Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Secular Conservatism, Libertarians, Progressives, and Marriage
I take conservatism to be an appreciation and defense of what has been proven to work, and which benefits society and the individual in a balance.
If that seems overly-broad, let me provide an example. Morality is effective in curbing largely destructive impulses and reactions, therefore morality is worth defending in principle, with some room for debate on many fronts. Not all morality is the same, and it is not always helpful in the particulars. But to hold that morality is not a necessary part of society is anti-conservative in my view, as morality is the most tested method for a society to control its own behavior with respect for the society and the individual in balance.
Libertarianism is a radical extreme that places no value on society as a body, and progressivism is a radical extreme that places no value on the individual. Conservatism is the compromise position arrived at through experience, and stored in our cultural traditions as the wisdom of the ages. To a secular conservative, the Bible is one of many instruments to this end. Just because there is a religious proscription against adultery doesn’t mean that only religious people can defend a belief that adultery is harmful to individuals and society. Likewise with other religious proscriptions.
Religion is, of course, a large component of the conservative movement, but philosophically it is not a necessary component of a thoroughly conservative position. Not even for marriage. I view the partnership between religion and conservatism as a co-development from a common origin. Shared predicates yield shared conclusions, and therefore common interest. Where religion ascribes things to God, secular conservatism agrees to the extent that it is destructive of society and the individual for mankind to mess with certain things. Progressivism on the other hand is the confidence that a small group of people in the present know better than (on the one hand) everybody else across time, and better than (on the Other hand) God in His infinite wisdom. Secular conservatism and religion get along just fine as defenders of our culture.
I see value in describing much of libertarianism as allied with progressivism, because conservatism is where the middle is, and to pull us off that mark either this way or that is just as destructive. If a movement seeks to abolish our traditions as proven over time, it is not conservatism. Progressivism and libertarianism get along just fine as disruptors of our culture.
There is already a philosophical position consistent with conservatism which enshrines human rights and the liberty of the individual: it is called conservatism.
Now, not every tradition is valuable, and a slavish devotion to traditions which are not good is not conservatism; that’s mechanism, on the process level. Radical opposition to a flawed and failing government is not anti-conservative, but radical opposition to the institutions of our culture, most definitely is.
For example, you could argue that big spending by government is now a tradition and that it is therefore conservative to defend it and radical to oppose it, but this is wrong for a number of reasons. First, it may be a tradition, but empirically it has not been proven to be a useful one. Some spending is necessary, some spending is excessive — making judgements is important, and at any rate, even if all projects were equally worthy, the sheer sum of spending which displaces other worthy but non-government projects must be taken into account and weighed for relative merit. Big spending is anti-conservative because it is destructive.
Second, the dependencies come to play in that objects and policies are not the only subjects to be appreciated and defended. The decision to spend less is no less valuable than the process by which we arrive at that decision, and its implications. If we feel that the accumulated wisdom vouchsafed in our culture is probably more valuable as a guide for society (in the aggregate) than the intellect spawned in a few brilliant fellows, then a process which lends itself to operation gently over time by many rather than abruptly, once, by the few is an inherently conservative method of arriving at conclusions. Big spending is anti-conservative because it operates through an anti-conservative process.
As the free market is operated gently by many, and government spending is operated forcefully by few, any problem not specifically recommended for government remedy is probably better handled outside of government. So no matter how “traditional” big spending may have become, it is not conservative in itself, and it is not conservative to defend it merely because it is the status quo.
Marriage pre-dates any law. It simply is, and it is between one man and one woman. This may sound circular, or like a “no true Scot” defense, but I assert it as a foundational fact. Marriage is not produced by law any more than our rights are. Marriage is enshrined and defended by law in our culture, and if the law should fall, marriage would remain, just as our rights do. The law does not trump marriage.
This should not be too alarming; conservatism is a platform, a set of positions. Some planks rest upon others and not all must be as heavily pedigreed. I hold that marriage is a foundational plank in the conservative platform. I hold that marriage is an emergent cultural defense against various destructive impulses and reactions, including those of jealous males, engineering females, and hostile out-group sentiment. Good manners are a defense against some offenses which can become lethal, and marriage is a defense against outrage.
Humans are sexual beings (as our grade-schoolers are reminded every minute by government busybodies), and many of our impulses and reactions are not rational in the way we would like, no matter how logical they may be from a chromosome’s point of view. As manners are typically maintained by society itself, morality is often maintained by religion as a specific example of a philosophy operating in context.
As the male-female pairing is not up for debate in conservatism (I challenge you to convince me that it is not what has been proven to work), so the societal adaptation which defends it is a necessary component of conservatism. I realize that many “conservatives” disagree with this, but they are mistaken about either their conservatism or their conclusions.
Published in General
Okay. Well for the purposes of our discussion, I consider fraud to be theft, and therefore a form of violence.
If you’re going to say this, I’d amend it to specify democratic forms of government. I wouldn’t consider a military dictatorship to be the product of society.
So now you feel that attacking the form is sufficient? Accusation made, point gained, eh? Sounds like the shoe is on the other foot.
If someone has come up with a better concise definition of “Progressivism” I’ve yet to read it. As for me (and I’d like to think) and my house, I’m with Chesterton who said, “Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.” With a phone and pen.
Well, sure. Obama’s remark has some truth to it even though it’s not entirely accurate or nearly complete. That’s why we’ve had so much difficulty combating it and “you didn’t build that”.
Otherwise, government isn’t instituted merely to protect certain rights ( I assume you mean individual rights). For instance, the constitution’s purpose is to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. Protecting rights can be even less pertinent when it comes to state and local government charters.
Tomato, tomahto. Government exists within society because society wills it into being. It does not stand outside of society.
Hmmm, good question. Try this: Society is those people who have instituted a government among themselves to guard their persons and their culture from invasions and impositions of foreign ways of life. Oh, and borders.
When characterizing BDB’s argument I think you’re too quick to disregard the actual text of what he wrote in order salvage a more defensible position out of it. In my experience, BDB is someone who says precisely what he means. If you don’t feel inclined to defend what he wrote that’s understandable, but he didn’t make the argument you’re defending.
Have you ever tried to buy cigarettes at a gas station you didn’t realize was actually in Maryland? If you think you’re in Virginia, you might not bring enough money. If you didn’t know the difference between one backwood country area and another just based on state government, you would by the time you staggered out of there.
So?
I think it would help clarify things if you could explain if/how you think society can act apart from through government.
I addressed that your portrayal of both liberals and libertarians was a poor reflection of reality. More of a conservative pep rally than any interesting point. I don’t feel it requires any more of a dressing down.
Either people once took their responsibility to society much more seriously individually, or society took it’s enforcement of norms much more seriously collectively. Either is possible. Now we have litigious individuals and a society as a whole that cries “there ought to be a law!” every time someone colors outside the lines.
And Dr. Williams is absolutely correct that his labor was being confiscated. The part that he and you are leaving out is that he was being compensated for it – now, perhaps that compensation wasn’t the market clearing price, but he wasn’t a chattel slave either.
The difference of course is that in the first case, there is justification for drafting conscripts under the heading of national defense (which is a public good) and there is no reasonable justification for forcing people to engage in commerce with other people whom they otherwise wouldn’t on the basis of a voluntary behavioral characteristic.
Just as that same baker shouldn’t be forced to bake a Hitler Birthday cake for a Neo-Nazi.
Oh, please do defend the liberals against the OP, for mental exercise and our amusement if nothing else.
Therefore, according to your definitions of the terms, “force” is not required for an act to be “violent”?
Fair ’nuff.
I well know who Bastiat is. He is one of the clearest proponents of limited government conservatism. He was a liberal in his day, meaning that he was opposed to a powerful government, But he was a conservative in that he saw a necessary function in government, of the “men are not angels” variety.
He speaks of citizens of a country, not vagrants of the global soup-kitchen traipsing across one another’s property.
Libertarians are fond of him, and they claim him as their own. But what of Bastiat there is in libertarianism is also limited-government conservative.
Libertarians are not conservatives. They wish to lay claim to the intersection of libertarianism and conservatism, which only diminishes conservatism and does not attract adherents to the kook part that conservatives won’t touch, like gay marriage and open borders.
Of course, the Bastiat Institute is thoroughly libertarian but it was named for him, not by him.
But there are, and always have been, laws against aggression, fraud, and nuisance. That enforcement isn’t perfect is certainly true (and has always been true), but I don’t see its relevance to this discussion.
Society can throw off a government.
If individual people are trees, society is the forest, and the state is The Self-Governing National Forest. Obviously this analogy breaks down if we talk about the sawmill by the river. The superposition of the political entity with the human one is the distinction I draw.
I know that there are a few open-borders libertarians/anarchists on Ricochet, but most libertarians recognize the legitimacy of the Westphalian conception of national sovereignty. You’ve repeatedly made mention of the importance of securing national borders with the implication that this is an area of disagreement between yourself and libertarianism. It isn’t. The most common strain of libertarianism is the social contractarian variety which places a great deal of emphasis on the sovereign nation-state as being the basic unit of the social contract.
“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” – Frédéric Bastiat
Bastiat’s position on government is basically the standard modern libertarian position. In The Law he wrote that state action is only justified as a “substitution of a common force for individual forces” and that an individual may use force to protect “his person, his liberty, and his property.” If you agree with Bastiat you’re functionally a libertarian whatever you prefer to self-identify as.
Right. Government is the wrong hammer for most staple-sized problems. But we do have a government and for very good reasons, which are few and well-defined. Government should protect, not change, our society.
He’s putting it rather more charitably than I would, and I wasn’t aiming for this particular leg of the stool, so to speak, but I accept the substance of what he said. You’re right, I didn’t say quite that, but I feel it is consistent with my position as expressed.
Normative morals. Social obligations. Expectations of assimilation. Welcoming strangers as Americans. Group outrage at egregious transgressions of minority rights. (Also, group transgressions of minority rights — society is not always positive, but it is usually less harmful than government).
Helpful?
I disagree with the “violent” condition. Any non-consensual invasion of life, liberty, property, or the freedom to pursue happiness, diminishes liberty. Such acts are, rightfully, deemed crimes. The use of coercion to enforce a prohibition on such crimes increases individual liberty, rather than diminishes it. This is one of the few proper functions of government.
Fraud, like burglary, is a crime against property. Just because it doesn’t involve violence, doesn’t mean it is not an infringement of the property owner’s rights and freedoms.
Fred, extending the term “violence” to include fraud opens the door to extending it to include hurt feelings. “You do violence to my feelings when you won’t bake me a cake.” It is better to be precise with our terms, imho.
Fair enough.
I didn’t take exception to your protest, but addressed it a while back in a two-part comment. Whether you feel that carries the day or not, I welcome criticism of bad form. I just don’t feel it actually applies in this case.
I note Mike H’s newfound appreciation for attacking the form of an argument rather than the substance. That’s the shifted shoe.
Yes. Now why is it that you think libertarianism does not value a society which acts in these ways?