Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Yesterday's interesting discussion got me to thinking about the definition of the phrase "social conservative," what a social con theory of government would look like, and how it differs from the libertarian model.
Any American conservative philosophy, I would argue, rests on three pillars: Athens, Jerusalem, and Philadelphia. Since we're often accused of being crypto-theocrats secretly plotting to "impose our religion" on others, I'll set aside Jerusalem for now and try to prove my case from the other two pillars.
Let's start with Athens. At the beginning of the Politics Aristotle writes:
Every state is a community of some kind, and every community is established with a view to some good; for mankind always act in order to obtain that which they think good. But, if all communities aim at some good, the state or political community, which is the highest of all, and which embraces all the rest, aims at good in a greater degree than any other, and at the highest good.
The purpose, then, of the state is the promotion of "the highest good." Note that this presumes some common, shared agreement about the nature of "the good." It is not merely the post-modern, relativist view expressed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey's "right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
Next we turn to Philidelphia. The framers of our Constitution spell out explicitly the purposes of our form of government in the preamble:
- form a more perfect union
- establish justice
- ensure domestic tranquility
- provide for the common defense
- promote the general welfare
- secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
Securing liberty is one of the six fundamental purposes of our Constitution, and thus of vital importance, but it is not the sole purpose. The flaw in the libertarian stance as I see it to focus exclusively on liberty to the exclusion of all other legitimate ends of government. Social conservatives believe the government can and should play a role in promoting the general welfare and the highest good in addition to its vital role in securing the blessings of liberty.
- Comment (95)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
I'm sorry? Please do elucidate on how the libertarian philosophy ignores or excludes the first five items on your list.
Edited on Feb 16, 2011 at 5:57pmMay '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
I have an instinctive reaction against Government "pursuing the highest good." "Avoiding the deepest bad" should be more like it.
To your point, that still requires a moral conception.
Jun '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Kenneth: I'm sorry? Please do elucidate on how the libertarian philosophy ignores or excludes the first five items on your list. · Feb 16 at 5:51pm
Edited on Feb 16 at 05:57 pm
Every form of libertarianism that I have encountered distills down to the premise that the only legitimate purpose of government is the protection of the rights of each citizen to life, liberty, and property. If you have an alternate definition to propose I'd love to read it.
Jun '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Ottoman Umpire: I have an instinctive reaction against Government "pursuing the highest good." "Avoiding the deepest bad" should be more like it.
To your point, that still requires a moral conception. · Feb 16 at 5:58pm
I share your instinct, realism and prudence are vital here. Power corrupts, and laws often have unintended consequences. This too is part of the American tradition: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."
Dec '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
I have a handle on "libertarian", as much as this is possible given how broad the range of libertarian thought and theory is.
My experience with libertarianism includes a couple of years with the Libertarian Party. This included contributing money to them, voting for their candidates, and learning about what "libertarian" means to many of them. They have widely varying views. There are many purists and ideologues in libertarian circles. They disagree a lot. Factions include the radical libertines, anarcho-capitalists, libertarian anarchists, and more "moderate" (relatively speaking) groups.
OTOH, I do not have a handle on "social conservatism", the so-called socons. At times "socon" seems a derogatory code word for "intolerant and irrational religious conservative". I hold a handful of positions that are, apparently, "socon". But I'm not religious and I derive my views from secular arguments and reasoning. Also, from what I've read there are good secular arguments supporting most so-called "socon" positions. I've seen atheists argue for "socon" positions.
I more or less understand "libertarian" as a political-economic philosophy. But I do not know what "socon" means as a political-economic philosophy. So I'll read this thread with interest.
Edited on Feb 16, 2011 at 7:58pmDec '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Joseph Stanko
Kenneth: I'm sorry? Please do elucidate on how the libertarian philosophy ignores or excludes the first five items on your list. · Feb 16 at 5:51pm
Edited on Feb 16 at 05:57 pm
Every form of libertarianism that I have encountered distills down to the premise that the only legitimate purpose of government is the protection of the rights of each citizen to life, liberty, and property. If you have an alternate definition to propose I'd love to read it. · Feb 16 at 7:13pm
How owuld the government protect the rights of each citizen to life, liberty, and property without:
establishing justice
ensuring domestic tranquility
providing for the common defense
Jun '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Joseph Stanko
...distills down to...only legitimate purpose of government is the protection of the rights of each citizen to life, liberty, and property.
Which is a good thing, but deceptively simple. To make a religious analogy, look to the Gospel of Matthew, 22:37-40:
37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
38 This is the great and first commandment.
39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."
All the Law, all the tradition, all the words of the prophets, have a finite point where they start and where they end. Left unspoken is that if they deviate or result in anything other than love for God, they are unjust. There's a fine parallel here; in establishing self-governance our founders started with individual Man, God's finest creation, and the protection of his natural rights as the only legitimate reason for government. Everything else comes from that, and if government doesn't protect those rights, then government becomes illegitimate.
Jun '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Casey Taylor
There's a fine parallel here; in establishing self-governance our founders started with individual Man, God's finest creation, and the protection of his natural rights as the only legitimate reason for government. Everything else comes from that, and if government doesn't protect those rights, then government becomes illegitimate. · Feb 16 at 9:06pm
But note that the Declaration also speaks of establishing a new government that "shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." What happens when a large majority of citizens feel that their safety and happiness would be best effected by laws prohibiting recreational drug use, or prostitution, or pornography, or polygamous marriage, or human cloning, or doctor-assisted suicide? Each of these laws restricts the rights of consenting adults, so a consistent libertarian would oppose them. In contrast, I'm claiming social conservatives see liberty as one good within a larger moral framework that encompasses other goods as well.
Jun '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Foxman
How owuld the government protect the rights of each citizen to life, liberty, and property without:
establishing justice
ensuring domestic tranquility
providing for the common defense · Feb 16 at 8:05pm
I doubt that it could. I'm asking:
If protecting rights is the only legitimate end of government, then it seems to follow that the answer to both questions is a resounding no.
Edited on Feb 16, 2011 at 10:47pmMay '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
I would trend with caution while using the term libertarian here. Many, many libertarians subscribe to anarchism; they are convinced that government per se is evil and proselytize on end on behalf of their anti-governmentalism.
With that attended to, I would ask, what ends shall government seek to fulfill with resources that it could otherwise employ in the pursuit of liberty? Are these ends things that the government should fulfill? Objectives 2, 3, 4, and 6 are all liberty-establishing aims that are merely worded differently. However, 1 and 5 are indistinct just enough so as to make them indistinguishable from "protecting the Fatherland" (or Motherland, if you prefer).
(Cont.)
Edited on Feb 16, 2011 at 10:58pmMay '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Joseph Stanko: I doubt that it could. I'm asking:
You'd be right if you were under the impression that radical individualism would not demand the prohibition of either.
From the radical individualist perspective, stealing billions in order to send a few individuals into space and, eventually, to large rocks within Earth's orbit is a spectacular waste of money. Think of the innumerable earthly social ends the fulfillment of which those billions could have been devoted to.
May '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Joseph Stanko
Casey Taylor
But note that the Declaration also speaks of establishing a new government that "shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." What happens when a large majority of citizens feel that their safety and happiness would be best effected by laws prohibiting recreational drug use, or prostitution, or pornography, or polygamous marriage, or human cloning, or doctor-assisted suicide? Each of these laws restricts the rights of consenting adults, so a consistent libertarian would oppose them. In contrast, I'm claiming social conservatives see liberty as one good within a larger moral framework that encompasses other goods as well.
Forming laws based upon the preferences of "a large majority of citizens" amounts to rule by the majority, which is accompanied by the potential for all kinds of intrusiveness and what used to be called tyranny. What gives credence to these preferences? The social conservative who complies with the demand to ban drug use or pornography compromises the goal of protecting civil liberties. These are mutually exclusive ambitions.
Jun '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Michael Labeit
You'd be right if you were under the impression that radical individualism would not demand the prohibition of either.
From the radical individualist perspective, stealing billions in order to send a few individuals into space and, eventually, to large rocks within Earth's orbit is a spectacular waste of money. Think of the innumerable earthly social ends the fulfillment of which those billions could have been devoted to. · Feb 16 at 11:08pm
"Stealing" refers no doubt to the "taxation is theft" slogan common among libertarians, but from a Constitutional perspective the very first power granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 is the power to lay and collect taxes. If exploring new worlds isn't your cup of tea, how about more practical social ends such as schools, roads, bridges, dams, lighthouses, etc.?
As for "radical individualism," aren't "radical" and "conservative" generally considered antonyms?
Jul '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Joseph Stanko
Kenneth: I'm sorry? Please do elucidate on how the libertarian philosophy ignores or excludes the first five items on your list. · Feb 16 at 5:51pm
Edited on Feb 16 at 05:57 pm
Every form of libertarianism that I have encountered distills down to the premise that the only legitimate purpose of government is the protection of the rights of each citizen to life, liberty, and property. If you have an alternate definition to propose I'd love to read it. · Feb 16 at 7:13pm
No, you made an unfounded assertion. I'm not interested in educating you; I simply wanted to hear you defend your premise - beyond "...in my view..." or "every form of libertarianism I have encountered..."
But never mind.
Jun '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Michael Labeit
Forming laws based upon the preferences of "a large majority of citizens" amounts to rule by the majority, which is accompanied by the potential for all kinds of intrusiveness and what used to be called tyranny. What gives credence to these preferences? The social conservative who complies with the demand to ban drug use or pornography compromises the goal of protecting civil liberties. These are mutually exclusive ambitions. · Feb 16 at 11:17pm
The Founders recognized the potential dangers of majority rule, that's why they crafted a system of checks and balances and added a bill of fundamental, inviolable rights. American history is a delicate balancing act of majority rule vs. minority rights, but I don't think tipping the scale entirely in either direction is advisable. I am not a "radical individualist," I think that individual rights must sometimes be limited for the good of the family, the neighborhood, the state, or the nation.
Jun '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Joseph Stanko
What happens when a large majority of citizens feel that their safety and happiness would be best effected by laws prohibiting recreational drug use, or prostitution, or pornography, or polygamous marriage, or human cloning, or doctor-assisted suicide? Each of these laws restricts the rights of consenting adults, so a consistent libertarian would oppose them. In contrast, I'm claiming social conservatives see liberty as one good within a larger moral framework that encompasses other goods as well. · Feb 16 at 10:29pm
No, a consistent libertarian absolutist would oppose them, just as a consistent social conservative absolutist would oppose any form of sex education in school, alcohol sales, swearing in public, women speaking out of turn, and impolite children.
That last part turned out kind of silly, didn't it? Because we're not working from the same set of definitions. What defines a libertarian? What defines social conservatism? We can't have a constructive conversation until we can agree on a baseline meaning of the terms.
May '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Joseph Stanko
Michael Labeit
"Stealing" refers no doubt to the "taxation is theft" slogan common among libertarians, but from a Constitutional perspective the very first power granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8 is the power to lay and collect taxes. If exploring new worlds isn't your cup of tea, how about more practical social ends such as schools, roads, bridges, dams, lighthouses, etc.?
As for "radical individualism," aren't "radical" and "conservative" generally considered antonyms?
An act of theft is not made an act of non-theft by a governmental decree. Government thievery may be distinct from common thievery in that its highly procedural, organized, premeditated, achieved by some sort of legislative consensus, and accompanied by studies, paper work, and so on. But in essence it is no different from common thievery. If the chief premises behind the arguments for limited government and private property rights are any good, then they ultimately imply that taxation is a kind of theft.
There is a sizable amount of literature concerning the production and maintenance of infrastructure in the absence of taxation. Many scholars and economists have argued that the infrastructure you identify can and ought to be privatized
Jun '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Kenneth No, you made an unfounded assertion. I'm not interested in educating you; I simply wanted to hear you defend your premise - beyond "...in my view..." or "every form of libertarianism I have encountered..."
But never mind. · Feb 16 at 11:51pm
On the prior thread I was told that Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, and the Libertarian Party were not representative of libertarian beliefs, and that in fact the best exponent was you, Kenneth. So I was hoping to learn at the feet of the master, as it were, but alas.
I've also read books by von Mises, Hayek, the Friedmans (Milton, Rose, and David), Spooner, Spencer, Nozick, Rothbard, Block, Nock, and Boaz, and subscribed for a while to Reason and Liberty magazines. Do any of these represent your particular flavor of libertarianism?
May '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Joseph Stanko
Michael Labeit
You'd be right if you were under the impression that radical individualism would not demand the prohibition of either.
From the radical individualist perspective, stealing billions in order to send a few individuals into space and, eventually, to large rocks within Earth's orbit is a spectacular waste of money. Think of the innumerable earthly social ends the fulfillment of which those billions could have been devoted to.
As for "radical individualism," aren't "radical" and "conservative" generally considered antonyms?
Yes. The "radical" here refers to extreme. What such individualism demands is something that is extreme, i.e., very unlike what most people demand. I use the term "radical individualism" over "libertarianism" because I think the second is too laden with contradictory connotations.
Edited on Feb 17, 2011 at 12:41amMay '10
Re: Social Cons vs. Libertarians
Joseph Stanko
On the prior thread I was told that Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, and the Libertarian Party were not representative of libertarian beliefs, and that in fact the best exponent was you, Kenneth. So I was hoping to learn at the feet of the master, as it were, but alas.
I've also read books by von Mises, Hayek, the Friedmans (Milton, Rose, and David), Spooner, Spencer, Nozick, Rothbard, Block, Nock, and Boaz, and subscribed for a while to Reason and Liberty magazines. Do any of these represent your particular flavor of libertarianism?
All are libertarians with the exception of Rand. Rand was an Objectivist and insisted that libertarianism was incompatible with Objectivism due to the fact that libertarians seem to eschew the notion that individualism rests upon a specific intellectual edifice or that one such edifice needs to be stressed over the others. Rand argued that the justification for capitalism came from the morality of rational egoism which itself was justified by a godless metaphysics and a rational epistemology. By contrast, many libertarians attempt to justify capitalism by appealing to religion or to altruism and other non-Objectivist ideas.
Edited on Feb 17, 2011 at 1:07am