Excellent post, Tim. Unfortunately people aren't all that familiar with basic philosophical tenets, so they have nothing to judge governments by other than, well, size and the amount of money they take and or give, and to who. Even when they start getting into philosophy, they never get through the powerful obfuscation given by their instructors as to why Machiavelli is at the heart of the 'great' modern philosophers like Foucalt, Derrida, etc.

And I too have to say, after years of confusion myself — I am a conservative, not a libertarian.

And I too have to say, after years of confusion myself — I am a conservative, not a libertarian.

(Big grin.)

I was thinking of making that final quote an "all together, repeat after me..." sort of thing, but I feared that might be a bit presumptuous.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that modern libertarianism arose out of secularism. And when you have no real basis for moral values, you end up using the sort of cheap half-baked substitutes many libertarians fall for, which sound similar, but are really quite different:

Liberal: "Government is good will save us."
Libertarian: "Government is bad and will harm us."
Christian: "God has instituted minimal governments mean to (a) scare or kill really bad people and (b) provide necessary basic infrastructure... no more, no less."

Liberal: "We must *HUG* criminals and show them we care. The state needs to forgive, not punish."
Objectivist: "Crime? What's that? Look, I have this gun..."
Conservative: "There must be state justice, and personal forgiveness and mercy."

Liberal: "Altruism is good!"
Objectivist: "No, greed is good!"
Christian: "No, actually, GOOD (as judged by results) is good, which sometimes favors our self-interest, and sometimes denies it. You have to learn when each is true from God/religion."

Liberal: "Laws should be created by courts!"
Objectivist: "As long as you harm none, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." (That actually comes from Aleister Crowley. Sobering thought.)
Conservative: "An objective morality exists; laws are best when they encourage it or least don't discourage it; laws arise from the consent of the majority and serve as a kind of 'fence'."

Liberal: "Rights are positive, constantly evolve (or disappear) as courts see fit, and usually mean others must be compelled to serve us."
Objectivist: "Rights mean we should be left alone, and have no obligations to others. (And I can't justify why this should be so. Just trust me here.) Helping others is a bad move, in general."
Christian: "Rights are God-given and thus inalienable, and mean we should be left alone, but we also have separate God-given moral obligations to others which we need to fulfill, lest others argue the state needs to step in."

Liberal: "The state has no business preventing or discouraging any 'victimless' actions like gambling, prostitution, drug use and sales, easy distribution of pornography, etc."
Libertarian: "Yeah! What she said!"
Conservative: "Um, those are hardly 'victimless', and they tend to ultimately encourage demands for more powerful government -- e.g. addicts are broke and can't take care of themselves (and tend to be "liberal"), children of divorce and single parents have higher crime rates, more mental illness and addictive behaviors (and also tend to vote "liberal") -- the general breakdown of the family inevitably leads to more demands for state intervention and control."

In each case, the third response (which could be just as easily called "conservative", "orthodox Christian", or "religious Jewish") makes no sense without some sort of higher source of morality and rights.

I suspect libertarianism is widely compatible with certain strains of atheism and neopaganism because it is generally founded upon a conviction that our private behavior or morals makes (or should make) no difference to public life. Liberals (who worship the state) and conservatives (who don't) both understand otherwise: but we differ on which areas to regulate when:

Liberals believe all behavior should be regulated, but no morals (or at least no sexual morals) should be touched.

Conservatives understand that if incentives to moral behavior can be made to work (such as punishment for crime) then much of the rest of life can be left untouched by state control. Conservatives also recognize that sex is more powerful than most other desires (similar to drug use), and that private, intimate acts can have huge effects on the community, and thus could legitimately argue for more state intervention or incentives -- such as harder requirements for divorce, actively encouraging only certain family structures (no polygamy -- which makes no sense from a libertarian POV, for example), etc.

Todays, there's a big understanding that using the wrong kind of light bulbs, smoking and 'secondhand' smoke, failure to use helmets (etc.) can impose burdens on society -- and thus might justify some incentives and regulations. Someday, people will realize that "secondhand sex" can be far more costly to society than "secondhand smoke".

Sorry for tossing in this half-baked "conservative manifesto", here, but I was in a mood to think on paper.

Even when they start getting into philosophy, they never get through the powerful obfuscation given by their instructors...

I fear you may be right about this. Just as I've been starting to notice that a primary behavior of the "news" agencies is actually to keep us from hearing about inconvenient events (such as the downturn in global temperature), so also I've noticed that the purpose of some kinds of modern education seems to be more to suppress or obscure certain evidence or ideas.

Hi Tim,

I agree with a lot of what you've said. A few things, though;

Liberal: "Laws should be created by courts!"

Don't you think many liberals see it as 'constitutional rights being enforced' by the courts? Sometimes those interpretations are without a precedent, but people of all stripes seem to easily overlook flaws in arguments that they agree with.

Liberal: "The state has no business preventing or discouraging any 'victimless' actions like gambling, prostitution, drug use and sales, easy distribution of pornography, etc."

I don't personally know any liberals who really object to the state discouraging these things, though they may laugh at some of the attempts. Many liberals seem to object to banning them outright. While I don't support recreational drug use, I don't think that the FDA has followed its own regulations regarding many drugs said to have recreational uses. Cocaine is recognized as having a medical use as a painkiller, but marijuana is classed as a 'schedule one' drug meaning that it has no currently recognized medical use.

The criteria for a schedule one drug are: having no currently accepted medical use in the U.S., lacking accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and having a high potential for abuse.

I can understand classifying addictiveness as a contributor to 'abuse potential.' But popularity of a substance, absent addictiveness or some other harm, does not seem like a good measure of 'abuse potential.' Just the opposite.

Nor does marijuana prevent people from acting as responsible citizens. I have a number of friends who have used it, and they haven't become monsters or derelicts.

and thus could legitimately argue for more state intervention or incentives -- such as harder requirements for divorce,

The Philippines doesn't allow divorce at all. I wonder if there's any way to see if the policy has offered that society any particular benefits.

Well, one thing I've learned from this post: Either my blog is more obscure than it used to be, search-wise, or the Paulbots are mostly dead.

Don't you think many liberals see it as 'constitutional rights being enforced' by the courts?

Yes, I'm sure some of them see it that way. And some call it simply "judicial review" (which I also agree with). My phrasing above isn't necessarily how a liberal would think of it or phrase it (assuming you could get them to even address the question directly -- as I can't, sometimes), more my own blunt summation.

Sometimes those interpretations are without a precedent...