Customer Reviews

Freedom and Virtue: The Conservative/Libertarian Debate

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Most of the material covered in this book was written several decades ago when conservatives were in the process of identifying their philosophy in order to present a positive agenda for America. This is not to say that the material is outdated or irrelevant - far from it. In fact, anyone wishing to understand and appreciate the modern social conservative vs. libertarian conservative debate can do no better than to examine the earliest writings, when the debate first raged. This book provides a sample of those earliest writings and provides good bibliographic resources for furthering one's knowledge of this historical debate. It is a must-read for conservatives interested in the philosophical discussions of their ideological predecessors.

~Freedom and Virtue: The Conservative and Libertarian Debate~ is an interesting anthology of articles chronicling the similarities and dissimilarities between conservatives and libertarians. The debate observably establishes the common ground that libertarians and conservatives share: first, both parties are agreed that the greatest threat to liberty is the increasing centralization and concentration of powers amongst governmental authority; second, both generally recognize the vitality of free-markets and the benefits of minimal government intervention in the economy; third, both maintain a common opposition to modern statist liberalism for a myriad of reasons. Georgetown political science guru George Carey has assembled an anthology of writings from various voices: liberals such M.M. Auerbach; libertarians like Murray Rothbard and Tibor Machen; secular humanists like Paul Kurtz; and conservatives like John East, Russell Kirk, M. Stanton Evans and Richard Weaver.

A proponent of fusionism, Frank Meyer has long maintained that libertarianism and conservatism exist together in a broad theoretical unity, and a synthesis should be strived for. I used to fall for this incongruous idea of fusionism, but now I see the unfeasibility of it all, and as such I have grown past the intemperate libertarianism of my youth. It has to be ironic, but I got this book a few years ago, hoping to buoy the case for fusionist libertarian-conservative ideology in my mind. However, I gradually came to be perceptive of the unworkable contradictions within such a fanciful amalgamated ideology. I have since eschewed libertarianism altogether and ideology as well, and fell squarely into the classical conservative camp. As Russell Kirk says, anyone who thinks seriously about politics gradually falls away from libertarianism and "conservatism is the negation of ideology." Still I have a great deal of respect for many right-libertarian thinkers (usually those of the old school deemed paleolibertarian.) I have a great deal of common ground with them. But what results from a libertarian-conservative debate are serious questions (and sometimes answers) about political philosophy. Is there a transcendent moral order? What should be the role of tradition, reason, and religion in civil society? When does liberty become license? What of the elusive search for absolute freedom? Finally, are "freedom" and "virtue" antagonistic polar opposites or vital compliments? How is the balancing act between freedom and virtue to be achieved in a healthy, vibrant civil society?

How do freedom and virtue fit into the ordered liberty equation? I think freedom and virtue are complementary and not necessarily antithetical. One most avoid the elusive search for absolute freedom. Many libertarian ideologues are typically naïve heirs of the Enlightenment-Romanticist in a search for absolute freedom. History demonstrates societies that strive for absolute freedom often do so with the effect of trampling virtue under foot and destroying freedom in the process. Conservatism recognizes the vitality of freedom and virtue in the public and private arena. Libertarianism declares virtue to be a private affair of the heart and rejects coercion towards virtue. Some radical libertarians even grovvel about the stigmatism of church, family and community. Conservatism sees that freedom and virtue are requisite and not necessarily antagonist towards one another; libertarianism that neglects virtue is often scarcely discernable from libertinism.

Altogether, this is a fairly good read and recommended for students of political science, newcomers to libertarianism, and right-wing devotees in general. For the reviewer, who stated "libertarians are not conservatives," I'd like to second his motion, and add that interloper neoconservatives are not conservatives either.

I throughly enjoyed this book, which a collection of essays debating the merits of conservatives vs. libertarians. Many of the contributors, it should be pointed out, believe in some sort of "fusion" between the two camps. All of the contributors are highly intelligent. I especially liked Russell Kirk's essay criticizing libertarianism, and Murray Rothbard's essay defending it. I highly recommend Freedom and Virtue.

This type of thinking degenerates on close analysis. If you get around all of the pseudo erudite lingo you find lurking a pawn for the upper 1 percent. A pawn dedicated to destroying the middle class in america and our republic as we should have it.

A common slander by the Left is that Libertarians are really conservatives or Right wing. Despite trolling among Libertarians in the hope of a few votes, this excellent selection of reading shows conservative leaders knew better.

Many issues of discussion and difference are addressed in this valuable anthology, which is somewhat laden in the direction of early debates of some years ago.