I will start
by critiquing Russell Kirk’s ten key conservative principles. I will then try
to counter Kirk’s critique of libertarianism:
1. Kirk: “First, the conservative believes
that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man
is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent…
It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the
conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of
private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society
in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a
strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and
honor, will be a good society – whatever political machinery it may utilize;
while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms,
and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society – no
matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution
may be.” 3-4
Brian: This principle is exceedingly vague.
I cannot endorse or reject it until I know what this ‘enduring moral order’ is
supposed to be commanding of its adherents. If this moral order chiefly
consists of respect for others’ persons and property, and politeness and
respect in personal dealings with people, then strong, general adherence to it
would indeed be beneficial for the preservation of society. But if this moral
order chiefly consists of puritanical commands, such as prohibitions on birth
control or homosexual relations, then I don’t think adhering to it would be
very useful, nor would adhering to it be necessary for the preservation of
society. If this moral order chiefly consists of exhortations to kill enemies
and ‘infidels’ and to die gloriously in battle, a kind of moral order which
many historical societies have endorsed, then adhering to it would be downright
harmful to the preservation of society.
2. Kirk: “Second, the conservative adheres to
custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to
live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know
or desire. It is through convention – a word much abused in our time – that we
contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a
body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to
generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual;
without it, life is meaningless….
Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and
continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t
know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products
of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection
and sacrifice.” 4
Brian: Again, as with the first point, I
have to know what kind of ‘customs’ we are talking about before endorsing this
principle. Absurd social arrangements, such as slavery, aristocratic
privileges, coercive labour unionism, protectionism, and socialism, remain
absurd and harmful no matter how ‘customary’ they become, no matter how many
years they go on unchallenged. The same thing applies for legal conventions and
customary law: an absurd law remains absurd and harmful no matter how long it
has been on the books for.
Kirk says that “life is meaningless” without institutional
continuity linking generations together. But why must the meaning of life be
found only in future generations? Does the present generation count for
nothing? Does present enjoyment of life count for nothing? Kirk may believe it,
but I doubt that he could convince me, or a good many other people, to believe
it.
Kirk says that order, justice, and freedom are the
“artificial products of a long social experience”. Maybe so, but then chaos, injustice, and
slavery are also “artificial products of a long social experience”. Somewhere
in that “long social experience”, thinkers and ordinary people have to stand up
and say: “We want order, justice, and freedom, and here is how our social institutions
need to be structured in order to get them!”. If no one said that or acted like
that, but just passively waited for “long social experience” to produce a good
social order for them, they would almost certainly be sorely disappointed.
3. Kirk: “Third, conservatives believe in
what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that
modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than
their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us
in time. Therefore, conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription – that is, of things
established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the
contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity –
including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in
great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any
brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh
every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality.
The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics
we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great
mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom
far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.” 4-5
Brian: All of this ignores the variety and inconsistency of
“things established by immemorial usage” and of ancient “prescriptive wisdom”.
Private property rights are indeed ancient rights, but so were the rights of
slave-ownership, the restrictionist rights of craft guilds, and the dominion
rights of absolute monarchies, at the time when they were abolished. Were the
Europeans and North Americans of the 19th century wrong to seek to
abolish these latter three ‘ancient rights’, while leaving the former intact
and even strengthening it? Perhaps some conservatives would say that they were
wrong to do so. I think that they were right, because the right to private
property is a right that is very useful to a peaceful and productive social
order, while the latter three rights are harmful to a peaceful and productive
social order. The utility of the institution or right is the key, not its
antiquity.
Kirk says that it is unlikely that the moderns will make any
new discoveries in morals, politics, or taste. Perhaps not, but there remains
the important task of deciding which of the various older views on these things
to accept as one’s own. No general consensus on morals, politics, or taste has
ever emerged which modern people could adopt confidently and unthinkingly.
Older generations had as many disagreements about these things as the modern
generations do. Will the modern thinker accept limited-government republicanism
(John Locke) or monarchical absolutism (Robert Filmer)? Ancient
communitarianism (Plato) or ancient defenses of private property (Aristotle)?
Old protectionism (mercantilism) or classical free-trade ideas (Adam Smith)?
Roman Pagan morality or Christian morality? I could go on and on. The point is
that, like it or not, each individual must use their “petty private
rationality” to decide for themselves on the great issues. The writings and
actions of older generations can help modern people to make these decisions in
a more informed way, but because of the variety of mutually exclusive views
that members of older generations held on these issues, they cannot make the
decisions for us.
4. Kirk: “Fourth, conservatives are guided by
their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman,
prudence is chief among virtues, Any public measure ought to be judged by its
probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or
popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for
they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new
abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away.” 5
Brian: I agree with this one entirely. Many
politicians and political thinkers are far too short-sighted and do not take
the general principles behind their actions and ideas and the precedents set by
their actions and ideas enough into account, and end up making a mess of things
as a result. But notable liberals/libertarians such as Ludwig von Mises and
Henry Hazlitt, among many others I am sure, have made such long-term
consequences, general principles, and precedents a key part of their social
thinking. I try to do so myself, as I have emphasized in previous posts.
Thinking long-term like this when it comes to social policy and being a
liberal/libertarian are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the staunchest and
most effective liberals/libertarians have made these long-term consequences the
centrepieces of their arguments in favor of a freer society.
5. Kirk: “Fifth, conservatives pay attention
to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating
intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as
distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of
radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any
civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material
condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are
equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all
other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation.” 5
Brian: You won’t get much argument from me
on this one. I don’t think anyone has ever accused libertarians of neglecting the
variety of different people (their subjective value judgements and ways of
life) or of clamouring for state-imposed egalitarianism. The only thing that I
would say is that I don’t consider material inequality to be a good in and of itself. I think that it is
necessary in order for society to be at all productive, but if, in an alternate
universe, this wasn’t the case and optimal productivity coincided with material
equality, then I would have no objection to material equality, provided that it
happened naturally, not through the use of physical coercion. I’m not sure if
Kirk would still object to it in this alternate universe, but if he did, then I
would start disagreeing with him on this issue.
6. Kirk: “Sixth, conservatives are chastened
by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from
certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect
social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would
grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in
violent discontent – or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in
disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that
we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in
which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk.” 5
Brian: I agree with the general sentiment
here, especially the distrust of utopian thinking. But I would say that if a
problem can be solved or alleviated through relatively simple means, such as by
changing or repealing a piece of legislation, then we should seek to do so
forthwith. Knowledge of human ‘imperfectability’ shouldn’t act as a barrier to
action in such cases, when the solution is so near at hand.
7. Kirk: “Seventh, conservatives are
persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from
private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of
private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the
possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a
commonwealth.” 5
Brian: I agree entirely with this
principle.
8. Kirk: “Eighth, conservatives uphold
voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.” 6
Brian: Again, I agree entirely.
9. Kirk: “Ninth, the conservative perceives
the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions….
The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political
power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise….
Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the
conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional
restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws,
the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite – these the
conservatives approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government
maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of
liberty.” 6-7
Brian: Being a minarchist rather than an
anarchist libertarian, I agree with most of this, although I do have some
quibbles and reservations. What does Kirk mean by “the old intricate web of
restraints upon will and appetite”? I suspect that this is a reference to
puritanical moralism and to ostracism by public opinion of those who disobey
this morality. Now, libertarianism as a political philosophy has nothing to say
about personal morality, or about what kinds of conduct individuals should
personally approve of or disapprove of. As somewhat of a free-spirited person
myself though, I don’t really see what the point of puritanical moralism is. I
don’t really care what my neighbours or countrymen are doing with their spare
time, who they sleep with, who they marry, how many kids they have, how nice to
their friends and parents they are, etc… As long as these people don’t aggress
against my person or property, or make my society poorer and more insecure by
aggressing against the persons or property of others, I don’t really care what they
do, unless of course I have a close personal relationship with them. Thus, if
this principle comprehends the acceptance of puritanical and judgemental
standards of personal morality, which I suspect it does, then I cannot accept
it entirely.
Kirk says that “A just government maintains a healthy tension
between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.” I’m not sure what
exactly he means by this. Would a minarchist government (one that confined
itself to providing law, police, military, and diplomatic services only) be
‘unjust’ for giving in too much to ‘the claims of liberty’? Must a ‘just’
government always compromise between libertarian principles and socialist
principles, or is just staving off anarchy itself recognition enough of the due
‘claims of authority’? If the former, I reject the implication, if the latter,
I accept it.
10. Kirk: “Tenth, the thinking conservative
understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a
vigorous society….
He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just
claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an
endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative,
in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of
Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to
everything old.” 7
Brian: Similar reasoning as my response to
principle #4. Prudence and long-term thinking are undoubtedly important, but
many liberals/libertarians fully recognize and incorporate this into their
thought.
Obviously everything new is not necessarily superior to
everything old, and no libertarian, and probably not many leftists nowadays
either, would hold this position.
Kirk: “It is consummate folly to tolerate
every variety of opinion, on every topic, out of devotion to an abstract
“liberty”; for opinion soon finds its expression in action, and the fanatics
whom we tolerated will not tolerate us when they have power.” 346
Brian: And how many dangerous political
movements have been staved off due to the censorship of people’s opinions? I
would guess few to none, and that a great many have been made more dangerous
and more popular by the intellectual martyrdom that censorship provides for
champions of these movements.
Moreover, who are going to be the people deciding which
opinions to “tolerate” and which to “not tolerate”? Obviously, it will be the
people with the power, meaning in most societies, government officials. So the
question is: whose opinions do we have more confidence in, all-powerful
government officials, or individual citizens who can be exposed, if they so
choose, to different ideas through free and open discussion and debate? I don’t
have much faith in most people’s ability or willingness to hold a reasonable
opinion on political topics, but I have even less faith in all-powerful
government officials’ willingness to hold an unbiased opinion on political
topics. Officials, armed with the power of censorship, will probably tend to
believe in those doctrines that lead to them accruing the most power and
prestige: and then they will proceed to censor any opinion that is not in
conformity with this goal. When the Roman Catholic Church had political power
and the ability to forcibly censor books, they used it in just this manner.
Besides, forgetting about ordinary people for the moment, we
also have to consider the genuinely thoughtful political thinkers. If all of
the opinions which the government dislikes are censored, then the intellectual
development of these thinkers will be stunted. They will be exposed to only one
strain of thought, and will not be able to make progress in their field.
Actually, this applies to all thinkers, not just to political thinkers. The
censorship of the astronomer Galileo by the Roman Catholic Church illustrates
the dangers that political censorship poses to the progress of science.
Faith in government censors is what represents “consummate
folly”, not belief in freedom of speech. And in reality, those are the only two
options available, there is no middle ground.
Kirk: “The great line of division in
modern politics – as Eric Voegelin reminds us – is not between totalitarians on
the one hand and liberals (or libertarians) on the other; rather, it lies
between all those who believe in some sort of transcendent moral order, on one
side, and on the other side all those who take this ephemeral existence of ours
for the be-all and end-all – to be devoted chiefly to producing and consuming.
In this discrimination between the sheep and the goats, the libertarians must
be classified with the goats – that is, as utilitarians admitting no
transcendent sanctions for conduct.” 349
Brian: Firstly, not all libertarians are
utilitarians. Many, most notably Murray Rothbard, believe in ‘natural law’
morality. And yet, the differences between natural law libertarians (‘the
sheep’) and utilitarian libertarians such as Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt,
and myself (‘the goats’), are relatively minute, especially when compared to
the differences between libertarians of any sort and socialists. Kirk and
Voegelin’s ‘great line of division’ is actually much less fundamental than they
believe it is, the one between libertarian and totalitarian is much more
fundamental.
Secondly, as a utilitarian libertarian, I see no compelling
reason whatsoever to believe in a ‘transcendent moral order’. Some moralists
like to defend their ‘transcendent morality’ by pointing to its positive
effects, when generally accepted, for the preservation of a peaceful and
prosperous society. But this is actually a long-run, rule-based utilitarian
reason, not a ‘transcendent’ reason at all! For morality to be truly
‘transcendent’ and free of utilitarian elements, it must be accepted regardless
of its consequences for life on earth. The only reason to do so would be if one
believed in a religious deity that gives rewards in the afterlife to people who
follow the deity’s ‘transcendent’ code of morality.
Thus, Kirk seems to believe that the fundamental division in
politics is between those who let religion impact their political views, and
those who don’t, whether because they are atheists or because they believe that
religion has no place in politics. He seems to be covertly attacking atheism
and secularism, without explaining why these beliefs are wrong and the
religious-political beliefs are right. Until he or anyone else supplies a
convincing argument or proof for why this is the case, I will happily remain a
‘goat’, thank you very much.
Kirk: “What binds society together? The
libertarians reply that the cement of society (so far as they will endure any
binding at all) is self-interest, closely joined to the nexus of cash payment.
But the conservatives declare that society is a community of souls, joining the
dead, the living, and those yet unborn; and that it coheres through what
Aristotle called friendship and Christians call love of neighbor.” 349
Brian: Firstly, Kirk seems to be invoking
religion again, and the same remarks I just made above apply here as well.
Secondly, what Aristotle called friendship, classical liberal
thinkers called ‘sympathy’, defined as an empathetic bond between individuals
that serves to transfer a certain degree of the happiness or hurt experienced
by one individual, on to individuals who sympathize with this person. As the
classical liberals recognized, self-interest, rightly understood, includes regard
for these sympathetic bonds and sympathetic feelings. To what extent the
‘cement of society’ consists of simple material self-interest , and to what
extent it consists of sympathetic fellow feeling, is an empirical,
psychological question. Whatever the answer, neither utilitarian nor
libertarian theory are undermined in any case, contrary to popular belief.
Kirk: “Libertarians (like anarchists and
Marxists) generally believe that human nature is good, though damaged by
certain social institutions. Conservatives, on the contrary, hold that “in
Adam’s fall we sinned all”: human nature, though compounded of both good and
evil, is irremediably flawed; so the perfection of society is impossible, all
human beings being imperfect.” 349-350
Brian: No libertarian theorist I have ever
read has made the assumption that human nature is generally good. If one did,
the assumption would not be central to the libertarian position. Good, evil, or
a mixture of the two, libertarians focus on social institutions and their
respective effects, regardless of who will be manning them; not on the general
merits or demerits of humanity.
Kirk: “The libertarian takes the state for
the great oppressor. But the conservative finds that the state is ordained of
God. In Burke’s phrases, “He who gave us our nature to be perfected by our
virtue, willed also the necessary means of its perfection. He willed therefore
the state – He willed its connexion with the source and original archetype of
all perfection.” Without the state, man’s condition is poor, nasty, brutish,
and short – as Augustine argued, many centuries before Hobbes. The libertarians
confound the state with government. But government – as Burke continued – “is a
contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants.” Among the more important of those human wants is “a
sufficient restraint upon their passions. Society requires not only that the
passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and
body, as well as in the individual, the inclinations of men should frequently
be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection.
This can be done only by a power out of
themselves; and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will
and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue.” In short, a
primary function of government is restraint; and that is anathema to
libertarians, though an article of faith to conservatives.” 350
Brian: The first part is again reliant on
Christian mysticism, and will not convince the atheist or the political
secularist.
The second part says that the State is necessary to prevent
individuals’ lives from being “poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. Perhaps this
is true of a minarchist (minimal) government, which is why I am a minarchist
libertarian and not an anarchist libertarian, but beyond that I don’t think it
is true. A lot more argumentation would be necessary to convince me or any
other minarchist libertarian that life would still be “poor, nasty, brutish,
and short” under a minarchist government. Besides, Augustine and Hobbes were
both talking about a state of anarchy versus a state of government, not various
shades of states of government. Since not every libertarian is an anarchist,
this argument cannot be used as a blanket argument against libertarianism in
general.
The third part is more interesting. With help from Edmund
Burke, Kirk argues that individuals really want to be ‘restrained’ by
governments, in order to be saved from their own ‘passions’. How can an individual
voluntarily choose to be restrained from making a voluntary decision? The only
conceivable way would be if the individual agreed, at one point in time, to be
restrained from doing certain things in future periods of time. Perhaps an
overweight person, in a fit of willpower, signs a contract with their personal
trainer, stating that for every missed, scheduled exercise session, the
overweight person must give $1000 to the personal trainer.
But wait, this perfect example of what Burke and Kirk are
advocating doesn’t involve a coercive government at all, except in their
standard, minimal role as enforcer of voluntary contracts. So if individuals
really wanted to be restrained, why not dispense with all of the governmental
restrictions, and just sign these kinds of contracts instead? The most likely
answer is: Burke and Kirk are wrong, most individuals don’t actually have a
voluntary preference for having their ‘will’ and their ‘passions’ restrained at
a later date.
These kinds of voluntary, individualized contracts would be
the only legitimate way for individuals to demonstrate that they want to be
restrained. But governmental decisions regarding who to restrain and in what
ways bear absolutely no resemblance to the voluntary, individualized,
‘restraint’ contract format described. The people with power decide who to
restrain and in what ways, and that’s that. For these ‘hard-headed’
conservatives to imply that it works any differently is really quite naïve.
No comments:
Post a Comment