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
It’s not controversial, on Ricochet, to say that the American Founding was classically-liberally-based.
Whether you postulate “libertarian=classical liberal=founders” or “founding society=libertarian society” (or at least much more libertarian than now), you don’t escape the discussion and comparisons that Jamie and I were making. Because, as shown, in many ways the founders were a-ok with decidedly non-libertarian type functions of government. It’s worth exploring what modern libertarians identify with and how they justify the major departures.
Jamie Lockett: #39 “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.”
The problem I have as a SoCon is that government is the bellwether of the issue. Abortion on demand through viability is the result of the Supreme Court. What seems to be the wave of the future on SSM is not the result of voting in most states, it is the result of judges judging prejudicially to the public interest as stated in those votes.
The government is the problem with regard to its overreach. I am not asking for a larger government, I am asking that government do its job without legislating from the bench.
I am asking that federal agencies cease issuing onerous demands stripping people of their property rights and cease treating citizens like enemies.
So, Jamie, we have differing opinions. I need government to do what I cannot do alone, but I don’t need government to do everything, badly.
The problem, Donald, is that in a democracy once you cede that something is the province of government you don’t always get to control how it is handled. Better to keep government out of it all together.
I would prefer a socially conservative society and find the moral decay we are undergoing disturbing at best. I think a more libertarian government is the best chance of obtaining this society. I view SSM acceptance as a recognition that marriage is not valued as it once was. When 50% of marriages end in divorce and 30% of couples think of it as optional, it is time to recognize that it has lost a good deal of its meaning. At this point if two men or two women want to get married, what difference does it make? I wold like a society that valued marriage as it once did and think that the classic liberal principles our founders attempted to incorporate are the best chance of bringing this about. They recognized they did not do a perfect job and hoped we would improve on their work. I think we can agree we have not.
Sorry to have dropped out of the thread, and many thanks for the kind comments. A few responses:
Completely agreed. I’m not sure this is actually a libertarian blindspot — it’s certainly not among Hayekian types — but I openly concede it’s not emphasized enough by libertarians. If the general perception among our allies is that we’re in favor of an atomistic, hyper-individualized, super-autonomous existence, we’re probably doing something wrong. Private organizations, societies, communities, and churches are where 95% of the interesting things in life happen.
I could get behind that.
Ed, if you were to write a post on this, I would be very interested in reading it.
For the record, I’m significantly less troubled by local laws I object to than I am by identical ones at the state or federal level. I’d still find, say, local anti-liquor laws to be misguided and abridgments of liberty, but I’d tolerate them in small localities (so long as I didn’t live there).
Hmmm.. complicated issue.
The general trend of the time was toward more liberty and greater degrees of self-governance (with slavery being an enormous asterisk); state establishment of religion were waning, bills of rights were slowly being drawn up in the states, etc. Moreover, it’s hard to wrap one’s head around just how little bureaucracy existed at the time at any level.
As regards sexual morality, it really depends on exactly when, where, and who exactly you’re talking about. The Second Great Awakening was, in part, in response to some rather heroic levels of licentiousness from the founding generation. Prostitution was widely available, often either legal or openly tolerated.
Do Libertarians actually believe that? If they do I think that that’s an incredibly naive position. There are millions of things human beings do that go against incentives. Just look at the Islamist suicide bombers. The very fact that one stays on welfare instead of getting a job that pays much more and provides dignity goes against incentives.