Thursday, June 30, 2011

Can you be a libertarian and a conservative?

Before we start, let’s get a couple of things clear. The question is not can you be a libertarian and a member of the Conservative party – of course you can be, although quite why you would want to join or proactively support Cameron’s mob is utterly beyond me. Likewise, I would not deny that there is much to be gained from libertarian/conservative alliances – temporary or otherwise. Indeed, one of the few rays of light in the dark, depressing Brown years was the ability of libertarians and conservatives to put their differences to one side to point out the numerous shortcomings of Britain’s worst Prime Minister in living memory. Rather, what I want to consider is whether there are inherent contradictions in the idea of a libertarian conservative.

Of course, there are immediate problems with definitions here. “Libertarian” and “conservative” are big terms that could potentially encompass many different definitions. So for the purposes of this discussion I’d call someone who wants to maximise freedom as much as possible is a libertarian (someone like Hayek, for example) and someone who resists attempts to transform or plan society according to an idealistic blueprint is a conservative (such as Burke or Oakeshott, for example). No doubt some people would contest these definitions, but that’s the very nature of both politics and political philosophy.

Immediately, there are points of agreement between libertarians and conservatives. Economic freedom would be one of those points. A libertarian wants to reduce the tax burden and to limit government intervention in the economy because both are encroachments on individual freedom. A conservative might use similar rhetoric to justify their own resistance to state control of the economy – I also suspect that they would point out that state intervention in the economy is a relatively new phenomenon that denies the basic conservative truth that humans are fallible, and therefore their interventions in the economy will be equally fallible. Indeed, one of the points of agreement between the two political mindsets during the Brown era was that man’s hamfisted and utterly counter-productive attempts to manage the economy.

There is also a certain pragmatism inherent in both libertarian and conservative positions. Both proactively engage with reality to the extent that they accept that real life is messy and often involves uneasy compromises. This is clearly distinct from many socialist or anarchist positions, where the argument is that the creation right set of circumstances will lead to either a better form of humanity and/or a better society. Conservatives and libertarians do not slip into the idealistic utopian trap.

Yet there are clear points of departure. Firstly, libertarians offer a radical political position. They talk about a fundamental redress of the balance between state and individual power. A genuinely libertarian state would be a radical departure from any political settlement that has gone before. Conservatives, however, would be more likely to argue for a return to a previous political settlement – one where state intervention in some aspects of life was more limited.

Another, and perhaps the most fundamental, difference between conservatives and libertarians is in the realm of the private rather than the public. Here conservatives tend to look towards traditional views when it comes to issues such as gender roles and sexual orientation. A libertarian, however, would ignore such traditional ideals and leave what is private to the individual concerned, perhaps within the limitations of a very loose reading of the harm principle. Therefore, a conservative might buy into a campaign such as Major’s Back to Basics, whereas a libertarian would almost certainly tut at yet another example of a government attempting to tell us how to live our lives.

So can you be a libertarian conservative? Personally I struggle to see how, unless you are such a liberal conservative that the word conservative starts to lose all of its meaning. For me conservatism offers only a limited attempt to extend freedom, and misses the point that the purpose of maximising economic freedom is to maximise freedom in as many other areas of life as possible.

Labels: , ,

21 Comments:

At 12:03 pm , Anonymous Anthony Masters said...

I would describe myself as a libertarian conservative. I came to this philosophy from what I had observed in my daily life.
I live in Bath, and the local council is deeply involved in the local economy. For example, the council here owns a museum (which is understandable), but also owns the adjacent restaurant, and now owns a restaurant opposite the museum. I find the economic liberalism inherent in both libertarianism and conservatism appealing.
I guess the way to express my thoughts on social issues is that I do believe that you should have freedom to live how you choose. It's just that a conservative recognises that human nature is flawed, but fixed. We should create and maintain institutions, such as the courts, parliamentary democracy and a written list of negative rights, in order to empower the individual, but redress others when this fallible individual has harmed them.
I guess I am a little more pragmatic when it comes to radical changes, preferring a slower method of change. However, with the House of Lords, we should just get the change over with now. Since what the House of Lords was has already been destroyed, as it is now an executive-appointed chamber, we should seek full elections for this House or contemplate its abolition.
I am hoping to start my own blog soon, so I may be able to answer more of your questions in the future.

 
At 12:24 pm , Blogger Jackart said...

I take serious issue with your use of the words "in living memory" for it implies there was a PM worse than McDoom.

 
At 1:47 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

Jackart,

Good point. I'm sure if I really put my mind to it I could think of a PM worse that Brown, but none spring to mind.

TNL

 
At 2:33 pm , Blogger Trooper Thompson said...

Firstly I don't see why Brown was any worse than Blair.

On the substantive issue, it's not impossible for someone to be both a libertarian and a conservative.

As far back as Herbert Spencer's 'The Man versus The State', he was pointing out how liberals had become the new tories, by falling in love with state power as an instrument to advance their agenda, and that a parallel movement had happened in the other direction, as the tories had realised that an authoritarian government could threaten the things they held dear.

In personal matters there can be a lot of overlap. Libertarianism can be very 'old-school' with regard to individual responsibility and crime and punishment, once victimless crimes are taken out of the equation. The problem is conservatives are not always prepared to let people take responsibility for themselves, supporting drug prohibition and illiberal gun laws being examples.

There's lots more to say, no doubt. It's worth noting that people don't always fit neatly into categories, and one's opinions can fluctuate.

As a libertarian, I have much in common with many conservatives but there are certainly sine qua non issues, which shouldn't be fudged.

 
At 3:24 pm , Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Conservatives are not "Camerons lot", Camerons lot are Camerons lot.
The badge Conservative is simply that, a badge. It does not describe what the party stands for any more than Liberal Democrat means that party is either liberal (it is not) or democratic (it is not).
Thatcher was most certainly an economic libertarian in so far as that was possible at time, and probably did not get terribly exorcised about others private conduct. It was, for example, the press which got worked up about Cecil Parkinsons conduct, not Thatcher.
She was however a realist and understood that politics is the art of the possible (lost over the "poll tax").
So yes, it is possible to be a conservative and a libertarian.

 
At 4:32 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

TT,

Yeah, the issue of personal responsibility did occur to me as both a potential area of agreement and difference between libertarians and conservatives. Both tend to believe in personal responsibility, but the latter are more willing to take responsibility from people than the former.

Anonymous,

I don't think that Thatcher is the best example to use if you want to advance the case of libertarian conservatism. Her's was the government that passed Section 28, for example.

TNL

 
At 4:40 pm , Anonymous Michael Fowke said...

Well, considering the Conservatives are all socialists now, I would say it's pretty difficult.

 
At 5:18 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

Michael,

There's a distinction between Conservatives and conservatives. Y'know, the one I make at the start of the post...

TNL

 
At 6:40 pm , Anonymous Michael Fowke said...

Yeah, right, didn't read too carefully. The red mist just came down when I thought you meant Conservative with a big 'C'.

 
At 12:15 am , Blogger MU said...

"This is clearly distinct from many socialist or anarchist positions, where the argument is that the creation right set of circumstances will lead to either a better form of humanity and/or a better society."

If libertarianism isn't the idea that increased individual liberty will create a better society, then why are there libertarians at all?

Anywho, anarcho-nihilists are generally pretty sceptical of various canons of libertarian dogma such as the open-borders tosh.

 
At 12:40 am , Blogger Kimpatsu said...

@Anthony Masters:
It's just that a conservative recognises that human nature is flawed, but fixed.
Human nature is NOT fixed. What do you think the Renaissance was? It was a fundamental shift away from promiscuous teleology to a naturalistic worldview; a paradigm shift in human thinking. Given the right incremental motivations (pace Richard Wiseman), the whole world can change for the better. It's just a matter or suitable packaging.

 
At 10:04 am , Blogger James Higham said...

A libertarian wants to reduce the tax burden and to limit government intervention in the economy because both are encroachments on individual freedom.

The conservative is the true libertarian because he will always favour the easy-going, laissez-faire solution over the leftist state intervention solution.

Are you crossposting this, TNL?

 
At 10:39 am , Blogger Trooper Thompson said...

@Kimpatsu

"Human nature is NOT fixed."

I don't see the argument you give to support this comment actually does.

If you read the opening chapter of the Illiad, you'll find human nature is very much the same then as now.

@ James,

"The conservative is the true libertarian because he will always favour the easy-going, laissez-faire solution over the leftist state intervention solution."

No way. You're defining conservative in a way which doesn't match history or contemporary usage. I can see little evidence to support this.

 
At 10:50 am , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

James,

Hadn't thought about cross-posting it, but it might be a good piece for OoL. I'll have think about it.

TNL

 
At 4:54 pm , Anonymous Robert Edwards said...

Well one thing is for sure; you can't be a socialist and a libertarian - contradiction in terms.

 
At 9:25 pm , Blogger andy janes said...

I always like to ask conservatives who they'd have voted for, Gladstone or Disraeli?

 
At 9:45 am , Blogger James Higham said...

TNL - I'm putting up a piece at orphans [scheduling for tomorrow] which takes your post and some of the comments and I annotate as we go along.

It is not essentially anti but does qualify some remarks, obviously according to how I see that. I'll hold off on that piece if you have it in mind to put yours up but I don't think the two would be mutually exclusive.

I'll check back to see waht you think.

 
At 4:18 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

James,

Feel free to put your post up. I'm going to leave this post just on here (I'm working on a different post on the Rule of Law for OoL.

TNL

 
At 12:15 pm , Blogger James Higham said...

15:00 today, the 4th.

 
At 12:05 am , Blogger Brian Dunn said...

I will give you the American view.
In America the key principals were freedom is king both economically and socially except for when it comes to justice and morality which is were ideologies start to split. Conservatives favored having a moral society, liberals favored bringing more justice to society and libertarians favored freedom of society.

Liberals however have increased their stances on bringing more social and economic justice while conservatives have decreased in having a more moral society. Not to mention that maintaining a moral society is only a small part of the big picture compared to the very large part of trying to bring more social and economic justice to society.
Therefore, the line between conservatives and libertarians is small while the line between libertarians and liberals is quite large.

 
At 9:22 am , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

Brian,

You can give me an American view but not the American view. You don't talk on behalf of all Americans.

And social freedom is just as important as economic freedom, but conservatives in the US seem determined to shit on social freedom just as surely as those who are incorrectly called liberals are determined to shit on economic freedom. The gulf between conservatives and libertarians is just as wide as that between libertarians and those you incorrectly dub as liberals.

TNL

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home