Libertarianism vs. Conservatism Debate | Cato Institute: Policy Forum

Libertarianism vs. Conservatism Debate | Cato Institute: Policy Forum

I see libertarianism and conservatism as two distinct movements. Many libertarians misidentify themselves as conservatives in order to distinguish themselves from the left. Above is a debate between interns of the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation. I thought I would make a few comments about the debate.

It seemed to me that both sides of the debate caricatured the position of the other side. The conservative position was that the libertarians were promoting an unstable set of policies that would fail to provide liberty to future generations. The libertarians argued that conservatism was unprincipled and amounted to a seizure of power much like that of the left, only in different areas.

At one point one of the conservatives claimed that the libertarians were lumping together several different kinds of conservatism, including some European variants that favored monarchism and the aristocracy. If the libertarians presented that sort of argument I was unable to detect it.

As I see things one source of confusion in the debate involved the role that morality plays in politics. The conservatives argued that rights were grounded in morality, and hence the government had to take a position on moral and ethical issues. The libertarians argued that moral and ethical values are formed in civil society, which depends on rights that can be put in place independent of moral and ethical values.

Here I believe that the confusion comes from taking a position that all moral and ethical values must be either independent or dependent on rights. Ideas about rights are indeed moral and ethical values. However, not all moral and ethical values are rights. To say something is a right is to have certain ideas about the legitimate use of coercion, but this does not mean that all moral and ethical values may legitimately be backed up by coercion. I am writing another post that deals with this subject.

Conservatives often fail to understand libertarian positions. They believe that allowing certain things amounts to an endorsement. The conservatives accused the libertarians of promoting a radical, secularist agenda. While it may be the case that some libertarians are hostile to religion, this is not true of all of them. In any case hostility to religion need not follow from libertarianism. I should point out that secularism can take on two different meanings. If the conservatives meant separation of church and state, they were absolutely right. Using the state to favor a particular religious point of view is incompatible with libertarianism.

One area of disagreement between the two side involved principles and pragmatic considerations. The conservatives saw the flexibility of their ideas as a strength. Whereas the libertarians saw it as a weakness, since it would strengthen government and allow it to grab more power in what libertarians saw as an arbitrary manner.

One very good point that a libertarian member of the audience made involved a question about the moral values of some conservative leaders who were caught up in scandals that showed a failure on their part to practice traditional values. The conservative responded that this showed the importance of conservative values. However, I think they missed the main point. What the libertarians were questioning was the wisdom of giving more power to government, and more specifically the impact that this would have on moral and ethical values. The failure of leaders to uphold traditional moral and ethical values exposes the weakness of this approach.

That having been said, I think that the conservatives cannot be said to have advocated completely arbitrary government power. They favor an approach that is guided by tradition. I think that tradition has its place. I don't support a completely theoretical approach to politics that ignores historical experience. I would, however, place more emphasis on liberty than the conservatives seem prepared to do.

On the issue of gay marriage particularly, I find the conservative approach problematic. Since gay marriage has not been shown to have beneficial results, we should not allow it. The conservatives seemed to be speaking as if the traditional form of marriage between a man and a woman would be completely abolished if marriage equality were implemented. This is not the case. An overwhelming majority of people will not be interested in marrying someone of the same sex. Marriage between men and women will continue as it has in the past. It is difficult to see how, if same sex marriage is not to be tried, we are to obtain evidence that it serves some public benefit. Contrary to what some conservatives seemed to imply, marriage equality doesn't abolish anyone's religion.