Thoughts on Independence: Conservative and Libertarian
There is a philosophical high ground abandoned by Libertarians and Progressives that Conservatives call their own. This is a quick helicopter tour of the beauties of this highland in honor of our founding fathers on this July 4th. If, after considering the purchase price of these truths, every body of political thought chooses to plant its flag here, so much the better. There is room enough for all. by Paul Benedict
(libertarian)
Friday, July 3, 2009
The notion of natural rights is one of the provinces of Libertarian thought. Sadly, Progressives seem to consider natural rights to be nothing more the rights of flies to bug presidents and of wolves to run wild in sheep pastures. Conservatives, though they lay claim to natural law, adhere not to natural rights, but to inalienable rights. This is not an arbitrary distinction made only for clarity, the founders themselves made this break from English law themselves. They defined their notion of inalienable rights in the context of the Declaration. Then they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to this distinction.
The idea of nature and man's relationship to nature is has changed since the founding fathers. Hence, the idea of natural rights has changed. The inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence are most akin to those of Classical Natural Law; but these inalienable rights proclaimed by our forefathers purposely exceed the classical notions. Although the inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence echo the classical natural rights found in English law, they are not identical, for the Declaration's inalienable rights are bestowed on man by his Creator, and are, therefore, a declaration of faith, and, hence, of a Supernatural design and purpose for man. For our founders, diverse in belief, this was the least common denominator of faith. Notone rejected these tenets.
It is this distinction between natural rights and the inalienable rights, declared on Independence Day in 1776, that forms an inevitable, but not necessarily insurmountable, practical gulf between today's Conservative and Libertarian. However, in the spirit of synergy, let us see how far we Conservatives may walk with our Libertarian brethren.
Of what does nature's design for humanity inform us concerning the purpose of mankind? Perhaps the least common denominator would be to consider a Darwinian view of the natural world. Man is designed, in so far as he is designed by nature, to survive.
I'm not sure why some enlightenment thinkers (Locke for instance) assumed abundance and peace when discussing the state of man in nature. It seems that the lack of natural resources has driven humanity to war many times. Nor were the noble American "savages" any more peaceful than the Hatfields and the McCoys. Likewise, the most peaceful societies, and, historically, the most advanced cultures are not hunter-gatherers, they are agriculturally based, husbandry based. The notion of real property and its rights comes from agrarian roots and is in conflict with the ideals of hunter-gatherers.
Is man's mind more functional as it exists in nature, or should it be augmented by mind altering agents? In which case is the human consciousness performing according to natural design? As that answer is obvious, so also is Darwinian nature plain concerning human sexuality. The needs of children show what is proper in the responses of males and females. We aren't bugs, cats, reptiles, or apes. The complexity of the human mind requires time and nurture. It is not that because nature teaches morality, that a government must enforce each and every natural precept. However, one cannot claim as a natural right what nature teaches is amoral. Logical consistency among Libertarians concerning their own stated beliefs should take them thus far, for even the next thought, a transcendent thought, is often much beloved as a Libertarian ideal.
Stealing is wrong according to natural law. Why? Not because of an intellectual recipe founded on a Darwinian world view, but because, even though a dishonest thief claims justification --see the Communist Manifesto for an elaborate example-- those who are stolen from clearly understand the wrong that is committed. Hence, natural law is not based only on a supposed ideal view of humanity in a Darwinian natural order but also on the writ of human decency found in the heart of every man. A Darwinist might argue that the natural abhorrence of theft proves evolution designed man's survival through community action (see Hobbes), but we have left the carte blanche of the tabula rasa far behind.
People are strange creatures that know how to deceive and yet, at the same time, know deception is morally repugnant. What sort of creature is man? Some would argue that the love of freedom and the prevalence of religion among this kind of paragon of animals indicates a purpose for man that is higher than that of even the greatest of apes. People thirst for things not of this world.
Are our Libertarian brethren with us still? For since this last step is on a road higher than natural law, one may deny one's own heart and write off the course of human history as an escapade in ignorance. Without malice, I'd ask my cousins to tarry just a while. For while we walk some paces farther up this path, we will soon return. Here, though, follow elements of the corollaries that are the framework and basis of conservatism.
From this recognition of man's highest longings flows a strange notion: freedom of religion and freedom of speech are more sacred than the rights of property, for from these arise our faith choices wherein lies the truth of human destiny and the essence of human liberty.
Of the hunger for glory not of this world, history testifies, and of the common calling of the family of man his experience proclaims. A propertied man in conflict with a government over freedom of religion is a subject of a greater tyranny than he whose property rights are violated by an onerous welfare system. Although it is hard to respect those of us who too readily accept the tyranny of property, history has shown that religious persecution produces rebellion far more quickly. The long train of abuses that Jefferson cites, and the tendency of humanity to suffer the abuses he details, relate, primarily, to the tyranny over property. Some abridgment of property is often suffered as a tolerable tyranny; however, there is no partial abridgment of religious liberty.
Laws not only govern; they instruct. That which is higher in man recognizes laws, regularities in the natural world that may be harnessed for the purpose of work. Likewise, humanity is instructed by the laws of national governance. We can approve or despise a national government according to the morality of its laws. In righteous laws we can see Divine wisdom and can acclaim His benevolence to mankind in the congress of our hearts.
Returning to earthly things, those Libertarian brethren who tarried can perhaps walk with Conservatives again on these final thoughts:
If there are natural laws by way of which humanity is instructed in the precepts of right living in this world, then it is by nature humans are best taught. The fewer laws providing a safety net against humanity's tendency to ignore natural laws, the greater freedom those who obey natural laws can practice. Laws of generosity, of service, of courage, loyalty and faith are as faithful as gravity. Those who oppose themselves, though, must be granted as much freedom to learn these lessons as is possible, for none of these can be commanded by governments.
Finally, a genuinely free people will be the most moral, and a genuinely moral people will be the most free.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Paul Benedict only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Paul Benedict is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I find it funny that you should call conservatives "brethren". You speak of natural rights versus inalienable rights, and darwin's theory versus creation. Inalienable rights are not rights that are given to us by government, they are the natural rights that were stolen from us by government and that were declared in writing by our forefathers. The men who founded our country as One Nation Under God! Under our God-Given rights, otherwise known as natural rights. Libertarians are CONSERVATIVES who are breaking free from the label of these times. But you obviously to do not share the beliefs of our forefathers if your natural law surrounds the Darwin Theory. Think about what you are saying. Our forefathers were conservatives to the bone. They were the most right-winged people ever known to walk this earth.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2009-07-03 22:01:32
Hi Chrissy,
I called the Libertarian's brethren. The unalienable rights are conferred by God and cannot be "taken away" but I suppose they can be violated.
The point of this piece is that the founding fathers made a conscious decision to break with the classical theories of natural rights (not to mention the positive natural law theories etc). Please check out some of the links. The history of ideas link is a good summary of the topic.
The reference to Darwin is because some people don't believe in God and yet they could still believe in natural law (By the way Darwin himself did believe in God. He thought he had found the natural laws, like the laws of physics, that God had set up as the engine of creation). If you read carefully you can see that Darwin falls especially short (in my view) in seeing humanity's purpose as any more than merely surviving.
Two important natural law thinkers (Locke and Hobbs) viewed man and nature in different ways. Neither, though, mentioned God in their theories. The founders, though, wouldn't move forward without including God. Hence, the conscious choice to mention unalienable rights bestowed by the Creator.
Conservatism and Libertarianism have often been close. Barry Goldwater was both a foundational conservative and a later Libertarian. However, the two are not identical.
Chrissy: Poor exercise in reading comprehension. You completely switched what Paul actually said, and in doing so, grossly misinterpreted his point. He was arguing that the founders did not proceed as simple "classical liberals", not the other way around. By the way, inalienable is a legal term and is not the same thing as "unalienable". Inalienable rights may be surrendered; unalienable rights are in no way transferable.
I agree, in part, with your examination as well in response to Milsted's analysis on the same subject. It has certainly given me something to mull on in regards to philosophical consistency.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-07-04 14:33:13
Hi Paul,
Good article. I'd never looked at the distinctions you illustrated. For me the distinctions between the Libertarian and Conservative are much clearer and quite simple.
Conservatism allows for differences, Libertarianism demands homogeniety. For instance, in an imaginaery and impossible "libertarian society" every community would be identical because every individual would stand apart from the notion of community. In an imaginary "conservative society" every community would be different because conservatives support building communities that enforce limits on individual liberty in exchange for the sense of community...but abhor imposing one community's choices on other communities.
Thus the grand political irony is that progressive thinking and libertarian thinking can only flourish in a conservative society that fosters diversity which both of those other paradigms would necessarily "force" into extinction to achieve their pure state homogenous state.
Posted By: Steven A. Rosile
Date: 2009-10-02 22:27:08
This is to Jahfre Fire Eater.
I can no longer take your unceasing, yet erroneous, criticism of the Libertarian Party and Libertarians without responding.
How do you come up with such drivel as "in an imaginaery and impossible 'libertarian society' every community would be identical because every individual would stand apart from the notion of community".
Libertarians beleive that each person owns themselves and the fruits of their labors, that they may enter into voluntary social and economic activities (or not) and that no one has the right to initiate force or fraud against another person.
As a Libertarian I beleive that private property and free market competition will result in the greatest production of goods and services that individuals want and need. This is to say that each person, pursuing his or her own self-interest, will result in the most benefits to society as a whole.
As a Libertarian I also beleive that if a group of persons wish to associate by pooling all of their resources and sharing the products of their efforts, i.e., forming a "commune" that is their right, so long as they do not attempt to force me (or others) to contribute to their association. I also wish them luck. They will certainly need it as history has demonstrated time and again that endeavors such as this are generally unsustainable.
To state that conservatives societies allow for differences while Libertarian societies do not is not only nonsense, it is completely backwards as "conservatives" continually misuse government to enforce their moral and/or religious beliefs on others while Libertarians demand respect for different lifestyles and life-choices so long as force and fraud are absent.
Libertarians wish for each of us to seen as unique individuals and given respect for our choices of how to live our lives and that each of us should be able to pursue his or her own interests, develop their own abilities and talents to the best of their abilities, and achieve sucess to the degree that they are able.
You continually misstate our philosophy, goals and efforts to achieve them in your unending rants against Libertarians and the Libertarian Party.
You should be more honest as to what we Libertarians and the Libertarian Party stand for. I don't care if you like us or not. However, I have to object to the multitude of erroneous statements you make regarding our philosophy and beliefs.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2009-10-03 13:57:53
Hi Steven,
It's been a while since Jafre posted here. It is unlikely he will receive your message unless you link it to one of his articles. He doesn't source his logic, so its hard to be sure which definitions of libertarianism he is talking about. There are many.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
