A reader writes,
The appeal of the civilization-barbarism axis to people seeing the world through a freedom-slavery axis is obvious. The use of force by the gang holding state power is a return to barbarism.
One way to think of this is that a conservative supports the use of state power only in defense of civilization and only under the constraints of rules and norms. The progressive supports the use of state power whenever it can promote what the progressive sees as good. For a libertarian, the conservative only appears to go off track by over-stating the threats to civilization posed by foreigners or by licentious behavior. However, the progressive appears to be off track in a more fundamental sense.
Another way to think of this is to ask when a libertarian might say, “I can go along with you philosophically, but empirically I disagree.” To a conservative, you can say that you agree that government should be on the side of civilization, but you disagree that civilization is threatened by gay marriage or open borders. That would not be insincere, although the strength of the disagreement might be high.
To a progressive, libertarians might say that they agree that government should help oppressed workers, but they do not think that the minimum wage achieves that goal. However, that would be a tactical statement, lacking in sincerity. The libertarian is not really prepared to say that if the minimum wage or other policies can be shown to help oppressed workers then such policies are legitimate.
I think you can tell just as strong a story on the other side. Libertarians agree with progressives that there is a lot of oppression going on and that one should be on the side of emancipating the oppressed. We just have different views about what constitutes oppression and emancupation and whether government (which progressives will typically concede is often an oppressor and must be systematically restrained in some ways) can really be used against oppression without creating more oppression. But we do not always differ, and many of the points where we agree (civil liberties, Jim Crow, reproductive rights) have produced some of the greatest victories for liberty in the last century. One of the dangers of allying with conservatives is that it causes us to downplay those victories. William F. Buckley thought in 1957 that blacks seeking freedom from Jim Crow were less civilized than the whites keeping them down by mob violence and terrorism: some of his successors think similar things about gays seeking to marry today; this is not a history that bodes well for an alliance between liberty and a conservative idea of civilization.
Buckley was right. Few will admit that now, but most people’s stated opinion on this is contradicted by their actions.
I am always a bit surprised why the conservative opposition to gay “marriage” is viewed as being anachronistic or hidebound.
There are fundamental issues with the very concept of gay marriage.
Marriage is a restriction on one’s rights by definition, not an expansion. It has evolved over the past 10000 years keeping in mind the unique asymmetries that exist in man-woman relationships. It reflects the wisdom of the ages regarding relationships between sexes. Hence by definition it is between a man and a woman.
There’s no reason why all this civilizational wisdom distilled in marriage laws should get transferred to same-gender relationships which have none of the inherent asymmetries that man-woman relationships have!
This is not simply a conservative argument. But a perfectly non-ideological one which should be backed even by right-thinking progressives and libertarians.
It is sad that progressives and libertarians fail to see reason in this regard.
Your argument here is hardly the predominant argument given by a majority of conservatives. Appeals to ‘God’ are rife, and use of straw-man and slippery-slope (people will be allowed to get married to armchairs!) are also rampant. Perhaps charges of ‘anachronism’ and ‘hidebound’ fall past you, but not the majority of conservative commentators.
But notice how you confirm Arnold’s characterization of the conservative POV on this issue?
‘There’s no reason why all this civilizational wisdom…’ is a phrase which perfectly fits within Arnold’s ‘3 axis model’ which suggests that the ‘conservative’ axis argues the difference between ‘civilization vs barbarism’.
A libertarian can poke holes in this argument by stating that the asymmetries between men and women are not unique, that ‘division of labor’ applies equally to same-sex relationships (sexual or not), and that if two people of the same gender wish to ‘restrict their rights’ in the same manner as heterosexual couples, doing so will not limit the rights of others (thus, they ought to be free to do so).
I agree that the base point of opposition against ‘gay marriage’ rises above most idiological thought, but only because ‘gay marriage’ represents chaos, and humans have an irrational fear of chaos. That’s my theory anyway (notice this also fits Arnold’s ‘axis’ model). That irrational fear is not based in fact, however, nor is it enough to prevent such activity IMO.
Well, since when did siding with “civilization” and time tested principles over arbitrary and general doctrines become irrational?
In fact it is the libertarian instinct to side with idealized doctrines over the “dirty” and “messy” wisdom imparted by tradition that strikes me as being irrational.
I agree with you that asymmetries can exist in same-sex relationships. But then one can’t account for every sparrow’s fall! The broad pattern of human history suggests that asymmetries are “largely” unique to heterosexual relationships for the simple reason that women have babies while men don’t. Marriage laws have evolved to address all the human miseries that arise out of this asymmetry.
Why on earth should these laws be administered to homosexual couples?
Given that homosexuals pride themselves on being unconventional, why do I find this desire among gays to seek refuge in the most conventional of institutions like marriage?
Regarding fear of chaos –
That fear is again rational as it is based on a reading of history!
Chaos and disorder triggered the decline of the great Roman empire. The decline almost proved irreversible for a long time. In fact Europe in 1300 AD was at about the same level of civilizational development as it was in 300 AD. 1000 lost years. A pity really! It underlines the conservative belief that civilizations are inherently fragile and need to be conserved.
Libertarians may laugh when a conservative like Thomas Sowell muses if US would be under Shariat rule in a 100 years time. But actually Sowell is not being too silly. Stranger things have happened in 100 years. Hence it is important to stay vigilant and conserve this remarkable Western civlization – a wonder of human history.
I did not say ‘siding with “civilization” and time tested principles over arbitrary and general doctrines [is] irrational’. I said fear of chaos is irrational. More specifically, the fear of chaos that has evolved with humanity is largely irrational as chaos is more and more remote with the advancement of civilization.
I don’t see how allowing people to transact freely and without coercion is ‘idealized’.
I also don’t see how the ‘broad pattern of human history’ suggests any such thing. The fact that marriage evolved as it did is not suggestive of any uniqueness of the asymmetry. You must provide something more concrete in order to justify that assertion.
Thus I ask: Why on earth should we *not* administer these laws to homosexual couples?
First of all, there is no such ‘given’ that homosexuals ‘pride themselves on being unconventional’. There are some who may fit that depiction, but there are just as many who do not. Second of all, there are plenty of things that heterosexual couples take for granted that are incredible struggles for gay couples.
Take, for example, having children. If the couple desires children both individuals must apply for adoption if the parties are male. If female, the non-bearing partner must file for adoption. Heterosexual couples bear children or apply for adoption as a single unit. These hurdles would be removed should gay couples be recognized as ‘married’. This alone would be enough for many couples to seek ‘marriage’ as opposed to ‘domestic partnership’.
While chaos may be a legitimate threat, the march of civilization (as mentioned) has made it far more remote than it ever has been, and – chances are – it will continue to be pushed back as a legitimate threat. But, yes, I acknowledge that that chaos – as such – is a real threat and fear of chaos is not always irrational.
That said, it’s a stretch to equate the expansion of marriage recognition to homosexual couples as a legitimate introduction of chaos into civilization. Civilization will come to no harm as a result and no evidence of material harm can be cited. To act as if it will and argue as such is irrational.
Yes, stranger things have happened in 100 years… in 100 years we could be more free.
If ‘conserving Western civilization’ involves preserving the concepts of individual rights, private property and free exchange, then I am with you (along with most libertarians, I warrant).
I would discard any trapping of ‘civilization’ – Western or otherwise – which would seek to control, coerce, or limit the freedom of individuals to peacefully contract.
Whether that contract is for goods and services or marriage or what have you… as long as all parties are volunteering their signatures, and no material harm is being done to anyone else, then there is no reason to disallow such a transaction. How idyllic! 🙂
You argue well.
Regarding this comment –
I would discard any trapping of ‘civilization’ – Western or otherwise – which would seek to control, coerce, or limit the freedom of individuals to peacefully contract.
Well. Conservatives do not wish to “control, coerce or limit” freedom. However they acknowledge that the ground realities of civilized life do impose restrictions on freedom. A denial of those restrictions and attempts to fix the same can lead to much worse eventualities.
One example is Western social safety nets. In a world without socialized insurance and transfer payments to the aged, men don’t necessarily get freer. In the absence of government, kids chip in to take care of the aged as is the case in several Asian countries till date. Now for the family to serve as a safety net, we need strong families to begin with. It also helps to have specialized gender roles – something that many libertarians despise.
Libertarians oppose govt-sponsored safety nets without offering an alternative. While conservatives oppose socialized safety nets by arguing that traditional family based safety nets work better. The traditional set-up may not necessarily mean greater freedom for all, but it has its plusses as it encourages thrift, responsibility and a sense of community.
So effectively conservatives argue that personal and familial responsibility is a greater ideal than personal liberty.
Regarding your assertion that gay marriage is not really a major threat to civilization –
I don’t necessarily disagree. However I do believe that the conservative argument against it has its merits – though it isn’t water-tight as you’ve pointed out.
There can be a proper debate only if the conservative viewpoint on this subject is acknowledged as being honest and valid as opposed to merely being dismissed as anachronistic and fanatical!
While chaos may be a legitimate threat, the march of civilization (as mentioned) has made it far more remote than it ever has been, and – chances are – it will continue to be pushed back as a legitimate threat.
I don’t think it is remoter than ever before.
Actually chaos and the “philosophical hysteria” prevalent outside the confines of western civilization pose a greater threat to the West because of the inter-connectedness of our world. While ideas and civilizations used to clash very rarely 500 years ago, they clash practically everyday in our modern world.
For eg: Western civilization beams into the TV sets of most Muslim households in say Pakistan amplifying the anger and insecurity and jealousy that exists in the less developed parts of our world.
One manifestation of this anger and philosophical hysteria was 9/11. One wouldn’t be surprised if such manifestations become more frequent over the next 100 years.
So I see merit in the conservative argument that we live in a fragile world though our civilization is the greatest and most prosperous the world has ever seen. One must be vigilant against slippery slopes that may not seem like slopes at the outset.
Conservatives don’t view those civil rights triumphs over the past century as “victories for liberty” but as the natural course of history that should neither be bemoaned nor celebrated!
It is historical hindsight that persuades libertarians and progressives to view these social movements as “triumphs for liberty”.
Conservatives have a more nuanced view of history and pay greater attention to “Alternative histories” – an idea that Nassim Taleb often discusses.
While women’s emancipation or “civil rights expansion” for blacks or even “slavery abolition” may seem like unconditionally good things in hindsight, conservatives remind themselves that this was not so very self-evident at the time! Fortunately things panned out well but in an alternative history slavery abolition in the 1860s may have resulted in race riots, internecine warfare and destruction of human capital especially the skilled capital possessed by the “white” oppressor. So conservatives today are able to relate to the conservatives of the 1860s without getting into “moral” discussions on slavery as liberals often do. They can watch “Birth of a Nation” without squirming or using kneejerk labels like “racist”! That is a remarkable attribute to possess.
I am enjoying watching Arnold play his three axes out in many contexts…but I am more and more struck by the absence of utilitarianism as a major counterpart to these three. Does Arnold think that utilitarianism is more or less equivalent to progressivism? Where does someone whose commitment is to utilitarianism + empiricism fit into the framwork? It seems to me that this describes a large number of people on both sides of the political center (Democratic technocrats and the endangered species of Republican good government types) who think that barbarism, liberty, and oppression are awfully abstract notions to base concrete government decisions on.
A utilitarian who really paid attention to what government actually does when it tries to do things pragmatically with utilitarian excuses would eventually become a consequentialist, putting him squarely in the libertarian camp.
Libertarians would consider that being sincere to conservatives, but conservatives would be right to reject that, for they are the guardians of civilization and determine what is civilized, conservatives, and what is barbaric, others.
Libertarians could be sincere to progressives and tell them only the existing long standing power structure is legitimate, but progressives would be right to reject that, for they are the guardians of fairness and determine what is fair, progressives, and what is not, others.
Libertarians could say only freedom is civilized and only freedom is fair, but conservative and progressives alike would question, what freedoms and why only individual ones. They would be more than willing to express what other freedoms matter more.
The major difference between Conservatives and Libertarians is that –
Libertarians have one God. That is Freedom. Be it in economic, political or cultural spheres.
Conervatives on the other hand have no Gods. They are sceptical of dogma and certitudes. Instead they have greater faith in the pragmatic wisdom of the ages that reflects historical experience.
For them, “Freedom” is not a God as they believe man is fundamentally flawed, uncivilized and probably a small notch better than animals.
Hence the conservative argument goes that civilization can be achieved by only constraining any specific person or group of persons from gaining absolute power. This is achieved by limited govt, checks and balances, and most of all tradition!
Tradition serves as a check on human vanity and evils and thus plays a very critical role in preserving a fragile civilization.
So though libertarians and conservatives have a lot in common, their fundamental premises about human nature are very very different.
It’s facile for libertarians who have never actually created a civilization anywhere to downplay threats to civilization.
Why?
You forget the fourth axis here – power.
The power structure in this country is progressive. The academy, media, government, and many of the new corporate elite are explicitly progressive. This was not always the case, and just a few decades ago the power structure was inherently conservative.
Libertarians do not ally with conservatives because the freedom axis coincides with the civilization axis. The three axes are as noted quite independent.
Libertarians ally with conservatives because conservatives are the party in opposition to the power structure. In another time or country with a progressive mass movement and a conservative power structure (insert your favorite US-funded Latin American dictatorship here) libertarians would find themselves naturally allied with the progressives.
While I think that society and the country are slightly progressive, government, money, and finance are still slightly conservative, built as they are on institutional traditions, checks and balances, divided government and electorate, and financial influence.
I don’t believe ‘power’ is properly identified as an ‘axis’. Arnold axes are a way to describe how the different political philosophies argue, measure, and distribute political (social? economic?) capitol. ‘Power’ is what’s at play. (Arnold, please feel free to correct me if I’m off).
I think the first paragraph is a distinction without a difference. Of course “The progressive supports the use of state power whenever it can promote what the progressive sees as good,” but the exact same thing can be said of conservatives, and indeed of (most) libertarians. Conservatives and progressives just have different understandings of what is good. Libertarians just tend not to think the state *can* do all that much to promote what’s good.
Hayek’s distinction is more useful: Conservatives are skeptical of change and value tradition, progressives welcome change and are unsatisfied with tradition, and a libertarian is a particular type of progressive in that he wants a particular type of change (more freedom), recognizing that the pursuit of more freedom necessarily requires change, because tradition is de facto unfree.
PS — the answer to your question, according to Hayek (and I think he was right), would be that no, libertarians are not natural allies with conservatives, nor are they natural allies of progressives. Rather, libertarians cavort with one or the other (or both) tactically, whenever doing so will promote what the libertarian considers good (or so he thinks). Sometimes that will mean siding with conservatives (where tradition promotes freedom, e.g. low taxes), and sometimes that will mean siding with progressives (where promoting freedom requires change, e.g. opening up borders). Philosophically the progressive is the nearer ally, but it is always possible that de facto the conservative is the nearer ally, not because of philosophical kinship (which remains distant) but because of coincidence.