Thanks to Southern Appeal and Texasbestgrok for the links. My discussion of libertarianism and conservatism is in four parts. First, the theoretical background. Second, a discussion of libertarianism and individualism. Third, A discussion of how conservatism treats the individual as a slave. Fourth, some thoughts on Thomas Jefferson.
A while back, Randy Barnett pointed to this video, which is really a very good simple explanation of what libertarianism is about. If you’re interested in what libertarianism really means, I also highly recommend Rose Wilder Lane’s classic The Discovery of Freedom as the best introduction to libertarianism I know of. And don’t forget my old post, What is Libertarianism.
If you are a conservative, and you are made uncomfortable by the attacks on Jefferson and the other founders by folks like Paul, or Bork, or Nisbet, please read Harry Jaffa’s great essay The False Prophets of American Conservatism. You don’t have to call yourself a libertarian to see the problems with these critiques. Also, if you have a moment, read Jaffa’s classic Equality As A Conservative Principle, which you can find cached here.
As to the conservative lie—and really, that is what it is—that libertarians don’t think about society or morals and just want to have sex with dogs and so forth, it is simply designed to make people believe that good folks aren’t libertarians. But the fact is that libertarians care just as much about their families and friends and loved ones, care just as much about their neighborhoods and their children’s future, care just as much about living a good, moral life, as any conservative. When you look at a libertarian like, say, Clint Bolick, or Eugene Volokh, or Virginia Postrel, or Tom Palmer, and you say these people don’t care about society, and don’t care about morality, and don’t care about their fellow human beings—well, it’s obviously not true. The best short refutation of it I’ve seen is Tom Palmer’s Myths of Individualism, which I’ve linked to several times. Even a passing familiarity with libertarian literature—Hayek, Locke, Rand, Milton, Jefferson, Postrel, Epstein—reveals how deeply libertarians do care about morality and society. (I’ve always thought it amusing that Objectivists of all people get accused of being morally lax!)
Thomas Jefferson on whether government can “transform hearts”:
The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Algernon Sidney on the argument that libertarianism leads to social chaos and immorality:
It were a folly hereupon to say, that the liberty for which we contend, is of no use to us, since we cannot endure the solitude, barbarity, weakness, want, misery and dangers that accompany it whilst we live alone, nor can enter into a society without resigning it; for the choice of that society, and the liberty of framing it according to our own wills, for our own good, is all we seek. This remains to us whilst we form governments, that we ourselves are judges how far ’tis good for us to recede from our natural liberty; which is of so great importance, that from thence only we can know whether we are freemen or slaves; and the difference between the best government and the worst, doth wholly depend upon a right or wrong exercise of that power. If men are naturally free, such as have wisdom and understanding will always frame good governments: But if they are born under the necessity of perpetual slavery, no wisdom can be of use to them; but all must forever depend on the will of their lords, how cruel, mad, proud or wicked soever they be.
Abraham Lincoln on those who attack the views of Thomas Jefferson:
One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied, and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them “glittering generalities”; another bluntly calls them “self evident lies”; and still others insidiously argue that they apply only to “superior races.” These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect—the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard—the miners, and sappers—of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us.
Update: Well, I see Paul has written some responses. First, he demonstrates that he does not know what Rousseau’s concept of the General Will means. He writes “I take [Babbit’s statement] to mean that the state’s higher self must limit the popular will.”
Yes, that’s exactly what it means. Rousseau’s concept of the General Will does not refer to the popular will. It refers to the will that the people would have if they were not corrupted—the perfect will, as it were, which must be enforced in society even when it conflicts with the actual, temporary, popular will.
Paul also says that his problem with libertarianism is that it
permits those who do not have such grounded views [i.e., who do not care about others or about morals] to do as they wish without consequence. Or, more to the point, their philosophy does not ground others in a more ordered sense of community.
Now, wait a second. In his earlier posts, Paul claimed that conservatism doesn’t seek to coerce people into doing what Society demands. He said that “[w]e are free to order our lives as we choose fit [sic],” and that “[f]orced collectivization is not the solution. Thus, while conservatives believe that man must have higher values, the government cannot coerce him.” I said that I thought this was not true, and now Paul says that the problem with libertarianism is that it allows people to do things that disrupt society without consequence. In other words, Paul thinks there ought to be consequences for such behavior. What sorts of consequences, hmm? And he says the good thing about conservatism is that it has a “more ordered sense of community.” Funny word, that ordered. Whose orders are we to obey?
So much for government not coercing us.
Finally, Paul claims that he has read “over 2,000 pages” of “Jefferson text.” Well, this is still more embarrassing, then, since it demonstrates that he does not understand even after reading. It is not that we “simply have different interpretations of Jefferson.” It is that one of us knows what the hell he’s talking about, and one of us does not.
Comments policy