Conservatism And Liberalism Both Lead To Totalitarianism

[aligncare]

One of my intellectual inspirations Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek wrote an essay once titled: “Why I Am Not A Conservative.” In it, he describes the reasoning for his rejecting of the label of a conservative. Hayek saw conservatism as a necessary rejection of modern liberalism at the time (the piece was written in 1960), which had become synonymous with socialism, as it still very much is today. Hayek however could not call himself a conservative due to the willingness of conservatives to use the force of government in order to resist the changes pushed by progressives, and therefore rejecting the spontaneity that is championed by modern libertarians in an economic system referred to as Austrian Economics. Hayek wrote: “This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces.”

As a modern libertarian, I must agree with Hayek and concede that conservatism today is still lacking in its belief in free markets, indeed in the very idea of freedom itself. The conservative claims to favor free markets, but will still champion farm bills and subsidies that result in the passage of welfare in the form of food stamps. Also, conservatism today does not believe in a free market in labor, which is the argument to be made against immigration.

Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman pointedly argued once that illegal immigration was technically superior to legal immigration. The reason was because while modern conservatives claim to fear the benefits granted to these immigrants, technically legal immigrants qualify for more benefits due to their willingness to follow the law. Illegal immigration is superior because they must pay into a system that they can not derive the same benefit from.

And Hayek was also correct in the fondness of modern conservatives for authority. It underlies everything, from their willingness to defend the NSA’s spying, to their desire to police the world and in their defense of local police forces when they abuse the civil liberties of Americans on a daily basis. Conservatives desire order over freedom. Freedom is only secondary to their desire to shape the world around them according to their own subjective preferences. Libertarians are not afraid to allow creative chaos into the world, because underlying libertarianism is the belief in the inherent goodness in man. To be a conservative is to believe that man is inherently fallen, and must be reformed.

Living in America today is to live in a nation that is bound together by traditions of classical liberalism. America is liberal in the sense that, unlike some nations, our women do not fear legal retribution for appearing in public without a veil, and unlike in Russia, our homosexuals do not have to fear violent mobs. The wonderful traditions of liberalism in America allow for the freedom of expression that is sadly lacking in many other parts of the world. But unfortunately, while the freedom of expression is nearly limitless, the modern liberal does not believe in the economic freedom that is necessary to extend those freedoms into other spheres as well.

The ability to invest one’s capital as one sees fit is an important component of the total package that is liberty. Progressivism today seeks to capture the wealth of the individual, and demand that it serve subjectively defined collective good. For instance, Obamacare. While it may seem objectively that public health is an issue of critical importance, and it is, the modern progressive today does not realize that economics is about the allocation of scarce resources. Health care is not a limitless resource. The amount of time and energy that doctors and nurses can spend treating patients is finite, even if the amount of prescriptions that could be written were enough to satisfy every disease known to man. There simply are not enough minutes in a day and doctors available to treat every single human being in need. This is why a price system is important and must be used in order to allocate scarce resources.

Consider the quandary once posed to me by libertarian scholar Tom Palmer of the Cato Institute. Palmer related to me an inherent contradiction contained within the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. In it, there is a definitive statement that all humans have a right to healthcare. And in another passage, it claims that every human has a right to leisure time. The contradiction is laid bare when one consider the fact that if a doctor has a right to time off, then how can a patient demand they be treated at the same time? The doctor’s right to leisure is in conflict with the right of the patient to be healed. These are not rights, so much as incoherent demands. Modern liberals seek to institute laws that put humans in positions to which they cannot obey, and then punishes them for not obeying.

Another reason to reject modern liberalism is its push for material egalitarianism. They push economic fallacies such as the idea of a gender wage gap, which has been thoroughly debunked and lies on the assumption that both genders want the same things, or at least they should want the same things. Liberals decry the inequality of wealth in the world, while ignoring the fact that modern capitalism has provided for even the poor to have greater wealth than at any point in history. As Grover Norquist wrote about the president’s recent state of the union address: “The grinding poverty of the Middle Ages had great income equality. Even the kings didn’t have indoor plumbing or electricity. No one had life extending health care. Mao’s China gave us another prolonged period of great income equality. The frenetic first days of the French Revolution reduced income inequality by lopping off the heads of the aristocracy — the political bosses of the day.”

Liberal hypocrisy on material equality extends further into their misguided quest to raise the minimum wage, a token gesture which has only certain beneficiaries, namely those who are already employed. Those who suffer are those who do not have a voice in the debate, the unskilled who are priced out of the marketplace due to an employers unwillingness to take a risk on someone who may not be able to provide enough value to compensate for the governments demand on their wages.

Modern liberals are not just hypocrites on wages, their rhetoric also flies in the face of their desire to help others seek happiness. Rather, they strike a puritan note on the desire for material things. Their culture is pervasive with a disdain for material possessions. They look down on the poor for enjoying the benefits of capitalism, and while the rich purveyors of this socialist philosophy sit in gilded apartments, they blithely pen song lyrics that criticize materialism while revealing their innate desire to control others. Take for instance the song “Royals” by Lorde who wrote: “we don’t care” for “gold teeth, Grey Goose,” “Cristal, Maybach,” “diamonds on your timepiece,” and “jet planes, islands, tigers on a gold leash. That kind of luxe just ain’t for us.” She later betrays the liberals true desires when she sings, “Let me be your ruler. You can call me Queen Bee….Let me live that fantasy.”

I will not be ruled.

As a libertarian, I declare my individual right to self-ownership, and this right is not in conflict with any other individual person’s rights. I trust that humans are good, and they also deserve to own themselves and to do as they wish, provided that they harm no one else. For this, and for many other reasons, I reject both conservatism and liberalism.



Read more at TLR: Why I Reject Both Conservatism And Liberalism | The Libertarian Republic http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/reject-conservatism-liberalism/#ixzz2tM84oCmT
Follow us: @LibRepublic on Twitter | LibertarianRepublic on Facebook

[Rapunzel]

 

[PzLdr]

And since we're painting with broad brushes, Libertarianism leads to anarchy. 

[aligncare]

Nothing anarchistic about the Constitution. A pen and a phone? That's anarchy.

[massadvj]

Hayek is correct about conservatism.  If you go back to the roots of conservative thinking (Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk) you find that the key tenet of its philosophy is preservation of the institutions that have stood the test of time in building our civilization.  This, of course, includes religious institutions, the constitution, etc.  But there is very little in the philosphical underpinnings of conservatism to support free markets and property rights, except for the fact that these things were in place at the time the philosophy was developed, and therefore were worthy of inclusion on the list of the things to be preserved.

Nowadays a good case can be made that social programs actually qualify as "institutions that have stood the test of time in building our civilization."  And so conservatives talk of "saving" this or that social program with more capable management, as opposed to tearing it down.  I expect that in 20 years conservatives will be campaigning on the platform of saving Obamacare for future generations.

It's a conundrum for libertarians because in a democracy you can't get your way without a plurality, and so it's necessary to coalesce with these people.  But there are critical differences.  And please don't tell me we are not a democracy.  I know we are not SUPPOSED to be a democracy, but the reality of the USA in the present day is that we are more of a democracy than a republic, so get your head out of the sand.

[aligncare]

You need masterminds and social engineers, like Obama, the most intelligent man to ever occupy the office. (Y'all recognize sarcasm when you see it, don't you?)

[Bigun]

Hayek is correct about conservatism.  If you go back to the roots of conservative thinking (Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk) you find that the key tenet of its philosophy is preservation of the institutions that have stood the test of time in building our civilization.  This, of course, includes religious institutions, the constitution, etc.  But there is very little in the philosphical underpinnings of conservatism to support free markets and property rights, except for the fact that these things were in place at the time the philosophy was developed, and therefore were worthy of inclusion on the list of the things to be preserved.

Nowadays a good case can be made that social programs actually qualify as "institutions that have stood the test of time in building our civilization."  And so conservatives talk of "saving" this or that social program with more capable management, as opposed to tearing it down.  I expect that in 20 years conservatives will be campaigning on the platform of saving Obamacare for future generations.

It's a conundrum for libertarians because in a democracy you can't get your way without a plurality, and so it's necessary to coalesce with these people.  But there are critical differences.  And please don't tell me we are not a democracy.  I know we are not SUPPOSED to be a democracy, but the reality of the USA in the present day is that we are more of a democracy than a republic, so get your head out of the sand.

Well said my friend! Well said indeed! The truth of the matter is that Free Market Capitalism died in the USA a LONG time ago. The REPUBLIC we were given buy the founders was long ago killed by Whigs and 19th century Republicans (not the same animal as 21st century Republicans) and turned in to a Mercantile empire!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Hayek is correct about conservatism.  If you go back to the roots of conservative thinking (Edmund Burke and Russell Kirk) you find that the key tenet of its philosophy is preservation of the institutions that have stood the test of time in building our civilization.  This, of course, includes religious institutions, the constitution, etc.  But there is very little in the philosphical underpinnings of conservatism to support free markets and property rights, except for the fact that these things were in place at the time the philosophy was developed, and therefore were worthy of inclusion on the list of the things to be preserved.

Nowadays a good case can be made that social programs actually qualify as "institutions that have stood the test of time in building our civilization."  And so conservatives talk of "saving" this or that social program with more capable management, as opposed to tearing it down.  I expect that in 20 years conservatives will be campaigning on the platform of saving Obamacare for future generations.

It's a conundrum for libertarians because in a democracy you can't get your way without a plurality, and so it's necessary to coalesce with these people.  But there are critical differences.  And please don't tell me we are not a democracy.  I know we are not SUPPOSED to be a democracy, but the reality of the USA in the present day is that we are more of a democracy than a republic, so get your head out of the sand.

I think where SoCons have gone wrong, is that rather than preserving those institutions, they want to use the tenets of those institutions as bulwarks against societal changes, and societal change is inevitable where freedom and free choice are promoted as virtues. You can't tell me that I am free, so long as my ability to act free doesn't extend itself outside those boundaries that you have set in place for me. 

Of course, I am discussing liberty, not license or debauchery, but to many SoCons, one person's act of personal liberty, since it flies at the face of the tenets of those tried and true institutions that "have stood the test of time in building our civilization", my act of liberty becomes an act of debauchery.

The thing about these time-tested institutions that conservatism seeks to protect, is that it always disfavors one very important time-tested institution that has stood the test of time in building Western civilization even more so than all the others. Societal change.

No institution has withstood the force of societal change. Not the Church (Martin Luther was a radical liberal), not government (Kings and Queens are figureheads) not industry, land ownership, marriage... nothing, and those changes in turn are the cornerstones of the rise of Western civilization. That, to me, paints a very positive image of the notion of societal change.

Look around the world and find those places where institutions rule over men.

Afghanistan?

Pakistan?

Iran?

The thin line that we need to walk, is one that allows institutions to exist and exert their influence over the hearts and minds of the people, but not muscle natural societal changes into oblivion because the changes are outside the founding tenets of those institutions.

Here's one of my quandaries as a freedom-loving neolibertarian.

Government cannot push the Church into performing same-sex marriages, but religion cannot stop the government from performing same-sex marriages outside the church.

The problem with that is that neither side will be content with that compromise.
 

[massadvj]

I think where SoCons have gone wrong, is that rather than preserving those institutions, they want to use the tenets of those institutions as bulwarks against societal changes, and societal change is inevitable where freedom and free choice are promoted as virtues. You can't tell me that I am free, so long as my ability to act free doesn't extend itself outside those boundaries that you have set in place for me. 

Of course, I am discussing liberty, not license or debauchery, but to many SoCons, one person's act of personal liberty, since it flies at the face of the tenets of those tried and true institutions that "have stood the test of time in building our civilization", my act of liberty becomes an act of debauchery.

The thing about these time-tested institutions that conservatism seeks to protect, is that it always disfavors one very important time-tested institution that has stood the test of time in building Western civilization even more so than all the others. Societal change.

No institution has withstood the force of societal change. Not the Church (Martin Luther was a radical liberal), not government (Kings and Queens are figureheads) not industry, land ownership, marriage... nothing, and those changes in turn are the cornerstones of the rise of Western civilization. That, to me, paints a very positive image of the notion of societal change.

Look around the world and find those places where institutions rule over men.

Afghanistan?

Pakistan?

Iran?

The thin line that we need to walk, is one that allows institutions to exist and exert their influence over the hearts and minds of the people, but not muscle natural societal changes into oblivion because the changes are outside the founding tenets of those institutions.

Here's one of my quandaries as a freedom-loving neolibertarian.

Government cannot push the Church into performing same-sex marriages, but religion cannot stop the government from performing same-sex marriages outside the church.

The problem with that is that neither side will be content with that compromise.
 

Well-reasoned.

But you are wrong about government pushing the Church into same sex marriage.  The Church will evolve, sooner or later.  Socialist populism is irrepressible. 

[Chieftain]

Re-labeling Democrats and Republicans as Liberals and Conservatives does nothing to repair the problems we are facing today.  The point is that Party Politics are what dominate our Government, and that is a direct result of dis-assembling the Checks and Balances in the Constitution.  Progressives a Century ago used the power of the uninformed voter of that day to rationalize the passing and implementation of the 17th Amendment, which removed the several States from the Checks and Balances.  At the time, the promise was to turn over the US Senate "to the People", when in fact control of both Houses of Congress were turned over to the two major political parties.

If the States were still in control via appointment of the State's US Senators by the legislatures, our Country would look radically different than it does today.  Massadvj is exactly right...we have transitioned from a Representative Republic into a vitriolic Democracy, which is exactly what the founders feared would happen.  Winston Churchill once said that "The best argument against Democracy can be found in a 10 minute conversation with the average voter".  How right he was. 

There is no end to the number of special minority groups that require permanent privileges, or even formerly abhorrent behavior that is now classed as a "disability" requiring even more "help".  The pendulum has swung from "Majority Rule" to ever increasing heavy handed actions to force small minority "values" on the majority regardless of the cost.  We have spent trillions supposedly fighting a "war on poverty" that has done nothing but permanently establish an under-class of "disadvantaged" that are never satisfied, have no motivation to take care of themselves or contribute anything positive back into society, and who would happily watch the rest of the country go straight to hell as long as they get theirs.

Whether you call yourself a Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive or Libertarian, those political groups are the problem.  Party politics, regardless of the party, is what has brought us to the brink, and as long as we continue to send the same people back to Congress, and continue to play the same party politics, then we will continue to circle the drain.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well-reasoned.

But you are wrong about government pushing the Church into same sex marriage.  The Church will evolve, sooner or later.  Socialist populism is irrepressible.

I have absolutely no problem with the church naturally evolving into that position in reaction to natural societal forces. Government coercion is the problem with me.

[massadvj]

I have absolutely no problem with the church naturally evolving into that position in reaction to natural societal forces. Government coercion is the problem with me.

Many libertarians argue that the law is merely institutionalization of majority consensus.

[Bigun]

Re-labeling Democrats and Republicans as Liberals and Conservatives does nothing to repair the problems we are facing today.  The point is that Party Politics are what dominate our Government, and that is a direct result of dis-assembling the Checks and Balances in the Constitution.  Progressives a Century ago used the power of the uninformed voter of that day to rationalize the passing and implementation of the 17th Amendment, which removed the several States from the Checks and Balances.  At the time, the promise was to turn over the US Senate "to the People", when in fact control of both Houses of Congress were turned over to the two major political parties.

If the States were still in control via appointment of the State's US Senators by the legislatures, our Country would look radically different than it does today.  Massadvj is exactly right...we have transitioned from a Representative Republic into a vitriolic Democracy, which is exactly what the founders feared would happen.  Winston Churchill once said that "The best argument against Democracy can be found in a 10 minute conversation with the average voter".  How right he was. 

There is no end to the number of special minority groups that require permanent privileges, or even formerly abhorrent behavior that is now classed as a "disability" requiring even more "help".  The pendulum has swung from "Majority Rule" to ever increasing heavy handed actions to force small minority "values" on the majority regardless of the cost.  We have spent trillions supposedly fighting a "war on poverty" that has done nothing but permanently establish an under-class of "disadvantaged" that are never satisfied, have no motivation to take care of themselves or contribute anything positive back into society, and who would happily watch the rest of the country go straight to hell as long as they get theirs.

Whether you call yourself a Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive or Libertarian, those political groups are the problem.  Party politics, regardless of the party, is what has brought us to the brink, and as long as we continue to send the same people back to Congress, and continue to play the same party politics, then we will continue to circle the drain.

BRAVO!! Very well said and absolutely true as well!

[Oceander]

I think where SoCons have gone wrong, is that rather than preserving those institutions, they want to use the tenets of those institutions as bulwarks against societal changes, and societal change is inevitable where freedom and free choice are promoted as virtues. You can't tell me that I am free, so long as my ability to act free doesn't extend itself outside those boundaries that you have set in place for me. 

Of course, I am discussing liberty, not license or debauchery, but to many SoCons, one person's act of personal liberty, since it flies at the face of the tenets of those tried and true institutions that "have stood the test of time in building our civilization", my act of liberty becomes an act of debauchery.

The thing about these time-tested institutions that conservatism seeks to protect, is that it always disfavors one very important time-tested institution that has stood the test of time in building Western civilization even more so than all the others. Societal change.

No institution has withstood the force of societal change. Not the Church (Martin Luther was a radical liberal), not government (Kings and Queens are figureheads) not industry, land ownership, marriage... nothing, and those changes in turn are the cornerstones of the rise of Western civilization. That, to me, paints a very positive image of the notion of societal change.

Look around the world and find those places where institutions rule over men.

Afghanistan?

Pakistan?

Iran?

The thin line that we need to walk, is one that allows institutions to exist and exert their influence over the hearts and minds of the people, but not muscle natural societal changes into oblivion because the changes are outside the founding tenets of those institutions.

Here's one of my quandaries as a freedom-loving neolibertarian.

Government cannot push the Church into performing same-sex marriages, but religion cannot stop the government from performing same-sex marriages outside the church.

The problem with that is that neither side will be content with that compromise.
 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Many libertarians argue that the law is merely institutionalization of majority consensus.

True and acceptable.

But as Chieftain pointed out, right now we seem to be in a stage of misguided/fabricated societal development where we are "ruled" by minority consensus.

[Bigun]

Love him or hate him he's right as rain on this one!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Whether you call yourself a Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Progressive or Libertarian, those political groups are the problem.  Party politics, regardless of the party, is what has brought us to the brink, and as long as we continue to send the same people back to Congress, and continue to play the same party politics, then we will continue to circle the drain.

I must be doing something right.

I piss everybody off at one point or another.

[Oceander]

I must be doing something right.

I piss everybody off at one point or another.

good point; as i see it, the point of politics, indeed, of any negotiation, is to make all sides equally disappointed, but less disappointed than they would have been absent the negotiation.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Love him or hate him he's right as rain on this one!

I think that sometime between spending time on the streets of SoFla fighting for GWB's election in 2000, and that time later when I found myself defending his many acts of runaway government expansionism, I stopped looking at politicians/political parties as righteous gladiators, saviors, or even leaders and began questioning everything, and everyone.

I don't believe in politicians, and I have good reason not to. Generally speaking, they're liars.

Sometimes by design, and sometimes by simple accident of the human condition, but when your job description begins with the idea that in order for you to even have the job you're seeking, you have to say whatever it takes to say in order to please as many people as possible so that they will vote for you, you trend to fall into Decepticon land.

[aligncare]

Just catching up. Thoughtful exploration of liberty - what's left of it.

[Rapunzel]

I don't believe in politicians, and I have good reason not to. Generally speaking, they're liars.

This country would be a whole lot better if everyone looked at them all in this manner and held their feet to the fire every single day of the week.  McCain, McConnell, etc., were all too comfy in a pre-internet world where they could run the senate like a country club and the electorate only turned up every six years to return them to the country club. They don't know how to deal with this new world where there is more than the NYT's feeding us mi-information and the voters were loathe to find out what was really going on behind those hallowed doors of congress.... today we have people who report what is going on and they are reeling as a result.  Oh they are plenty happy to have conservatives show up and vote - as long as it is for THEM, otherwise we are all supposed to sit down and shut up and not be seen or heard from.