Link
In this essay I examine the relationship between libertarianiam and conservatism, taking Block and Hoppe's views as a starting point for the analysis and then proposing that we redefine "conservative" as "one with a relatively low degree of time preference".
All feedback welcome, here or in the comments to the blog post. Thanks!
http://irishliberty.wordpress.com/
*waits for GilesStratton to arrive*
Irish Liberty Forum
graham34: Link In this essay I examine the relationship between libertarianiam and conservatism, taking Block and Hoppe's views as a starting point for the analysis and then proposing that we redefine "conservative" as "one with a relatively low degree of time preference". All feedback welcome, here or in the comments to the blog post. Thanks!
But why use conservative, then? Why not just say "low time preference"?
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
To elaborate, why use the word "conservative", when you are subsuming parts of what could be called conservativism and parts of what could be called liberalism under it. I would say that pluralism and tolerance would be examples of socially liberal behaviors that show low time preference.
This is probably going to get dragged down like all other topics regarding this subject, but I'll give my (most likely biased) views anyway.
Walter Block:Hoppe goes so far as to assert that “Conservative refers to someone who believes in the existence of a natural order”… The difficulty is that “natural order” is this author’s synonym for anarcho-capitalism. This assertion implies, then, that conservatives are not limited-government libertarians, or “minarchists
Here you quote Professor Block, and yet, in this quotation I'd accuse him of equivocating to some extent. I think Professor Hoppe means, by saying conservative, a cultural conservative. Now, it may just be that a cultural conservatives are often limited government conservatives, but I don't think that is the group Hoppe has in mind. In this case they could mistakenly believe the state to be part of the "natural order", like Mises, one of the most important advocates of the free market made a mistake in believing the state to be essentially to the function of the market.
If this quotation does concern cultural conservatives then Professor Block's comment misses the mark and the point still stands that cultural conservatives need to be libertarians in order to have a congruent social theory.
graham34:At this point we have a distinction between the legal system of libertarianism and the social tendency of conservatism. An essential connection is presented to us as follows
To be honest, I think this is a key point you mention. I don't see how Professor Hoppe's economic analysis of the relationship between the two violates Block's ideas of a "plumbline libertarianism". Provided that nothing in conservative social theory contradicts (and it does not) the NAP, plumbline libertarian can still stand, whilst acknowledging that libertarianism will have conservative results.
In regards to your comments about appealing to "1 + 1 = 2" not being "conservative", once again, I agree. I think your criticism misses the mark in that they do not relate to social theory. However the principles of justice are of much importance to society. So the fact that there exists a standard of justice that is "natural" (and importantly, libertarian) should be of great importance to the conservative.
graham34:Ultimately, this is a question of strategy on which the libertarian movement is divided. There may be particular situations where it will seem advantageous for a libertarian to justify his views in some odd way or another so that conservatives will join his side, despite the inevitable shortcomings of this approach, and the weakness or even outright falsity of the modified arguments. To remain honest, however, libertarians must present as true only those arguments with which they genuinely agree. We must remember that the reasons we’ve seen for conservatives being libertarians are independent of the reasons for which libertarianism is a defensible political philosophy.
Once more I'd argue this is false. There is nothing in conservatism that is in opposition to libertarianism. As such I don't think it is dishonest or there is any weakness in applying economic analysis to show what result the abolition of the state will have on society. A libertarian may well strive to prove that without the state individuals would refrain from drug use and the family would gain prominence again. This appeals to both libertarianism and conservatism. Nothing in this is contrary to libertarianism, and as such the only weakness in this position is whether or not it is really the case.
As for you comments regarding why libertarians should be conservatives. I do agree with you there is no praxeological or ethical reason why they need be conservatives. And despite PR reasons I see no reason why they should be. The fact of the matter is however it does not make much sense for one to advocate a state of affairs in which one believes that they will be punished for their lifestyles. It is far easier, and in regards to libertarianism always the case, that individuals merely deny the logical explanation as to why certain results (conservatism) would follow from a given event (the abolition of the state). If one understands that alternative lifestyles are only possible because of the state, I think it is somewhat hypocritical for one to then live this lifestyle whilst advocation the abolition of the state.
Regarding your redefinition of conservatism I would say that it is inaccurate. To being with define "low" time preference? It is impossible for one to define this or to draw a non arbitrary line. I do agree that it is indicative of a conservative lifestyle but it fails to capture other aspects of conservatism (e.g. respect for authority, recognition of man's hierarchical nature).
Finally you state:
graham34: I conclude that people with low rates of time preference are more likely to be libertarians.
I disagree, those with an issue with authority are also likely to be libertarians (look on these forums for illustration), indeed this seems to me to be a far greater reason for being libertarian than having a low time prefence since often it is the case that this with low time preferences may not be aware of the advantages of the free market. As such those with a problem for authority often display high time preference, drug use, rejection of the family and other forms of alternative lifestyles.
Very well thought out and written blog post though.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan