Comments on: Social Conservatives, Libertarians, and Russell Kirk

By: What hath Vienna to do with Colorado Springs? « Acton Institute PowerBlog

What hath Vienna to do with Colorado Springs? « Acton Institute PowerBlog — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:21:55 +0000

[...] Carter responded by highlighting a piece by Russell Kirk, “Libertarians: the Chirping Sectaries,” (PDF) [...]

By: Ralph

Ralph — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:56:14 +0000

Many social conservatives agree with libertarians on the severe limits to what the state can do to promote social goods. In most cases, the state’s attempt to promote social goods fails or even backfires.

If morality is superior to the state, it is independent of the state. But the status of morality in contemporary society is such that many people feel if something is legal, it must be moral, too. There will have to be a revival of religion for morality to regain social authority independent of the state. And of course the state cannot engender such a revival.

By: RAC

RAC — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:08:24 +0000

Interesting piece from London’s Daily Telegraph that links Russell Kirk with Bono, crusading frontman of Irish rock band U2.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/neilmccormick/100003914/is-bono-a-conservative/

By: RS

RS — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 23:22:03 +0000

It seems to me that long before Mill and Rand and Kirk, there was a tension in this country between, for lack of better terms, libertarian-type social conservatives and conservative-type social conservatives, or between Deist-type social conservatives and Puritan-type social conservatives. People like Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison held that that government is best which governs least; while the Puritan-type conservatives were willing to put the force of the government into encouraging or enforcing morals, for example through the Blue Laws or state-sponsored churches. While no one is calling for capital punishment for adultery these days, or even reinstatement of the Blue Laws, everyone is talking about sin taxes and legalizing marijuana. Many people are talking about reforming prostitution and fault-only divorce laws. While both kinds of social conservatives may adhere to the Constitution and certainly desire a society without drunkenness, prostitution, fornication, and adultery, the two camps differ on the role the law plays in forming a sober and chaste society. Nor does an individual need to have a consistent perspective across issues. A person may think that prostitution should remain a crime while recreational marijuana use should not; that marijuana should be legal but not sold on Sundays. Political philosophy is a practical philosophy, and therefore even those who agree on the ends (e.g., a moral society) and the formal principles (e.g., individual responsibility and the Constitution) may disagree on the means for employing those principles and reaching those ends.

By: Craig Payne

Craig Payne — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:30:18 +0000

Is Hobbes a conservative?

By: Craig Payne

Craig Payne — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:27:42 +0000

“…the embrace of state that conservative philosophies hold.”

A conservative might re-state this as “the embrace of society a normally functioning human holds.” If humans are actually social animals, there has to be some commonly held vision of social rules. The fact that some members of society want to “opt out” of that society does not mean that society should therefore change its basic rules and structure.

At the bottom, therefore, is a philosophical clash. It seems many libertarians (I’m sorry to use Rand as the example in my mind, but she’s so convenient) think of human nature and life as essentially solitary, individualistic, bound together only by agreed-upon contracts. Even families are perhaps a type of “social contract.” Conservatives, Aristotelian in approach if not always in name, see human nature and life as naturally social and familial, and at its best rarely contractual.

So there still could be some overlap between the groups, for example with regards to governmental policies directly attacking the natural functioning of family life (through high tax rates, marriage penalties, educational policies, and so on). In these areas, libertarians and conservatives could find common ground.

By: PunkJohnnyCash

PunkJohnnyCash — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:19:17 +0000

I am a Libertarian, and often find myself speaking to many of those so-called “Conservative Libertarians” I find it frustrating. I would love to oppose some of the perspective and wording in the article, but overall I agree and expect such bias coming from a conservative source. I am glad to see someone acknowledge the embrace of state that conservative philosophies hold. Phenomenal read.

By: kurt9

kurt9 — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:12:28 +0000

All I can say is that Ayn Rand would have agreed with Russell Kirk 100%. In fact, she detested the “conservative” label, preferring to call herself a “radical” for capitalism.

I also agree with Russell Kirk as well. I have never considered myself a “conservative” even for a second. I am 100% the libertarian. Conservatism, like socialism, promotes stasis. I promote dynamism. I consider entrepreneurial capitalism to be the most revolutionary, most dynamic force in human society.

By: Craig Payne

Craig Payne — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 02:03:04 +0000

One area of overlap would lie in both sides agreeing with Kirk’s statement “a primary function of government is restraint.” While conservatives would allow for the kind of restraint which makes a civil order possible in the first place, both conservatives and libertarians could together resist the kind of restraint which government imposes simply to aggrandize itself, to increase its range of powers.

In other words, the kind of anti-constitutional restraints beloved of big-government bureaucracy. These kind of restraints make of the Constitution a “blank paper by construction.”

By: Jeannine

Jeannine — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:17:29 +0000

This was GREAT! Kirk’s article explained so many things that have made me uncomfortable about libertarianism, but I did not have the words to explain my discomfort. Kirk also disproves the accusation that conservatives are heartless advocates of selfishness and greed. Hurrah!