Libertarianism and conservatism are often
lumped together, but there are fundamental differences between the two
philosophies that make them incompatible.
The contemporary Tea Party Movement, like its revolutionary
ancestor, looks to principles for guidance. Yet an old but active fault
line runs just beneath the surface of the movement that has the
potential to cause a fatal rupture. Tea Partiers simultaneously promote
both a conservatism based upon the principles of the American founding
and a libertarianism based on individualism, but the two are ultimately incompatible.
Libertarians are good at explaining why the market works and why
government fails, and they have made important policy initiatives in
areas such as school choice. On the other hand, they actively oppose
laws prohibiting obscenity, protecting unborn children, promoting
marriage, limiting immigration, and securing American citizens against
terrorists. These positions flow from core principles that have more in
common with modern liberalism than with the American founding, and which
threaten to erode our constitutional order even further.
The attraction of libertarianism is also its main defect: it offers
neat solutions to complex problems. Unfortunately, reality is far more
complex than libertarians acknowledge. Only conservatism offers
principles adequate to that reality. Consider ten claims libertarians
often make:
1. “The Founders of the American political order were libertarian.”
Although the American Founders believed in limited government, they
were not libertarian. The Constitution was designed for a federal system
of government, specifying and limiting national powers and leaving to
the states the exercise of their customary powers to protect the health,
safety, morals, and welfare of their citizens. None of the American
founders challenged these customary state powers, nor did they attempt
to repeal them. Even on its own terms, the Constitution provides for
powers that many libertarians would object to, such as establishing post
offices, granting patents, regulating commerce among the states, and
suspending the writ of
habeas corpus.
2. “Conservatism fears new ideas because it has no distinctive principles of its own to oppose them.”
This claim, made by F.A. Hayek, is simply false as applied to American
conservatism (as Hayek himself knew). American conservatism seeks to
conserve the principles of justice that lie at the root of the American
political order, what might be called Natural Law Liberalism. These
principles, enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, are rooted in
nature, which fixes the boundaries to all authority. They include “the
Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”; “self-evident” truths such as “all men
are Created equal” and “are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights”; and a clear statement of the end of government, to
“secure” rights and to “effect [the] Safety and Happiness” of the
governed.
3. “Only individuals exist, therefore there is no such thing as a ‘common good.’” The statement reflects the corrosive nominalism that Richard Weaver decried in
Ideas Have Consequences,
and which fatally undercuts the principled limits to coercive authority
identified above. Every human association, whether a marriage, business
partnership, or sports team, has a common good, or why would it exist?
Common goods are not substantial entities standing over and against individual persons; they
are
the good of individual persons. But this does not mean common goods are
always divisible into individual shares, like a cake. An orchestra, a
marriage, an army cannot be divided without being destroyed. Within such
associations individual persons exist as bandmates, spouses, and
soldiers.
The common good of the political association consists in the ensemble
of conditions in which persons and associations can more easily
flourish. These are nicely summarized in the Preamble to the
Constitution of the United States: “to . . . 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.”
4. “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully
exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is
to prevent harm to others.” The “harm principle,” first
formulated by J.S. Mill, is a moral claim. It cannot be derived from
moral skepticism without committing a self-referential fallacy: The
argument, “We don’t know what is right or wrong, therefore it is wrong
to do x,” is obviously invalid.
As a moral claim, the harm principle is not neutral with respect to
competing conceptions of the good. Underlying it is the conviction that
the good for human beings is to live according to one’s own conception
of what is good, and to live in a society in which that freedom is
protected. For the sake of this conception of the good, it requires the
repeal of legislation enacted by those with a different conception of
the good. It thus deprives them of their right to choose and live
according to their own conception of the good. In effect, libertarians
wish to compel other persons with whom they disagree to live in a
society that these others find, often with very good reason, to be
hostile to human flourishing.
Further, the harm principle is neither self-evident nor demonstrably
true. It certainly cannot apply to children and mental incompetents, as
Mill himself knew, and this concession significantly undermines the
principle.
The greatest objection, however, is the narrow construction Mill
gives to it. For him, as for other libertarians, the principle only
applies to bodily harm. But why deny the existence of moral harm? If it
is true that some actions are intrinsically self-destructive or
self-corrupting, then it is also true that encouraging such actions can
cause harm to others. Prostitutes, panders, pushers, and pimps all
profit from the moral corruption of others. Why should society be forced
to treat these actions with indifference because of a questionable
moral claim like the harm principle?
5. “Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery.”
This is Murray Rothbard’s succinct summary of the anarcho-libertarian
objection to politics. Anarcho-libertarians are opposed to conscription
and taxation
on principle. What gives people calling themselves
“the state,” they ask, the moral right to do that which, if done by
“private” persons, everyone would call criminal? (Rothbard, consistent
to the point of absurdity, would even prevent parents from restraining
their run-away toddlers.) Because non-anarchist libertarians also regard
all coercion as evil, this objection presents some difficulty for them.
Conservatives do not regard coercion as evil,
simpliciter.
Some limits liberate. Human beings enter the world utterly dependent,
and they require for their security and development the authoritative
and sometimes coercive direction of parents, teachers, police, soldiers,
and judges. There are many subtle threads of coercion, conservatives
argue, that make social cooperation possible.
Outside the bounds set by natural right, however, coercion is
tyranny. It has been the greatest achievement of Western civilization to
recognize the basic human needs, interests, and inclinations that make
coercive associations necessary, to carve out their rightful scope and
limits, and to bring them under the discipline of reason and the rule of
law. Civilization depends upon citizens (
cives), members of a political association (
civitas)
who understand and are grateful for the gift of free government,
attached to its principles, and prepared to defend it against all
threats, including free riders who would exploit the system for their
own private advantage. Libertarians often treat this difficult
achievement like mere scaffolding that can now be kicked down for the
sake of a utopian vision that has never existed and never will.
6. Virtue cannot be coerced, therefore government should not legislate morality. Coercive law cannot make people virtuous. But it can
assist or
thwart
individuals in making themselves virtuous. Law is both coercive and
expressive. Not only does it shape behavior by attaching to it penalties
or rewards; it also helps shape attitudes, understandings, and
character. Libertarians who doubt this point can examine the difference
in attitudes toward racial discrimination in America before and after
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the availability of pornographic
materials before and after
Roth v.
United States (1957),
or the stability of marriage before and after the introduction of
no-fault divorce laws in the 1970s. The law, both by prohibition and by
silence, is a powerful signal of acceptable behavior, and thus a
powerful influence on character. When the behavior in question involves
moral norms that are consequential for the rest of society, it is a
proper object of law.
This is
not to say that the law
must prohibit every
vice or mandate every virtue, as libertarians often suggest. Aristotle,
Aquinas, the Declaration itself all make clear that “prudence will
dictate” whether the costs outweigh the benefits in concrete
circumstances (e.g., difficulty of enforcement; more pressing needs with
scarce resources; the danger of encouraging underground crime, etc.).
But this is prudence in the service of principle, not mere pragmatism.
7. Government should not interfere in the free market.
Because they oppose commerce in things that are intrinsically immoral
and harmful, such as hard drugs, prostitution, or obscene materials,
conservatives are accused by libertarians of opposing the free market.
This is false. Conservatives value the free market as much as
libertarians, as a means for mutually beneficial exchanges, as an
occasion for the exercise of virtues such as creativity, cooperation,
industry, honesty, and thrift, and as an indispensable source of
information (through the pricing mechanism) for individuals on the best
use of resources.
But conservatives oppose the “total market,” in which all human
associations, such as families and churches, are falsely remade in the
image of ordinary contracts, and in which all voluntary (short of force
or fraud) contracts between consenting adults are enforced by law. In
the libertarian universe there are no citizens, only consumers.
For conservatives, private property and the free market are important
institutions for human flourishing, but their value and success
critically depend upon non-market institutions such as the family and
the political association, as well as a moral and cultural milieu
favorable to honesty, trust, industry, and other important virtues. When
the use of private property and market exchanges have spillover effects
that adversely effect these other institutions and individuals, they
are subject to reasonable limits by law. This is the understanding of
law and morality that lies behind the common law, was embraced by the
states after the American Revolution, and although under steady assault
by modern liberals and libertarians, continues in America to this day.
8. The only alternative to libertarianism is totalitarianism.
This is a false dilemma. Between the fantasies of libertarianism and
totalitarianism is the wide spectrum of governments that have actually
existed through most of human history. The false dilemma is often
associated with the slippery slope fallacy:
If people are given the power to coerce in one area, they will eventually coerce in all areas. Libertarians rarely give the cause or reason why this must be true, and conservatives deny that it is true.
Conservatives recognize the dangers of moral fanaticism, but they
insist, with historical evidence to back them up, that the remedy is not
to facilitate the debauchery of society by eliminating the props to
good moral character, but to reinforce and support those props.
9. Libertarianism is based upon a realistic understanding of human nature.
Libertarians accuse conservatives of being utopian or naïve about human
nature. Self-regarding actions are sufficient for producing a free and
prosperous society, they argue. Moreover, power by its very nature
corrupts human beings and therefore should be narrowly circumscribed and
vigilantly watched.
Conservatives reply that it is the libertarians who are utopian for
failing to give proper weight to the full range of human motives, and to
the exigencies of a free society and limited government. They concur
with James Madison’s observation in
Federalist No. 55: “As
there is a degree of depravity in mankind, which requires a certain
degree of circumspection and distrust: so there are other qualities in
human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.
Republican government presupposes the existence of these [latter]
qualities in a higher degree than any other form.”
Public virtue alone is not sufficient to secure limited government,
but it is foolish to think that it can be dispensed with altogether. If
the despotism of George III caused the American Revolution, the virtue
of George Washington was necessary to conclude it. “The aim of every
political constitution,” Madison writes in
Federalist No. 57,
is “first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern,
and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the
next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them
virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.” Here, from
the “Father of the Constitution,” is a sober constitutional principle
based upon a true realism.
10. “Freedom works.” A frequent refrain of Hayek,
but what does it mean? Weapons also “work,” though not necessarily for
good. Freedom cannot be evaluated apart from the ends that it serves.
John Winthrop, in a passage Tocqueville called “this beautiful
definition of freedom,” once said:
There is a liberty of corrupt nature,
which is effected by men and beasts, to do what they list; and this
liberty is inconsistent with authority, impatient of all restraint; by
this liberty, [we are all inferior]; 'tis the grand enemy of truth and
peace … But there is a civil, a moral, a federal liberty, which is the
proper end and object of authority; it is a liberty for that only which
is just and good; for this liberty you are to stand with the hazard of
your very lives.
Stand the first Tea Partiers did when their true liberty was threatened, and stand we must if it is to be preserved.
Nathan Schlueter is a visiting fellow in the James Madison
Program at Princeton University. He is associate professor of philosophy
at Hillsdale College. This piece is adapted from a book manuscript,
co-authored with Nikolai Wenzel, on the Foundations of the
Libertarian-Conservative Debate. Tomorrow Wenzel will defend
libertarianism here on Public Discourse
.
Receive Public Discourse by email, become a fan of Public Discourse on Facebook, follow Public Discourse on Twitter, and sign up for the Public Discourse RSS feed.
Support the work of Public Discourse
by making a secure donation to The Witherspoon Institute.
Copyright 2012 the Witherspoon Institute. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment