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.
Mere Libertarianism
Libertarianism is the subject of regular debate on Ricochet, both between conservatives and libertarians and — if you really want to see heated debate — among different kinds of libertarians. Taking inspiration from C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity, member Sal Padula and I recorded a conversation in which we attempt to distill libertarianism down to its essence and explore some basic questions about it, including:
What is libertarianism? What isn’t libertarianism? What is its relationship to conservatism (both in America and abroad)? How do contemporary politicians fare under a libertarian analysis? The results may surprise you (and are largely free of references to Rand Paul!).
Download
Resources: Hayek’s essay “Why I Am Not a Conservative.”
Published in Religion & Philosophy
Tom has made the point I was attempting to much more cogently than I was able to. I really do see the difference between conservatism and libertarianism as one of philosophy and not necessarily one of particular policies (though there are certainly many policies where conservatives and libertarians tend to disagree).
Continuing along the half-sibling analogy, if conservatism and libertarianism have the same mother and different fathers, it is pretty accurate to describe anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism as having the same father and different mothers.
Part of the reason there was inconsistency is that you guys – Sal in particular – were not always restricting conservatism to American conservatism. That is part of Sal’s point, I believe.
There are conservatives in other countries conserving something different from what American conservatives are trying to conserve. We as Americans often call these people “not conservative” because we use American conservative standards, but they, too, are busy conserving cherished national traditions. Similarly, I have only recently become aware of the incredible weirdness that comprises the neoreactionary movement and the alt-right. These fringe groups, while not representative of American conservatism, are nonetheless conservative. Like monarchists are conservative.
American conservatism is about more than mere traditionalism, but it’s not entirely clear that “just conservatism” is.
Like Hapsburgs!
Either way, black sheep might be most appropriate.
I think if Tom and I are going to do a taxonomy podcast we might have to get Jennifer to draw up some diagrams for us to illustrate what a mess all of these philosophical divorces and re-marriages create.
Etymologically, a follower of the school of Burke. It’s a French term, ironically. Since then, various groups have called themselves conservative, and language being the flexible system of metaphor that it is, their beliefs have accreted to the definition. Thus, for instance, Hayek, who is in many ways almost perfectly Burkean (I don’t know of a single key domestic policy or philosophical belief of Burke’s that Hayek disagreed with) was able to write “why I am not a conservative” about why he is a follower of Burke rather than of the progressive political party led by Churchill and his ilk.
American conservatism never had a Churchill, so conservatism here has stayed truer to its Burkean roots. It helps that the Republican Party is not called “Conservative”, which shields the definition from contamination by the left of the party.
Well I am with Calvin Coolidge on this one, “About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great chapter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.” President Calvin Coolidge”
However Sal went farther than this by saying that a Conservative justifies everything by appeal to tradition. You pushed him on that and said that it was insulting to imply that conservatives have no ideology but are just following tradition. Sal then said well Conservatives needed to justify themselves to Sal without appealing to tradition and then he would stop insulting them. As if he has never heard a Conservative use anything but tradition to justify his beliefs. You, Tom Meyer seemed to accept that and move on.
It seems as a conservative then I am incapable of understanding the concept that Free Speech or the right to self defense is a good in and of itself but I only defend them because the US has traditionally had free speech and the right to self defense. That is simply untrue. Conservatives can see the value of the Tenth amendment understand that it has been long American tradition to ignore it and advocate for it to no longer be ignored.
The conversation you had was fascinating and I would like to hear more of them but it seems that your or perhaps just Sal’s understanding of Conservatism is pretty flawed. Have said that I do believe that Liberatarianism is a half brother of conservatism as we are both rooted in the Classical liberal tradition.
Exactly. Burke was able to support the impeachment of Hastings and call for reform in Ireland because the tradition he drew upon was a tradition of support for reforms, not a tradition of things being as they always had been. He supported capitalism and reforms in America, too.
Libertarians prefer principles with less of a vintage than the Constitution and Church Tradition; the non-aggression principle, or the harm principle. That’s fine; that those positions are more arbitrary than the principles of conservatives isn’t a particularly big deal.
The key difference there is the non-empirical approach of doctrinaire libertarianism. Many see themselves as radicals, and see themselves correctly. It’s in this rejection of Hayek and other soft libertarians that libertarians mark themselves out as non-conservatives, and as poor candidates for leadership of successful countries; if you live in Somalia, drawing up a new social contract might not be such a terrible idea, but if you live in America, the experience of the many, many radical factions that have striven for utopia tells us that the result would almost certainly be terrible.
Am listening now. Have two windows open to this page, one for the podcast and one for comments. What I enjoy most so far is just hearing the sounds of your voices! It’s nice to be able to put a voice to what I know of you both here in written form.
No one disagrees with that. No one.
The question is how do you define “hurt.”
The socialist says that getting rich off someone else’s labor hurts them.
The Islamist says that turning someone away from Allah hurts them.
The racist says that reproducing with someone of another race hurts the resulting children.
These examples are, to us, obviously ridiculous, but that’s the point. What separates libertarianism from other philosophies is not the NAP but how narrowly they define harm. That so many libertarians think otherwise is argument in bad faith.
I agree that libertarians striving for a narrow definition of harm are somewhat misguided. Instead, I think due consideration of what Coase might call the balance of harm typically (even inevitably) leads to libertarian policies. To cross-pollinate from another thread: