Is Libertarianism Synonymous With Licentiousness?

Cross-posted at RedState.

One common complaint by cultural conservatives of libertarianism is that is really just licentiousness. While that argument is popular, it doesn’t take long to examine why it is incorrect. What needs to be recognized is that libertarianism is a political philosophy concerning the role of government, not a cultural philosophy. It should also not be confused with the Libertarian Party.

Libertinism, on the other hand, can be properly described as a synonym of licentiousness. According to Webster’s dictionary, a libertine is “a person who is unrestrained by convention or morality” and licentious refers to being “marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness.”

But what about the people who embrace libertarian arguments just so they can do drugs and have wild sex?

They are opportunistic libertines. It’s that simple. The fact that they happen to embrace the libertarian outlook of government on certain issues to benefit themselves personally doesn’t make the broader philosophy incorrect. In fact, accepting such a viewpoint is the very definition of an ad hominem argument, i.e. your character makes you wrong.

I am a cultural conservative as well as a libertarian. There are plenty of other culturally conservative libertarians who also agree with legalizing (that is, repealing government laws) personal vices. Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek, for example, hardly strike people as wild hippies. They largely reside in the GOP. Friedman stated the views of many when he said, “I am a libertarian with a small “l” and a Republican with a capital “R”.”

Ultimately, freedom exists so that people can disagree and live their lives as they choose, as long as they don’t directly harm others.

According to Rick Santorum, “True liberty is freedom in the service of virtue—not “the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be,” or “the freedom to be left alone,” but “the freedom to attend to one’s duties—duties to God, to family, and to neighbors.”

Those who accept this definition of liberty are simply one side of the same coin progressives use. Social engineering-whether it be conservative or progressive in nature, is not true liberty. Coercive, yes. Collectivist, yes. Authoritarian, yes. But it has nothing to do with liberty. Liberty means that when people like Santorum confront you on how to live, you can keep on walking. It means that when Sandra Fluke demands she has a right to your money so that she can pay for birth control, you can keep walking. It means you can choose to be like either Santorum or Fluke and speak your mind, regardless of whether you are wrong or right.

As Walter E. Williams puts it:

Here’s a question: What is the true test of one’s commitment to freedom of expression? Is it when one permits others to express ideas with which he agrees? Or is it when he permits others to express ideas he finds deeply offensive? I’m betting that most people would wisely answer that it’s the latter, and I’d agree. How about this question: What is the true test of one’s commitment to freedom of association? Is it when people permit others to freely associate in ways of which they approve? Or is it when they permit others to freely associate in ways they deem despicable? I’m sure that might be a considerable dispute about freedom of association compared with the one over freedom of expression. To be for freedom in either case requires that one be brave enough to accept the fact that some people will make offensive expressions and associate in offensive ways.

I agree with fellow cultural conservatives that only a moral people will preserve a free society. But turning to government to make society more moral doesn’t work (0ften yielding unintended consequences), and at the same time it ensures that society is not free. Instead, cultural conservatives should seek to directly change the hearts and minds of people through persuasion, not attempt to criminalize their deviant behavior.*

*While there is disagreement among libertarians on the issue of abortion, I consider it a proper role for government involvement as it involves the taking of life. For pro-life libertarian arguments, check out Libertarians for Life and their excellent library.

Ronald Reagan on libertarianism

Somebody on YouTube made a great find when they recently uploaded a portion of what appears to be an interview of Ronald Reagan and 60 Minutes from the 1970s.  It's well worth the 44 seconds to watch.

Said the interviewer "...a conservative is no longer just that, he is a libertarian..." to which Reagan interjected to say "always has been".

Ronald Reagan's views on libertarianism are not known by the public on a large scale, however an interview of Reagan in 1975, a few months after his term as Governor of California ended, was conducted by the libertarian Reason magazine and shed much light on his philosophical underpinnings.

Here is some selected dialogue from that interview:

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

 REASON: Governor, could you give us some examples of what you would consider to be proper functions of government?

 REAGAN: Well, the first and most important thing is that government exists to protect us from each other. Government exists, of course, for the defense of the nation, and for the defense of the rights of the individual. Maybe we don’t all agree on some of the other accepted functions of government, such as fire departments and police departments–again the protection of the people.

 REASON: Are there any particular books or authors or economists that have been influential in terms of your intellectual development?

 REAGAN: Oh, it would be hard for me to pinpoint anything in that category. I’m an inveterate reader. Bastiat and von Mises, and Hayek and Hazlitt–I’m one for the classical economists....

Later, Reagan espoused the same views in his 1981 CPAC speech.

There are so many people and institutions who come to mind for their role in the success we celebrate tonight. Intellectual leaders like Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, Ludwig von Mises -- they shaped so much of our thoughts.

It's especially hard to believe that it was only a decade ago, on a cold April day on a small hill in upstate New York, that another of these great thinkers, Frank Meyer, was buried. He'd made the awful journey that so many others had: He pulled himself from the clutches of "The God That Failed," and then in his writing fashioned a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought -- a synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservatism.

 With every Republican vying to be the best example of a "Reagan conservative", this old information brought to light will mean that the neoconservatives and moderates will have to choose somebody else's mantle to claim.