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.
Libertarians and VirtuCons: What Are The Differences?
In the last few weeks, we’ve had VirtuCons and libertarians striking out their stances and trying to better understand each other. Interestingly, many of the threads featured exchanges where both sides expressed similar — if not identical — goals and suppositions, but remained certain that the other side rejected them. The differences between the groups may be profound, but they’re more subtle than we credit them.
So what are the differences? There may be other ways to cut it — and stipulating that ideological Turing tests are hard — but the basic disagreements seem to be over 1) The extent of the danger posed by the state; and 2) What it will take to revive the culture. Everything else flows from those disagreements.
The Libertarian View
Libertarians believe that most of our social pathologies — e.g., under-employment, the decline in marriage and fatherlessness among the poor, etc. — result from the state’s attempt to remedy them. Therefore, they argue, once the perverse incentives of government are lifted, the culture will essentially right itself. This isn’t based on a belief in Man’s inherent goodness, but on the observation that people respond rationally to incentives and opportunities; forced to confront the true costs (and rewards) of their behavior, most people will quickly figure out that they cannot survive on vice, indolence, and irresponsibility, and will adapt accordingly. And once more people are taking care of themselves, looking after the genuinely indigent and broken becomes much easier to handle.
The VirtuCon View
In contrast, SoCons/VirtuCons believe the libertarian solution is simultaneously cruel and naive, underestimating how badly damaged society is while over-estimating its ability to revive itself. While they also want to dramatically reduce the size and scope of government, they believe we have to strengthen social guard rails for a while yet before we can consider other changes. That includes — for example — promoting a traditional understanding of marriage and continuing bans on intoxicating drugs and prostitution. VirtuCons have no desire to impose their beliefs on others, but they’re clear-eyed about how delicate free societies are and what it takes to keep them running. Once the culture has adequately recovered, then we can focus our energies on cutting the state down to where it should ideally be.
Where Do We Go From Here?
First, we should acknowledge that we share an ideological opponent in the Progressive Left. Our opposition may have slightly different motivations and greatly different emphases, but SoCons are no more indifferent to the dangers of the administrative state than are libertarians to the importance of private virtue. The reason why we’re arguing with each other is because our common interests outweigh our differences.
That might change at some point — especially if we’re successful — but not any time in the near future. There’s simply too much Leftism to undo.
Image Credit: Shutterstock user soliman designs.
Published in General
This is a straw-man argument, as no one (ever) made that argument. All libertarians and all virtucons agree that personal protection (freedom from harm) is the fundamental role of government.
Not correct. Most libertarians would be pretty darn happy to a return to America pre-Progressive movement. Given that we’re not going to get a Utopia, that was not bad.
Switzerland is another fine, current example.
No Libertarian has ever argued that government should not protect people from harms to their person or property. In fact, that might be the only thing all libertarians actually agree on.
This particular argument against libertarianism is really getting tiresome.
Well, there we can have some agreement. We’d like a pre-progressive America too. But it wasn’t a libertarian state.
The “left” is not. The Government is. Without having the mechanisms of government to do there bidding to instill what they see as “virtue”, they’d be powerless.
“I think one of the biggest divisions between us and libertarians is that we can’t understand why they won’t support us in resisting these incurions (well, they probably support us on the health care mandates but generally not on marriage.)”
Again, you haven’t made the effort to understand what we think. We do support you in resisting these incursions, we disagree in how to resist them.
You would like to replace the Left as the master of government: to instill your own version of virtue instead of the leftist version of virtue. We’d rather have government out of that business entirely.
Your scheme leaves the door open for the left to get back into the virtue-setting business. Ours does not.
(P.S. Given the choice, I’d rather have Virtucons setting the standards for “virtue” rather than leftists, btw. Just to be clear.)
Simply not true. Most libertarians, and probably all Ricochet libertarians, desire a return to our limited government established by the Constitution. That society definitely existed at some point – we’ve just moved away from it.
Now the fantasy libertarian society you’ve concocted in your head might never have existed, but I’m getting pretty sick of arguing against your fantasies.
It most definitely was. It would be nice if you’d spend enough time understanding our position to accurately critique it. :)
In their defense, they’re basing this on Ayn Rand and Fred Cole (ironically, given that Rand detested people like Cole, but whatever).
That’s like me judging Virtucons by using the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice in Saudi Arabia as the model. :)
Thanks for the attribution. I can’t stress this point enough – once you make something the province of government, be it to protect family structure or facilitate virtue, you have already lost the war. Government by its very nature seeks to expand its reach and influence. The founders understood this and established a system that prevented government from becoming involved in all but the bare minimum of functions. They did this because they knew once you allowed government into other roles it will, over time, take those roles over completely.
SoCons: the government that is big and strong enough to fix society in the ways you want, is big and strong enough to destroy society once you lose power. And you will lose power eventually. This blind-spot in SoCon thinking is what drives these disagreements in my opinion.
As I’ve argued elsewhere, any government mechanism powerful enough to punish criminals and enforce contracts will be powerful enough to impose the will of its master. One response is to eschew government mechanisms altogether; I reject that approach as inadequate to the realities of social life and community. What’s to be done then? Self-government through a participatory system; competing interests; structural constraints. None of it will survive the long term, though, absent a common-enough culture and/or compelling common interests.
Very well put. Agree 100%.
Jamie, I don’t think that the Constitution constitutes a libertarian society. The society that actually produced the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was certainly not libertarian. It was a society that accepted slavery, state churches, all manner of public morality laws, strict regulation of sexuality, and all manner of weird one off restrictions of action (like not bathing on Wednesdays or some such) that modern libertarians would consider the hallmark of tyranny.
I think this is the crux of it. SoCons see our Judeo-Christian Western heritage as worth preserving — the progenitor of the libertarian conception of limited government.
My view is the West is doomed to slide into leftist totalitarianism because, even those who agree on the necessity of limited government, cannot agree to strenuously defend the culture that brought us to the dance.
It’s the loss of cultural confidence, of cultural identity, which will be our undoing. Since we will not hang together, we will hang separately.
They did not want to prevent “government” from becoming involved in all but the bare minimum of functions; they wanted to prevent the federal government from being so involved. Because most thought that the other functions were best left to the states and localities – not to no government at all.
No utopia for any political ideology has ever existed. Of course there were things that I wouldn’t like about that society, but its form of government was infinitely preferable to what we have now, or the vision of a government regulating virtue.
OK, but the claim wasn’t utopia or even just a preferential government – the claim was a libertarian society. I agree that that government was preferable to what we have now in many ways.
Furthermore, I think that in most ways the government of that past society was even more directly, affirmatively, and confidently in the business of regulating virtue than what we have today. Laws regulating sex, language (obscenity), prostitution, drinking, operating a business on Sunday, etc.
You are correct, I should have been more careful in my word choice. Still that society was much closer to the libertarian ideal than what we have now. I would argue that, today, States with their large and diverse populations are every bit as dangerous to personal liberty and the virtue of its citizens as the federal government was in 1776.
The close you can get government power to the actual citizens:
1) Decisions made will more accurately reflect the problems to be fixed
2) The less likely the government will actually do anything beyond basic services.
It would be nice if one of these threads didn’t immediately become mainly about what libertarians don’t like about what they imagine socons want and what socons don’t like about what they imagine libertarians want. (Yes, I’m as guilty as anyone.)
“Libertarian Society” was never defined. And here you have two libertarians telling you that the society that existed at the founding was more libertarian than it is now. So you either aren’t taking our word for it, or you are positing a definition of “libertarian society” that is some sort of Galt’s Gulch as the only valid . Which is it?
I guess I could start arguing against all the virtue based societies out there, but how is that helpful?
No one is saying it was perfect, just that it was a libertarian society loosely defined. Again you are positing a utopia that libertarians must search for.
Should I make you defend Iran or Saudi Arabia as virtue based societies?
Aside from the real Galt’s Gulch types here at Ricochet, it’s more that I’m not taking your word for it that the society at the founding was more libertarian than it is today. Some reasons for why I think that are laid out in #42 and in the snipped second paragraph of #46.
In many ways, State and local governments at the time of the American insurrection had more in common with Saudi Arabia and Iran than they do to today’s State and local governments.
However, I don’t think this helps anyone in thinking about libertarianism or virtue ethics.
I’m not positing a utopia. I’m not saying it was perfect. I’m not saying that perfect is even attainable. I don’t know that I accept the virtuecon or virtue society formulation; in any event I wouldn’t broadly defend the societies you mention.
I’m just arguing that in many important ways neither the society nor the government was more libertarian at the founding than it is now. Maybe it’s true if we isolate our focus to the federal government, but my understanding of libertarianism tells me that violations of liberty are violations of liberty no matter the hierarchical level.
I disagree. Despite the existence of the institutions and laws you outlined the government at all levels was far less intrusive than it is today. Again, it wasn’t a perfect libertarian utopia, but it was far more libertarian.
I gave you a pretty serious list of intrusion. In what ways was government at all levels less intrusive than it is today? In what ways did government refrain more from regulating or even imposing particular concepts of virtue than it does today?
Education and taxation come to mind. They were against foreign entanglements.
Also, while I do not support the laws you outlined, I find them far less objectionable when imposed at a local level.
As fun as this aside has been I think we’re running down a rabbit hole and neglecting to discuss the actual issues raised by the OP.
Very well, and succinctly, written.
It’s surely easy to fall down rabbit holes on Ricochet. Points and counter points made in delayed intervals – how do we avoid it? I do think our particular rabbit hole was useful and related to the OP, though. Contemplating questions about what was preferable about the founding times over now and vice versa are useful to understanding the various viewpoints and to fashioning a response in the here and now for a desired future.
Libertarian = Classical Liberal. The founders were classical liberals who used principles and arguments derived from European classical liberals to create the most liberal society the world had ever known. I’d argue the original American constitution was the most liberal document up to that point: that’s what it’s famous for, after all.
This is where we should be going. Not exclusive to libertarians though. I guess that makes me a ConCon.