We remit some rights that we may enjoy others.
EDMUND BURKE
Libertopia is that tongue-in-cheek description that libertarians use to describe the ideal free society. It doesn't exist in reality, and many libertarians would probably agree that it never will. This is because the majority of people probably won't go along with it. This is a concession that libertarians make to reality. But libertarians do posit the possibility that libertopia could exist even if it never comes to pass in actuality. It is my contention that libertopia could never exist in either in actuality or theory. Here's why.
In order to have a libertopian society, the most basic thing necessary is for everyone to agree to abide by the non-aggression principle or NAP. The moment a single person deviates from the NAP then libertopia collapses. This is because the aggressor will need to be dealt with. Will he be shunned, excommunicated, incarcerated, or executed? And who will decide these things? And who will be the one in charge of deciding who decides? It is these questions which give birth to government.
Libertopia presupposes that people will have freedom of thought. This will mean a variety of opinions. To think otherwise is to say that people have freedom of thought so long as those thoughts are the correct ones. But any true libertarian will agree that people have the freedom to be Marxist, monarchist, or fascists in their thoughts even if they are not that way in deed. But since libertopia requires that all people agree to abide by the NAP, the freedom to not agree with this leads to libertopia's collapse. Libertopia is impossible. It cannot even exist in theory. It is a square circle. In order for freedom to exist, we must take away some of that freedom. In this case, it is the freedom to disagree with the NAP.
Liberty is a relative thing. It can be in greater or lesser amounts relative to our agreements with others. This is why a woman can walk down a street in America in a bikini but not in Saudi Arabia. You can change the law in Saudi Arabia permitting that freedom, but the people there will almost certainly stone that woman to death. As we see, liberty is not merely a political or legal issue but also a cultural one. We can decry the tyranny of a Muslim society, but the libertopian society would have the same sort of tyranny. Here's why.
Edmund Burke made the point that ideology is built on abstraction and automatically leads to tyranny. Since the ideal society requires perfection, imperfection must be ruthlessly eliminated. This is why we had the massive atrocity in the French Revolution and communism. In order for there to be liberty, we must accept that society can never be perfect by any standard. This includes the standard of liberty. The result is that all societies are compromises between competing ideas, traditions, and preferences.
Libertarians will argue that they are not tyrants, but this is merely because they do not seek power or actually attain it. But the impulse to tyranny is still there. Libertarians cannot prosecute, imprison, or execute, but they can criticize, pillory, and excommunicate. The most glaring example of this is Ayn Rand's collective that she "ruled" with an iron fist. It is no great stretch to imagine what she would and could do with real power. Now, if Rand was such a believer in freedom and individualism, why was she so intolerant of freedom and individualism?
Libertarians will claim to reject Objectivist thinking on this, but they engage in their own purging. This happens when a professed libertarian either supports something or claims something that makes other libertarians doubt whether or not that libertarian is a bona fide libertarian. For instance, when Ron Paul expresses pro-life views or nativist views or gradual elimination of some government programs instead of sudden elimination, some libertarians place him in the category of a heretic. The impulse is there, and the name of that impulse is "purity." Purity is the enemy of liberty.
True liberty must rest on a conservative foundation. It must accept the inevitability and inescapability of imperfection. It must reject ideology and utopian thinking. Libertarian thinking rests on Enlightenment ideology. Conservative thinking rests on Christian theology. The cornerstone of liberty is the belief in Original Sin. Because people are not perfect including ourselves, we tolerate them. We forbear. We forgive. True liberty is the acknowledgement of our imperfections which is why power is dispersed, checked, and kept in constant inspection and suspicion.
In practical terms, my beliefs in ending the drug war, non-interventionism, and other libertarian positions remains unchanged. But in philosophical terms, my beliefs have changed considerably. The structure remains the same, but the foundation has changed. In short, I have put away Locke, Mill, and Rand in favor of Adams, Burke, and Kirk. I believe that the liberty we enjoy today comes from the Christian religion not philosophy concerning principles and social contracts. As such, I am a conservative.
Conservatism is not an ideology. There is no purity in conservatism. There are no dogmas or philosophical systems. Conservatism is simply a collection of general tenets favoring tradition over ideas and gradual change over revolution. Conservatives are willing to compromise, and they are pessimistic about any glorious utopian schemes. Progressivism is utopian since it is informed and influenced by Marxism and a belief in a completely equal society. Like the completely free society, such a thing can never exist.
Freedom ultimately depends on the morality of the citizenry. A greater people need less government. A lesser people need more government. This is why revolutions often end up in worse tyrannies than the ones they topple. To have freedom, government must restrain vice while institutions like the church and the family must promote and transmit virtue. Libertarians believe that virtue is the spontaneous product of freedom, but this is simply not the case as evidenced by lawless places like the Old West or Somalia. Government must exist and restrain vice to the degree that good people are able to flourish.
Governments can be good or bad. Government can restrain vice or be the agent of vice. This is a tenet of conservatism. As such government itself can never be perfect and must always restrain itself with checks and balances. The best possible government is a republic, and the US Constitution is fundamentally a conservative document. It is not perfect, but it was better than either the tyranny or the atomized nation that was certain to come from the aftermath of the American Revolution. The most probable outcome would have been reconquest by the British in the War of 1812.
No party or individual carries the banner of true conservatism these days except Ron Paul. The GOP is simply terrible as a conservative organization. Most of this comes from ignorance of economics and an interventionist neocon foreign policy. Most Republican candidates are indistinguishable from Democrats. The epitome of this collapse of conservatism is the monstrosity known as Mitt Romney. My own philosophical change won't matter much at all at the ballot box as there is not single candidate other than Ron Paul that I could consider voting for in any presidential election.
The organization that represents my thinking best these days is the Acton Institute. Lord Acton is someone I can get down with along with Burke and Kirk. I also retain my fondness for libertarians like Tom Woods, Andrew Napolitano, and Jeffrey Tucker who are Catholic. The specific Catholic positions I agree with are those banning abortion, ending unnecessary and unjust wars, and abolishing the death penalty. Otherwise, I am essentially still a libertarian favoring small government and a free market. I am simply willing to compromise a bit to make things better knowing it will never be perfect. Prudence is superior to purity, and this is what makes me a conservative.
0 comments:
Post a Comment