Carte Blanche: Why Libertarianism Over Conservatism

In mainstream politics, libertarianism and conservatism are more or less lumped into the same camp. The reason for this is described concisely by F.A. Hayek in his essay, Why I am Not a Conservative, where he writes, “At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty, those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this, they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change.” A further examination will uncover deeper philosophical differences and priorities between these two ideologies where differences tend to be cloudy. These differences have been recently defended by two credible thinkers, beginning with Daniel McCarthy’s article, Why Libertarians are Wrong, followed by an essay by Jeff Deist at the Mises Institute titled, A Response to Daniel McCarthy's "Why Libertarians are Wrong". When using McCarthy’s essay to examine conservative thought, it is clear that his view does not represent those of all people that call themselves conservative, however, he expresses similar lines of thought to many, and draws similar conclusions. To judge libertarianism as “better” than conservatism, we will use logical consistency and effectiveness for our basis.

At the beginning of progressive dominance in America, its counter-movement was indeed an effective enemy. The two opposing parties were more ideological and consistent beliefs than they are now. In the time of the third party system (1854-1890), the Republicans favored cooperation between business and government, compulsory cartelization, the centralization of schooling, central banking, paper money, and pietist social reforms. As an opposing force, the Democrats favored laissez-faire economics, free banking, hard money, social freedom, and decentralization. For a long time, this brand of liberalism prevented progressivism from dominating politics, not only because it won elections, but because it is the true ideological contrast to statism. According to Hayek’s definition of conservatism, this classical liberalism was the conservative movement at the time, by defending the original American tradition. Over time, this opposition is known as “conservatism”, became known as such, with founding thinkers like Russell Kirk and Edmund Burke. It is clear through the divide between conservatism and liberalism (now libertarianism) that two very different ideologies and values exist. It is an oversimplification to say that they only have different policy prescriptions for the government.

In Daniel McCarthy’s article, he acknowledges that libertarian economists Mises and Hayek have disproven the idea that economic nationalism is beneficial to society, writing, “No nationalist program for strengthening manufacturing for the sake of the middle class is workable because the social philosophers Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises demonstrated that all economic interventions by government involve insufficient knowledge of consumer preferences and specific market circumstances. Economic decisions have to be made by those directly involved in market transactions; an economy is too complex for anyone else to act wisely.” He shows that he understands why interventions do not make society better off. Furthermore, he acknowledges later in the paragraph the fact that libertarians often warn about the effects of a national debt crisis being kicked down the road by mainstream politicians. McCarthy discards these arguments from economic logic, and reasons that a political crisis is on the way, with a shorter time horizon than an economic crisis. Implied and stated is the idea that upholding civilization during this political crisis is currently more of a priority than shrinking the size and scope of government. For the final conclusion of his essay, McCarthy hits home the conservative viewpoint, writing, “ the market depends on our civilization and our country as much as or more than they depend on it. A country’s way of life can survive its government’s bankruptcy or an upheaval in the private economy; it can’t survive the global transformation that’s coming if we do nothing.”

From this point of view, free-markets do not create civilization, but civilization creates free-markets, and individual liberty alone cannot solve the problems of “civilization.” If we do not prevent this vague “political crisis” from happening, civilization will be destroyed. Since this line of thought separates economics, the science of human action, from the idea of civilization, McCarthy does not consider Mises and Hayek to be useful thinkers in preventing this crisis. Problems like a shrinking middle class and degeneration of the family are not seen then as problems caused by government intervention in the economy, and therefore it is thought that a less interventionist government will not prevent them. Hence, we end up with very different priorities and policy prescriptions.

This deviation of thought regarding economics and civilization creates a serious difference between conservatism and libertarianism. Although many, like McCarthy, have at least read treatises by Mises, they imagine his reasoning as a less important view or intelligent talking points, rather than a serious insight into the functions of society. For this, they end the aim of economic liberty, as modern conservatism has, and fall for many of the same economic fallacies as progressives. They have adopted the idea of unlimited GDP growth as a replacement for economic health, especially if we grow more than other nations. To achieve this, conservatism has long ago ignored central banking as a real political issue and endorsed artificial credit expansion and runaway deficit spending to finance GDP figures. Keynesianism has been adopted as the central economic theory to justify big spending and McCarthy's statement, that economic actors have limited time horizons, which is used as means to discard the idea of fiscal responsibility, chillingly echos Keynes’ statement that “in the long run we’re all dead”.  However, since the purpose of conservatism is to uphold institutions of the past, as long as we win the culture-wars, these are all non-issues to many conservatives.

The problem with McCarthy’s conclusion, that the market depends on our civilization more than vice-versa, is that the opposite is true. American civilization is the unintended consequence of individuals when they are free from the infringement of their natural right to property, not the other way around. Like McCarthy, some of the best conservatives have read Ludwig Von Mises, however with this conclusion drawn, they show that they do not retain or understand his work to begin with. When individuals act, they make value judgments and tradeoffs to improve their lives according to their own perceptions, and save resources according to their time preferences. These saved resources are allocated to their most productive uses, increasing the means of production accumulated, and therefore the wealth of society. This is how American civilization became wealthy, and how individuals enjoy a high standard of living. The fact that real wages and income grew under capitalism is what enabled our society to possess more goods and services for their labor, more leisure time, more entertainment and arts, and more happiness, leading to the deified “civilization” we are discussing. However, since it is human action under the protection of individual rights that built civilization, it must be true that this idea of civilization did not preexist the market, and did not invent American society. What McCarthy concludes is that markets did not generate the high standards of living in our society but rather some vague “greatness” of America. In reality, human action works for any individuals when they are given rights to themselves and their property and is not unique to this country.

With McCarthy’s logic presented, it would follow that this civilization in a sense “allowed” free markets to flourish. Not only is this untrue, but it uses a vague collective term “civilization.” If civilization must be saved from the political crisis described, how do we protect it? Similar to progressives, collective euphemisms are used as proxies for what is really being described: the central government. “Civilization” created the market and “it” should act to defend itself, or “the people” or “we” should act, are ways of saying that the US government should act to enforce what they want. Notice how McCarthy’s policy prescriptions for the supposed crises all grow the powers and control of the state. The conservative devotion to American society has been over time distorted to a devotion of the US government, bringing on the idea of nationalism, the concept that the state is somehow tied to love for the physical land and civilization in which we live. The product of American civilization is created by something inherent in all individuals when allowed to act, not something created by the “greatness” of the US government.  

If this conclusion drawn by McCarthy shapes the thought for other conservatives, it would explain how they have developed a complete disregard for economic liberty. If markets actually rely on civilization, it could not be the unintended consequences of human action that build centuries of capital accumulation, but the magic of the American flag that granted wealth on the nation, allowing markets to exist. Indeed McCarthy recognizes problems and distortions in the economy, but in his view, if a political crisis is the problem, then economic liberty cannot be the answer. Conservatism has allowed the existence of extreme deficit spending, central banking, the administrative state, and the welfare state, all of which have caused unintended negative consequences. When libertarians advocate the abolition of these things they are chastised for being too “ideological”, simply for realistically recognizing the root of many problems. They have become obsessed with having the largest economic measurement, gross domestic product (GDP), which has no bearing on the standard of living or level of freedom. It does not matter whether or not we have property rights or a sustainable budget, as long as our GDP measurement is higher than China’s.

What has become the major difference between conservatism and liberty is presented clearly by a statement in Mike Pence’s speech at the Munich Security Conference, that the West’s “will to survive” is shown by its involvement in world affairs. Their confusion and emotions for our country have genuinely led to the idea that the “West” is the US Government when in reality, the concept of the “West” is lack of government. Western society is the product of individuals free from the initiation of force and is possible for any society where human beings exist. Although the Western world began on this soil, it has nothing to do with an accumulation of politicians in Washington with a monopoly on the use of force. Therefore, the West cannot show its “will to survive” by increased government action, when it was precisely government inaction that brought it to life in the first place. Conservatism can fall back on the idea of preserving the American tradition, but when progressivism has been the tradition for over a century, what are they conserving? This mismatch of priorities creates an unprincipled mix of ideas that do not resemble a real ideology or legal doctrine and is ineffective at preventing progressivism and socialism, often aiding its advances. There is not one major piece of progressive legislation that conservatives have successfully repealed, many of which they end up supporting. In time, they will defend Medicare for all, and the nationalization of other major industries, just as they defend social security and Medicare now. In their minds, the fact that these things happen under American government makes it “Western society”.