The Conservatarian or "anti-statist"

(Image Courtesy of Google Images)

There seems to be much confusion regarding the meanings of the many labels ascribed to political theories and ideologies on the right. I want to be careful with the term "ideology" being that it denotes some ideal that does not exist in reality or presuppose violations of natural law by the state, not all viewpoints on the right are ideological. Little discussion will focus on the political left. I don't want to bog down my point with defining the myriad leftist labels, rather solely focus on the political right.

First some basics; the party of the left is the Democratic party, simple enough. However, the root word democracy, contrary to leftist demagoguery, is in and of itself tyrannical. Majoritarianism is using the coercive arm of government to violate the natural rights of the minority. For example, my natural inviolate rights can be violated at the behest of a 51% majority. The rights of the 49% are not considered and are forcibly contravened by either a static or temporary majority (it's irrelevant the exact percentage of the minority and majority, so long as one individual's natural rights are violated). It's no coincidence that the 17th amendment was passed during the beginning of the fabian socialist movement.

Our founders and framers never once considered a democracy nor ever use the term in the Constitution itself. They feared just as much as a monarchy, the tyranny of the majority.

Today, we hear that education is a right, healthcare is a right, marriage is a right, and that it's something one can acquire at the polls. But the fact that these "pseudo-rights" come at the expense of someone else's natural rights by force, is rarely mentioned by either party. The Democratic party is an ideology built on increasing their own power at the expense of the individual through a majority vote, they adhere to party rather than natural law and are willing to violate them at the behest of their ever growing power. Equality is achieved by the have-nots voting for the property of the haves.

The party of the political right is the Republican party. The root word Republic denotes power belonging to each individual, not the majority (in the context of our Constitutional Republic). Government must follow a guideline that protects the sovereignty of the individual, not the majority or the ruling class. I can also elaborate on how the Republican party is not necessarily the party of Lincoln, Coolidge, Goldwater and Reagan, but that wouldn't serve the purpose of this specific explanation and because temporary Republican politicians decide to pervert the party platform does not change the root meaning of the term. I will delve far deeper into those differences later.

There has been little difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party throughout history, both claim to be the defenders of liberty while the growth of government and the subjugation of the individual is their modus operandi. Both are ideologically fixated on maintaining their own power and stranglehold in Washington, earning both the label of statists. The Republicans do not want to change the status quo established by statists from both parties, on the contrary, they want to wield its unconstitutional power. Regardless of party, power is corrupting, rarely in human history have rulers or magistrates willingly gave power back to the individual. There is no longer an opposition party to counter the statists in Washington, DC, excluding a select few.

Take Obamacare for instance, a valid constitutional protection against a temporary majority party line legislation that alienate our natural rights is congress' power of the purse (remember, judicial review is not in the constitution, so checks and balances were put in place for these specific occasions). The Republicans-rather than superfluous repeal votes that they know are not efficacious-can simply defund the law. But why would they, they are agents of the state just as the democrats are. All that matters is appearances as they pander to the ill-informed and apathetic about their ostensible attempts to repeal Obamacare, knowing full well the futility of such obtuse efforts. Remember, the same power this bill gives the Democrats it also bestows upon the Republicans.

The counter-revolution to the status quo of the modern Republican and Democrat statist are those that fight in one way or another for the individual over the state, whether that be by the rule of law (constitutional principles/natural law) or by the laws of economics. Contrary to the ideological premises of the statists, the notion of an individuals rights coming from "our creator" and the rights that affords each individual is far from an idea or an ideal but a demonstrable truth. To satisfy an ideology the state is to coerce the individual and violate their natural rights that are conferred by no man on earth, nor government. In fact, our natural rights have existed far before governments and will certainly outlast them so long as even one individual remains on this earth. Moreover, the essential purpose for the creation of our Republican government was to protect those natural rights from the government itself (through individual sovereignty), our fellow man or from foreign threats of plunder, not to violate said laws using the same power they were given by the people to safeguard them.

Conservative:
adjective 1. holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Noun 1. a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.

The label "Conservative" is misleading and a misnomer as it pertains to the evolution of governments throughout history (their insatiable appetite for growth and power and the status quo in the United States for the past century). The conservative is not reactionary but adheres to the principles of natural law, that these shall not be violated under any circumstances whatsoever, whether it be by the state, your neighbor, a foreign country or time. These principles undergird the freedom from the state in the political, economic and civil society and allow for mechanisms that perpetuate the empirically superior free market to flourish above all other dirigiste alternatives. The framers of the Constitution were by no means conservatives but battle hardened liberal "radicals" providing the impetus to promulgate individual sovereignty and Constitutional Republicanism in order to preserve the inviolate rights of man (this, in the broader context of the tyrannical nature of government over mankind throughout history before and after the ratification of the Constitution).

The Conservative sees social/moral issues through the circumscribed construct of the Constitution; these societal moral decisions should be made by the representatives closest to the body politic insofar as the body politic themselves have the most amount of input at the most local level possible (Remember, States are supposed to have plenary power by virtue of the Constitution). Mobility between townships, cities, counties and states promotes political competition amongst governments in much the same manner as competitive capitalism amongst firms (this of course is predicated upon the federal government abiding by its enumerated powers). Competitive government closer to the people disincentivizes tyranny and cultivates diversity. The framers had intended for the federal government to be largely innocuous, especially over the individual. This founding principle is why we have the most diverse and tolerant nation on the face of the Earth, regardless of the interested sophistry of race hustlers and statist demagogues.

The Libertarians beliefs are congruent with that of the Conservative, the belief in a limited role of government into the political and economic affairs of the individual. Minarchism is the verity disseminated by both the Conservative and Libertarian. Whereas the Libertarian sees things more from an economic construct, this does not in any way invalidate the Constitution or the Conservative but yields greater understanding of both. The competitive notion of local and state governments has been elided by the federal leviathan intentionally by virtue of the statist seduced with the allure of self-aggrandizement.

Let us examine our drug policy for instance; the Conservative may not understand nor care about the premise that prohibition of recreational drugs creates a far more lucrative market for said drug, or how the drug war yields higher costs to society than benefits. This is irrelevant in a system with competing local and state governments with proper local and federal representation. The Constitution does not ban drugs, the states or the people do, as we have seen with the alcohol prohibition that ended in 1933 (alcohol prohibition was added to the Constitution than later repealed). The difference is/was the demand for alcohol is far greater than the demand for marijuana. However, this is untrue in Colorado and may be untrue elsewhere, depending on how motivated, interested or incisive the drug user is about going through the proper legislative processes. Do not solely blame the Conservative for the prohibition on drugs, rather the user himself who shows no inspiration to petition his legislator for change.

Drug users seem far more apt and willing to pay the cost of using without changing the law. In other words, the immediate and fleeting high of "fill in the blank" drug is worth the cost that the state has imposed on its usage to the user. To the non-user, the public policy on drug possession and use is of no consequence. The advent of medicinal marijuana cards in some states has made the legalization of marijuana a moot issue as the die hard users are able to acquire a card and have no reason to change the longstanding bans. Legislation much like other products and services respond to demand. An individual of either party that are in opposition to the legalization of drugs simply have to do nothing. Those who are for the legalization in either party, but are not dedicated users or do not use at all would not necessarily benefit enough from their time and effort to petition their representatives for change. The rule of law isn't perfect, but it must adhered to.

I am opposed to the war on drugs, but I'm not opposed to localities banning drugs as they see fit. So long as no one is coerced to live there. Much like a firm, if this policy (at the local level) is unwanted and people move to another locality because of it, the only people that would incur the costs are the body politic that passed the law. Moreover, the loss of tax revenue, jobs etc. would force the locality to lift the ban. This can go either way and applies to myriad legislation. Competition between governments is a good thing. However, much like monopoly in the private sector, monopoly in the public sector can only come from the federal government. When the federal government bans and enforces laws that belong to the states or to the people, they monopolize choice and limit freedom. Mobility is no longer an option for the individual and competition is stifled by force.

I am opposed to any federal ban on Marijuana or anything else for that matter, as they do not have the Constitutional proviso to enforce such a ban. The Supreme Court Decision of Gonzales V. Raich is one of many activist decisions by virtue of perverting the commerce clause at the expense of states/peoples rights.

As for same-sex marriage and abortion (Roe V. Wade is unconstitutional, the tyranny of judicial activism) the Constitution provides a guideline for both. In order to more fully understand that issue from a Conservatarian standpoint you can click here for clarification. You can supplant virtually any other moral issue with same sex marriage so long as it isn't a natural right or enumerated as a federal power by the Constitution.


In the words of Thomas Sowell, "The Constitution of The United States cannot protect us unless we protect the Constituion". Conservatives need to better understand the forces and mechanisms involved in the free market and how that protects individual liberty and limits the authoritative power of the state. Libertarians need to better understand the Constitution and how its protection of natural law is vital to the free market and individual sovereignty. Both Libertarians and Conservatives need to better understand that if we don't stop the statists (in either party) from eroding and obfuscating our Constitutional rule of law, the bastardized economic and political freedom we barely enjoy now in the breach, will seem like a foregone utopian dream.

Libertarianism vs. Republicanism

Here is a good conversation starter:

Mill vs Pettit

Two major philosophical positions on political and social justice are libertarianism and republicanism.  John Stewart Mill’s On Liberty is one of the most influential works on libertarianism and Phillip Pettit makes a strong case for republicanism in his work Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government.  In this paper it will be shown that libertarianism makes a more consistent and compelling argument for individual liberty, which in turn promotes social justice.

In order to make a distinction between libertarianism and republicanism, non-interference and non-domination will be examined.  Mill describes libertarianism as a form of non-interference, which is the belief that one should be able to do as they please so long as they are not interfering with others, and one should be free from interference by others.  Mill has two main arguments on why this type of liberty is so essential, autonomy and individualism.  Autonomy, according to Mill, is being able to choose ones goals without interference, and one should be able to pursue the chosen goals without interference.  For example, if ones goal is to become a mathematics teacher there should be no outside force obstructing his path in pursuit of becoming a mathematics teacher.  Of course, it is assumed that the pursuance of ones goals does not interfere with someone else’s pursuance of their goals.  Individualism is important because it promotes progress.  If everyone conforms to the common belief then there will be no one to find the downfalls of the common belief.  For example, when the Pythagorean mathematician Hippasus of Metapontum discovered the existence of irrational numbers he was thrown overboard to drown at sea.  It is easy to see that this is a bad situation because the existence of irrational numbers creates a whole lot of interesting fields of mathematics that further increases humanity’s knowledge of the universe.  Therefore, if the majority has the ability to interfere with the minority in order to subdue opposing beliefs, new truths will be left off the table when debating justice or liberty.  Another example where individualism is important to consider is during state and federal election cycles.  More often than not debates between potential republican nominees are over very similar things and are essentially debating different versions of the same policy.  However, if there is one candidate that has very different opinions, if his views are closer to the truth and our constitutional principles but were subdued due to being the minority the public would be worse off for never hearing his opinions.  Thus, autonomy and individualism are important facets of liberty.

            

Mill would believe there are very few legitimate justifications for government intervention.  Basically, he would only be in favor so long as it promotes the type of freedom as stated above.  If a simplified society is examined, the type of government intervention that is legitimate is very clear.  Imagine a three-person society governed by a single agency.  If two people were engaging in a voluntary transaction, it would only be legitimate for the government to interfere if the third person were harmed by the transaction.  If a person is acting alone, the government has no right to step in and stop the act so long as he is not interfering with the other two people.  Obviously any voluntary transaction that takes place between all three individuals is allowable.  Now imagine if the three-person society takes place on an island with rough terrain and the three people living on all different corners of the island.  The governing agency would have a legitimate justification for some sort of taxation that will be used to pay for a form of transportation to decrease transaction costs between the individuals, i.e., the government can create a tax on X so that the efficiency of transactions increases to an equal or greater amount of the taxes.  One last thing that Mill would believe the government is justified doing is creating a tax on Y to pay for a national defense system.  It is hard to imagine how a defense system would be formed in such a simplified society, but the point is that a national defense system is one justified role of the government.  Would the government have any right to help the person whose area of the island is less endowed than the others?  The answer is no if it interferes with the other two citizens.  The discussion will clearly become more complex as the assumptions of the simplified society are relaxed, but the same basic principles of non-interference apply.

            

Non-domination as described in Pettit’s work Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government will be examined.  The difference in non-domination and non-interference is that under non-domination principles one can be interfered with as long as the interference is not arbitrary.  If the laws that are interfering with the citizens are arbitrary then according to Pettit, the laws become the instrument of the governing agency’s will.  If this happens we have a regime of an absolute King in which the citizens become slaves and are entirely deprived of their freedom. (Pettit, 36)  Now the question is who decides on the arbitrariness of an issue and what is arbitrary?  The answer is the officials that are elected by the public through a democratic process.  These officials should not have arbitrary power that is stated in a proper constitution.  These officials should also not be able to pass any laws that allow one group of citizens to dominate another group of citizens, or for one group to arbitrarily interfere with another group.  This point arises in one of the initial questions of what is arbitrary.  Pettit says the following:

While the law necessarily involves interference-while law is essentially coercive-the interference in question is not going to be arbitrary; the legal authorities will be entitled and enabled to interfere only when pursuing the common interests of citizens and only when pursuing these in a manner that conforms to the opinions received among the citizenry.

By this Pettit means laws are not arbitrary as long as the citizens are not dominated in any form.  The inferior persons choice options should not be narrowed, nor should the interferer change their judgment.  It is also clear that in order to not be arbitrary it must be accepted amongst the majority of the citizenry, but still within the realm of the drafted constitution.

            

From the definitions alone there is not a clear distinction between non-interference and non-domination, but Pettit gives examples of being dominated while not being interfered with that paints a clearer picture.  His example of being dominated only is known as the benevolent slave owner.  He claims that if there is a slave that has an owner that allows them to do as they please they are not technically being interfered with; they are however, being dominated.  This slave is just as free as the slave with an unkindly master, so therefore according to Pettit freedom requires the absence of domination, not just the absence of interference.

            

These two philosophies are very prevalent in the current political climate of America.  Most politicians adhere to Pettit’s definition of republicanism and some hold to Mill’s definition of libertarianism. There are some clear overlapping policies endorsed by these politicians and there are also some very distinct differences.  For example, all politicians believe in the basic freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and other things that do not interfere with others, but these freedoms are also making sure that no group can dominate another.  Other freedoms beyond America’s Bill of Rights can start to become less clear.  For example, both a republican and liberal will be in favor of some taxes in order to pay for the basic necessities that a government must, or at least traditionally provide, i.e. roads and a national defense.  A republican however, can claim a government should provide many more things so long as it is not arbitrary.  For example, a libertarian would never believe that it is the government’s responsibility to provide its citizens with health care, just that the government doesn’t disallow people to receive health care or that the government doesn’t interfere with ones pursuit of receiving health care.   A republican on the other hand could claim that insurance companies and hospitals dominate the citizen’s life in that if the citizen cannot afford health care they have a higher chance of dying.  Then there is an argument that the government should step in and socialize health care.  Another area in which the libertarian and republican might differ is legalization of all drugs.  A libertarian would say if someone is doing drug M in their home, and doing this drug does not interfere with the life of anyone else there is no reason for the government to interfere with this person’s life.  But, a republican could claim that criminalizing drug M is not arbitrary because it is protecting the citizen from being dominated by a substance. Furthermore, it decreases the availability of the drug and should ultimately decrease its usage by the citizens.  Another issue these two philosophies will differ in is the presence of labor unions.  A libertarian would say that as long as the working conditions are came to by a voluntary agreement, the agreement is just and fair according to the two parties.  A republican would not agree with this because then the employer will dominate the employee.  Thus a labor union will protect the employees working environment, make sure the employee has a fair wage, make sure the employer can’t fire the employee in order to hire cheap labor and provide the employee certain benefits such as health insurance.  There are many more things that a republican would argue for that are beyond the scope the rights provided by a libertarian.

            

Now that the differences and similarities have been explained, it will be shown that libertarianism is a much more consistent view if individual liberty.  The example of the simplified society clearly points out the type of laws and institutions that a libertarian would be in favor of, but if the same example is looked at through the republican definition of liberty it gets much more complicated.  As pointed out, the governing agency would still have the responsibility of forming a tax code that pays for a national defense and a transportation system for the citizens, the voluntary exchange principle would be the same, but the example of one person having a less endowed portion of the island is a bit unclear. As pointed out, the libertarian island would not expect the government to intervene, but the republican government could claim it needs to intervene and it is not arbitrary.  If one person is less well off in the three-person society, they are going to be at the whims of the other two, and in a sense dominated by them.  Therefore the government needs to step in and help them not be dominated.  It is unclear how they will help, but nonetheless the government must take from one or the other citizens, or both.  Since the other citizens are now forced to work for the government in order to help the less well-off they are being interfered with and dominated by the government.  They are not choosing to help the other, thus they are being told what to do with their time.  Because they are being told what to do with their time they are disallowed to choose freely how they want to spend their time and therefore being interfered with.  So the government makes a claim of non-arbitrary interference for the benefit of one citizen, but now it is dominating and interfering with at least one other citizen.  Now the argument of whose rights of not being dominated are more important must be had in order to resolve this issue.

           

If complications arise in the simplified society many more complications will arise once the assumptions are relaxed.  For example, the labor unions as mentioned above would cause complications.  One can make an argument that if labor unions are formed then the employees are dominating the employer.  Then one must ask why the employee’s rights are more important than the employers, just because there are more of them?  Furthermore, if we look at past experience it can be seen that industries with high labor unions are ran inefficiently.  These inefficient industries lower the standard of living because prices must rise; profits will be lowered, and ultimately if these industries do not want to go bankrupt there must be some sort of trade restrictions to stop foreign firms without unions to dominate the unionized domestic firms.  Due to higher prices and more trade restrictions simple economic models can show the dead weight loss to a society.  Furthermore, as Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction points out, a firm must have profits in order to invest in research and development in order to have technological innovations which further increase standard of living.  So now in order to protect the employees, the standard of living of an entire country is lowered by raising costs, increasing trade restrictions and slowing down the rate of technological progress.  This is just one of the issues a republican must tackle when they are arguing that non-domination is the best road to freedom; there are many more issues they must work very hard to prove that the interference is not arbitrary and that the interference would in fact create more freedom.

            

Another problem with Pettit’s non-domination is that it is assumed that one can be dominated while not being interfered with.  The example of the benevolent slave owner violates the Mill’s principle of autonomy.  If a slave has a benevolent owner, they are not free to pursue their goals without being interfered with.  Using the same example as before, a slave cannot become a math teacher even if their owner is benevolent to the highest degree, and if they can become a math teacher, they are not a slave.  Therefore the assumption that non-domination is more important than non-interference is not coherent with the ideal that Mill presents.

            

Based on the evidence presented, one must conclude that libertarianism is the most consistent form of individual liberty.  It is a clear and concise way of defining freedom.  It gives everyone equal rights without the chance of the government picking winners or losers, as in the case of the union example.  Therefore if a nation wants to progress it must promote social justice through libertarianism.

Sources

• Mill, J.S, On Liberty
• Pettit, Phillip.  Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. 
• Van Den Berg, Hendrik.  International Economics, 1^st edition.