I feel they obfuscate more than they add meaning.)
To a conservative, morality comes from God. Thus the Ten Commandments (or their equivalent in other religions, but those will do for the US at present) are above all and beyond questioning, and if a particular conservative interprets them as (for instance) prohibiting homosexuality then he sees no reason the law should not prohibit it.
But to a libertarian, morality comes from the objective principle that we are all thinking beings, with equal rights, and "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." In other words, the only valid limits on one person's rights are those implied by another person's rights, and the law must permit any action that does not violate another person's rights no matter how much it may offend religious people.
Some people try to conflate these two foundations, or to read scripture in such a way that Christ was a libertarian, but I find that question irrelevant.
The bottom line is that a religious person can be a libertarian ONLY if he's willing to accept that neither the state, nor anybody else using force, has the right to try to enforce religious laws upon non-believers merely because he believes in the religion of which they're part. However strong his faith, he must accept that punishing people for disobeying it (when no other person's rights have been violated) is God's place -- not his own (at least not by force), and certainly not government's.
I would like to see a ban on religious teachings that urge anyone to violate this principle. Islam does so routinely, but is far from the only offender.
That's not true. Libertarianism is a political philosophy. It is neither a lifestyle or moral code to live by. Yet the libertarian plumbline - the non-aggression axiom - does encompass both our alienable rights and Christ's golden rule.
See here:
Conservative, Libertarian, Culture and Fusionism
Yes. But wouldn't desire to ban anyone's speech.
I've never heard of any Christian in America, trying to enforce "no other gods before me" or "remember the sabbath" through the force of law. Break the others, murder, theft, etc. and you're still a criminal no matter how you look at it.