by Natasha Petrova
http://c4ss.org/content/24947
Response To Comments On We’re Not Conservatives: Part Two
The Libertarian Alliance blog posted my piece on why libertarians are not conservatives. It wasn’t received very well. The poster of the article argued thusly:
Note: In my view, this is a silly article. The author does to conservatism just what the more brain dead conservatives do to libertarianism – that is, to pick out one strand from a cluster of movements, and to take that as representative of the whole. There are conservative objections to war and to moral regulation. Indeed, the moral regulation of the Victorian Age was mostly brought in by “liberals” against Tory opposition. And the most prominent calls for a negotiated end to the Great War came from within the Tory aristocracy. As for point 3), there are conservative defenses of tradition that are not at all incompatible with libertarianism. I give this one out of five on the grounds that the author got her spelling right. SIG
I admit to lumping all conservatives together, but what I described has gone under the label of conservative. As for defenses of tradition being compatible with libertarianism; I disagree with this. The essence of libertarianism is individualism and individual rights. This conflicts with obedience to inherited collectivist traditional social norms. Independent judgment and reason tend to undermine traditionalism.
The conservative’s tendency to favor the preservation of established institutions will also come into conflict with the libertarian. All institutions are subject to rational examination and change in a free society. This can’t be reconciled with a conservative defense of tradition or inherited institutions. Tradition also tends to require coercion or ostracism to maintain. Both of which are tools for controlling people. This is not to say that coercion and ostracism are always unjustified, but they are preferably used for something other than the continuation of existing social norms.
Another way in which tradition and libertarianism are at odds is historical. History is replete with examples of tyranny and unfree societies. There is a dearth of relative freedom throughout history, so it’s strange to look to what has come before for inspiration.
Tradition is not favorable to liberty. It cannot substitute for a rational delineation of rights. The social norms that most human beings have embraced are simply not conducive to liberty. We error in relying on them. Murray Rothbard provides a fine conclusion to this post below:
“Come join us, come realize that to break once and for all with statism is to break once and for all with the Right-wing. We stand ready to welcome you.” ~ Murray Rothbard
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
F. A. Hayek makes the case against conservatism better in his “Why I am not a conservative” at the end of his “Constitution of Liberty” (1960).
For example Hayek does not make the mistake that all institutions have to be (or even can be) “rationally examined and justified” in advance. On the contrary “he who breaks a thing, to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom” (that great moral philosopher “Gandalf the Grey” in Tolkien’s “The Lord of Rings”).
Many customs and traditions evolve over time without people fully understanding (or even being able to fully understand) what will happen if they are broken. One does not need to be an (unthinking) “conservative” to know this – “Old Whigs” (such as Hayek) know it as well.
The violation of traditions and customs can lead to all sorts of unknown consequences – and they tend to be (due to the nature of things) NEGATIVE consequences. That is why such experiments should be by a few people (on a voluntary basis) so that the rest of society can observe the results and avoid them if they are negative.
What conservatives complain about is that the power of the state (in all sorts of ways – for example in what television entertainment shows are favoured by FCC regulations in the United States) is put on the side of the those who seek to undermine “irrational” customs and traditions – so that new fads and fancies are PUSHED on society (general society) before their negative consequences can be clearly seen.
For example the state (in Britain and the United States) has pushed divorce – by offering women the money of their husbands and exclusive control of the children (the state has also pushed, in many ways, births out of wedlock).
By pushing various “Progressive” things on general civil society the state has also pushed the negative consequences of these things (poverty, crime, social breakdown….) on the wider society.
By the way anyone can cite Murray Rothbard (as he tried to attract so many different groups to libertarianism over the years) – I could cite him saying much the same as the above.
Very well said.
Besides which, does the writer object to libertarians’ defense of traditions or to traditionalism?
A libertarian may enjoy many traditions, such as the festivities at birthdays, or the common sorrowing or, in some traditions, festivities, at a funeral. Hunting Easter eggs with his children on the appropriate day (associate it with the Christian Resurrection, or with Ēostre, or just because it’s traditional in your family). Independence Day fireworks, spring and fall housecleaning, the toast to the host and hostess. The conventions of manners that grease the wheels of social interactions have also the character of traditions. But there is nothing unlibertarian about saying “Please” and “Thank you” as a matter of common politeness.
Traditionalism is another beast entirely. It is a policy of “Tradition über alles,” of holding onto tradition as the anchor in the stormy sea that is life (oh, how poetic, dear!), so that anything that might threaten the Traditions is fearful and dangerous and to be avoided or discouraged or done away with on that ground alone.
Libertarians as a rule will avoid adopting Traditionalism as their method of coping with life.
But that, as I explained previously, is not Conservatism, although a given conservative might have a strong Traditionalist streak within him.
As for conservatives or conservatism and libertarianism, what Paul said.
Julie – a libertarian who objects to custom and tradition is basically a lunatic (as human life is based on these things – social evolution over time). However, libertarians do object to the state enforcement of such things.
For example, Christmas is one thing – a nationwide Holiday established by law is quite another.
An employer should have the right to say “come to work on the 25th of December (for normal pay) or take a hike” – and his employees (and customers) should have the right to say “you are Mr Scrooge – we will no longer do business with you”.
Yes. Of course, here even though various holidays are “Federal holidays,” private businesses aren’t under any legal compulsion to shut down (even on Independence Day). And many don’t. Just State and Federal Government institutions, and I think but won’t swear to it, the banks. (Even the States I believe are free to choose to keep their public offices open.)
The exception of note being at least some of the States, such as the Great State of Illinois, where it is illegal for car dealerships to be open on Sundays. (That’s because some of dealers with plenty of clout wanted to be able to take Sundays off, but not if the competition was going to stay open, so….)
Alas Julie – Illinois is not known for its honesty.
🙁