The Instigator
socialpinko
Con (against)
Tied
14 Points
The Contender
TheElderScroll
Pro (for)
Tied
14 Points

Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/17/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,590 times Debate No: 27311
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (6)

 

socialpinko

Con

Conservatism and libertarianism will not be defined explicitly, given that the ideological content of the positions is exactly what's at dispute here. Both debaters will present their own competing definitions (and respective conclusions based partly on those definitions) and argue for which is more reasonable.


The definition of ideological ally will be along the lines of having similar enough goals to warrant inclusion of the two in the same set wherein differences do not outweigh similarities. To illustrate the latter clause, arguing that liberals and Nazis have *some* similarities would not be enough to warrant inclusion of them in the same set since the differences highly outweigh any similarities.


My burden will be to defend the thesis that conservatism and libertarianism have goals which are too distinct from each other, or that the differences between the two ideologies are too great (or both). My opponent's burden on the other hand will be to argue that the goals of the two ideologies are similar enough and that the differences don't outweigh the similarities.


===Rules===



1. Drops will count as concessions.
2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.
3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.
4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2.
5. BoP is shared between Pro and Con.
TheElderScroll

Pro

I accept the challenge.
I will be adopting the position of Pro and arguing that Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies.
May both of us enjoy this debate and let's begin.
Debate Round No. 1
socialpinko

Con

First, I'd like to sketch out the ideological view of conservatism and libertarianism which I plan on arguing in this debate. Conservatism is a political program aiming and seeking to conserve an established order of things (tradition). Conservatism can thus be aptly described as traditionalism. Libertarianism on the other hand is a commitment to the greatest possible amount of freedom for the individual with an emphasis on removing barriers to this, making it almost universally anti-statist.


Point A. Conservatism as traditionalism.


The conservative political program consists of respect for "what has worked" in the past combined with emphasis on traditional values and social relations. In many instances this is causally linked to pragmatic considerations. For instance, recognized conservative values like respect for the family unit and emphasis on interpersonal unity (in religion and in some instances in a common ethnic/cultural identity) are in many respects emphasized due to the observed positive effects of these values throughout history and in past societies.


Not all conservative of course are pragmatic thinkers and there is also a strong idealistic strand within conservatism. It's this idealistic strand that contains the non-pragmatic reasons for adopting conservative values. This is expressed mainly by religious conservatism (Robertson, Dobson, Graham) which seeks to revert or preserve a society based on religious principles. While there are different routes of getting there ("there" referring to support for the preservation of traditional values), the common denominator linking conservatives is respect and emphasis on the traditional.


Point B. Libertarianism as freedom-centered.


Libertarianism on the other hand is almost universally recognized as focusing mostly (and in many cases entirely) on the concept of freedom with a positive emphasis on such. The modern libertarian political program began as a clearly freedom-centered movement. John Locke who is recognized by many to be a major figure in the philosophical development of libertarianism sheds light on the libertarian view of freedom in relation to the individual:


"The NATURAL liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule.

The liberty of man in society is to be under no other legislative power but that established by consent in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will or restraint of any law, but what that legislative power shall enact according to the trust put in it."[1]


Libertarians have also focused on other idealistic principles such as equality[2] as well as consequential outcomes like wealth and prosperity[3]. However, even with this seeming heterodoxy of different principles and goals within the broader libertarian philosophy, the thing that combines them all (and which without would render libertarianism unrecognizable) is freedom. Libertarians who value equality (Long, Richman, Chartier) and libertarians who favor consequence based thinking (Friedman, Hayek, Mises) are all connected within a common ideological framework by their shared emphasis on freedom. An emphasis which is of course shared by deontological libertarians who favor liberty as the end-all moral principle on which to base society and government (Rothbard, Locke, Hoppe).


Contention. The Traditional as at odds with Freedom.


With the frameworks of conservatism and libertarianism sketched out (traditionalism and freedom-centric respectively), we now move on to why these values are at odds with each other in such a way as to refute the position of the two ideologies as allied. Note that even if some similarities can be shown, the example from R1 of liberals having *some* similarities with Nazis is not in itself enough to prove ideological allies. The differences must be shown to outweigh the similarities and vice versa for Pro.


It's clear that in some instances, traditional values happen to coincide with freedom-centric values. For instance, conservatives often pay lip service to minimal government as compatible (or complementary) with traditional values. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. In many cases though, tradition seems to be entirely at odds with tradition (see attempts at curbing or restricting personal choice in regards to things like drug use, sex, etc.). Even discounting these cases as exceptions rather than norms though, there's the prima facie case resulting from the fact that freedom is non-prescriptive (except of course being in favor of freedom itself). This means that adding in other prescriptions like respect for the family unit or cultural unity is prima facie at odds with freedom itself.


===Conclusion===


Not only do conservatism and libertarianism have separate ideological frameworks separating them, but the non-prescriptive nature of freedom itself means that separate value frameworks (including emphasis on traditional values) aren't just separate, but are positively at odds with freedom. While conservatism and libertarianism agree in some respects, the ideological differences and conflicts more than outweigh this.


===Sources===


[1] John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Ch. 4, Sec. 22. Available online: (http://www.gutenberg.org...)
[2] http://mises.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
TheElderScroll

Pro

I thank Con for initiating the debate

Conservatism
Conservatism is grounded on the abiding principles of America liberty, proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and promulgated by the United States Constitution. The principle defines the nation as the land of freedom. To a certain extent, it is not inappropriate to say that conservatism find its meaning by appealing to the value of traditional institution and practices. Conservatism is, in general, composed of five distinctive yet complementary principles with personal liberty celebrated as its core tenet: free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American value, and a strong national defense.[1]

Libertarianism
Libertarianism is the belief that each person has the right to live his/her life as he/she choses as long as he/she respects the equal right of others. Libertarians defend each person"s right to life, liberty, and property. In the libertarian view, if there is no good reason to forbid something, it should be allowed.[2] In other words, force should be reserved for prohibiting or punishing those who may threat others" rights only. Government, which is expected to live in the same code of ethics as most people do, should not use their powers to censorship speech or prohibit voluntary exchange, the gold standard of human relationships.[2] In the political sphere, libertarians usually advocate free enterprise, limited government, and individual freedom.[2] A French-term, Laissez-faire, meaning "let us do" or "allow to do", is also used to describe libertarianism.[3]

Common Goal
Build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.

Similarity vs. Difference
By definition, both conservatism and libertarianism hold personal liberty as paramount. In a broad sense, both ideologies support free enterprise, personal liberty, and limited government. The quasi-disagreement on the issue such as the role of traditional American value and a strong national defense played, according to many, separates conservatism from libertarianism.[4] A closer examination, however, suggests that the conservatism need not adopt an antagonistic attitude toward libertarianism, and vice versa.

Traditional American Value
Both ideologies support personal liberty, an essential pillar of the traditional American values. The purported difference is primarily manifested on the social front with abortion and gay marriage as two leading issues. Strong support of abortion and gay marriage, among many libertarians, suggests that they believe personal liberty trumps government interference. They likewise believe that two ideologies are irreconcilable. In reality, however, one need not be a social social liberal to be a libertarian.[4] In other words, a libertarian with a conservative social view lies perfectly within the definition of libertarianism.

P.S. Due to space constraint, only abortion would be analyzed in detail.

Abortion
Libertarianism does not categorically proscribe the tradition American value. On the contrary, libertarianism embraces it. Unlike most conservatives, who unequivocally reject the notion of abortion, libertarians are largely divided. The different responses with respect to abortion is not rooted in its principle however; the rather agnostic altitude is primarily owing to a different understanding of the right of unborn child. For those pro-life libertarians, they tend to believe that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting unborn child from being denied the right to life would abortion be performed. To these libertarians, state"s intervention is justified. For those pro-choice libertarians, their argument is that pregnancy is a personal choice and a mother"s right to liberty should not be infringed just because she is pregnant. The difference therefore is not in principle, but in a different interpretation and the application of the principle. As a result, at least on the issue of abortion, libertarianism is not incompatible with conservatism.

Gay Marriage
Given the fact that gay marriage issue is not dissimilar from abortion, the above analysis is equally applicable in the case of gay marriage.

National Defense
When it comes to national defense, most conservatives favors a strong national defense while libertarians" attitudes, once again, are divided. The fact that personal liberty is the lynchpin of libertarianism renders many libertarians to believe that the government should not interfere with one"s business unless one"s right is in a grave danger. Many libertarians are on the dovish side, who want the United States to minimize its commitments, and, as much as possible, dismantle the national-security state. Others may align themselves with their conservative counterpart. Again, the difference is the direct result of the distinctive interpretation of liberal principle. For instance, many libertarians tend to support a strong nation defense because they believe without a strong national defense, their rights would be inexorably violated by the threats oversea. They argue that, Iran, for example, attempts to bid regional hegemony by acquiring nuclear weapons and the regional instability may result in a full-scale war if the United States does not act in advance. The ever escalating conflict between Hamas and Israel, ostensibly, is an extension of the war happened four-year ago, the real culprits, they suggest, are in Tehran (the capital of Iran), the principal supporter of money and weapons of Hamas. The increasing in Iran boldness and aggressiveness toward the Western civilization, especially the United States, necessitates a strong national defense. Without it, they argue, liberty would be in peril. Other libertarians hold that the strategic goal of the foreign police (including national defense) is to reduce America"s costs and risks overseas by limiting U.S. Commitments wherever and whenever possible. Large military budgets, they argue, would invariably divert resources from pressing domestic needs thereby undermining personal liberty at home. Again, personal liberty is the key to both sides, and the only difference is how each ideology perceives it or how to incorporate it in politics. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to tentatively conclude that conservatism is not incompatible with libertarianism.

Conclusion
The foregoing analysis is by no means exhaustive. Both ideologies hold the personal liberty direly and both prefer free enterprise and limited government to unlimited government. In terms of social issue and national security, libertarianism does not preclude conservatism. As President Ronald Reagan once said: "If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." [5]

Thank you.

References
[1]. http://www.heritage.org...
[2]. http://www.libertarianism.org...
[3]. http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[4]. http://www.americanthinker.com...
[5]. http://reason.com...
Debate Round No. 2
socialpinko

Con

First, I'd like to point out that Pro hasn't attempted to refute my own conception of or reasoning for the dissimilarities between conservatism and libertarianism. Therefore I'll simply extend my entire case.


===Deconstruction of Pro's case===


Def. of Conservatism.


1) Pro's definition of conservatism doesn't actually contain an argument. It's simply a conjectural statement of his view concerning what conservatism is.


2) On it's own, the definition is flawed considering that it leaves out a large segment of self-described conservatives. For instance, the religious conservatives I pointed to in R2 would be left out considering that freedom is valued only inasmuch as it furthers their religious agenda. Therefore my own conception of conservatism is more inclusive and comprehensive than Pro's.


3) Pro's definition of conservatism doesn't include social conservatives. While having a large overlap with religious conservatives, social conservatives are defined by their traditional views on social issues like abortion, drug use, and same-sex marriage. Pro's own def. of libertarianism says that it doesn't support prohibition of something unless that action violates the rights of others. However, things like same-sex marriage and drug use don't contain any direct/tangible infringements on the rights of others. Therefore we should either abandon Pro's definition or leave out a huge segment of conventionally described conservatives.


Def. of Libertarianism.


I don't have a problem at current with Pro's definition of libertarianism, merely his application.


The alleged common goal.


The problem with the "common goal" that Pro ascribes to libertarianism and conservatism is that it's incredibly ambiguous. These are things that most proponents of an ideology would describe themselves as supporting. Thus they're simply buzzwords unless each is expanded on, specifically in regards to methodology. For example, Marxists would certainly wish for all of those things, simply because they use the words in a way which allows for that description. Freedom is defined as freedom to the necessities and freedom from capitalism. On the other hand, libertarians would defined freedom completely negatively. The common goal Pro cites is thus more or less incoherent and inapplicable to the specifics necessary for this debate.


Similarity vs. Difference.


Pro argues that by definition, the two ideologies have the same paramount value, being liberty. However, as I've pointed out before, this definition of conservatism is excludes a huge amount of people traditionally viewed as conservative, social and religious conservatives among them.


Traditional American Value.


On the various analyses of traditional American policy issues, let's take them in order. On abortion, I agree that much of the reasoning relies on different interpretations of liberty. However, in the absence of any other positions on the subject of Pro's being sound, a holistic view still supports my own conceptions of libertarianism and conservatism. On gay marriage, Pro never explains how the principle of liberty is simply differently applied here. On national defense, Pro never forwards an argument for why the "different interpretation" principle is somehow superior to my own thesis that conservatives simply don't take liberty as their primary value. Furthermore, Pro's reasoning isn't even sound. Infringing on citizen's rights via wiretapping, etc. isn't a legitimate protection of liberty, it simply replaces who's violating it. Therefore, citing the conservative viewpoint as holding something like security in higher regards makes the most sense.


Conclusion.


Pro's definitions are not only not supported by argument by Pro (he more than not simply states them) but he hasn't attempted to refute by argument my own conception. Furthermore, the tradition thesis is not only more comprehensive in that it succeeds in accounting for widely divergent strands of conservatism, but likewise the tradition thesis of conservatism fails by ignoring a large segment of beliefs traditionally associated with conservatism like religious and social conservatives. These strands are inexplicable on the liberty thesis but can be expressly accounted for on the tradition thesis. Conservatism and libertarianism probably overlap in some areas, however, the radical difference in ultimate goals and values is too great to hold them as allies.
TheElderScroll

Pro


I thank Con for presenting his argument.



It should be noticed that I did not intentionally avoid presenting the counterarguments in R2. Since Con did not specify the requirements in the “Rules” section, I was under the impression that the rebuttals would not start until R3. If it is necessary, I suggest to use “Comment” to make up for any unaddressed arguments.



Summary of the Argument



  1. Con’s definition of conservatism is fundamentally flaw


    1. Conservatism is not a monolithic belief.

    2. Traditionalism is not Conservatism.


  2. Semi-Conclusion: Pro’s definition of Conservatism is therefore more comprehensive and accurate.

  3. Personal liberty within Libertarianism context is not without limit.

  4. Traditionalism can be explained and justified within the framework of Libertarianism


    1. The tradition, within the context of this debate, is not at odd with individual liberty

    2. Reasons against gay marriage are not incompatible with the concept of liberty


  5. A strong national defense is the vanguard of personal freedom

  6. Conclusion: Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies.

  7. Comments on “Common Goal.”



Con’s definition of Conservatism is fundamentally flaw


(a) Conservatism is not a monolithic belief


Con failed to recognize that Contemporary Conservatism is not a monolithic belief, instead, it comprise a coalition of willing. Individual beliefs are cemented into a unity by their shared beliefs in the United States Constitution. Conservatism is categorized into four distinctive movements, known generally as Religious Conservatism, Economic Conservatism, Natural Right Conservatism (individual liberty), and Traditionalism.[1] The five pillar in Pro’s definition is a summary of the aforementioned subtypes:



  1. Religious conservatism and traditionalism defends life, liberty, and pursue of happiness. Both subtypes derive legitimacy from the consent of governed. It recognizes man’s self-interests. Both subtypes find their best appearance on many social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Limited Government and traditional American value are designed to describe both types.

  2. Economic conservatism shores up the idea of free markets and encourages policy reformers. It discourages unnecessary government interventions. Economic conservatism is reflected on conservatives’ advocacy for Limited Government and Free enterprise.

  3. Natural right conservatism (liberty) asserts truths according to “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”

  4. Individual liberty, as defined in the Constitution, concatenated four sub-type conservatism together into a coherent unity.

  5. Collectively, conservatism demands a strong national defense to guid its interests and ensure its existence.


Social conservatives and religious conservatism are squarely fall within Pro’s definition.



(b) Traditionalism is not Conservatism


Traditionalism is the theory that all moral and religious truth comes from divine revelation passed on by tradition. Traditionalism encompasses Religious Conservatism and Traditionalism while fails to property account for Economic Conservatism and Strong National Defense. Moreover, it may capture the meaning of liberty within traditional context but fails to include the meaning in social economic sphere. Therefore, it is insufficient to consider Conservatism merely Traditionalism.



Semi-Conclusion


Con’s definition partially explains the Conservatism while ignores economic conservatism and advocacy for strong national defense. Furthermore, Con’s definition cannot adequately account for individual freedom within a social economic context. Therefore, in summary, Pro’s definition is more inclusive and accurate.



Personal liberty within Libertarianism context is not without limit


Both Pro and Con appear to agree that Libertarianism is freedom centered. Liberty, is not a right bestowed to an individual to do whatever he or she may want in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Murder, for example, is strictly prohibited given the fact that the victims may lose their right to liberty. Pro explicitly and unequivocally defines the outer-boundary in his definition i.e., if there is no good reason to forbid something, it should be allowed; It is unclear if Con’s definition may recognize any limits.



Traditionalism can be explained and justified within the framework of Libertarianism


(a) The tradition, within the context of this debate, is not at odd with individual liberty


Both ideologies derive legitimacy from the abiding principles of American liberty as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the United Sates Constitution. “About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful and even if Conservatism can be described as Traditionalism, the Traditional and individual liberty are two sides of the same coin. If all men are created equal, that is final; If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final; No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.” [2] Therefore, it is more reasonable to consider individual liberty under Libertarianism is just another way to depict the tradition under conservatism.



(b) Reasons against gay marriage are not incompatible with the concept of liberty


As discussing above, liberty is not a right without limits. Government intervention is justified only if there is compelling reason for it do so. For some libertarians, a ban on gay marriage is irrational and invidious discriminatory. For many libertarians, however, government intervention is warranted on the ground that legalizing gay marriage may jeopardize the well being of next generations while also put their own liberty at risk. Again, the disagreement is a result of interpretations but principles.



First, marriage is inherently and necessarily reserved for unions between one man and one woman. This is because the American society recognizes that heterosexual marriage provides the ideal structure within which to beget and raise children. By breaking such structure, children’s psychological health could be in jeopardy thereby affecting their abilities to enjoy their rights to liberty. A research paper published by Dr. Mark Regnerus suggests that children reared by heterosexual parents generally outperform them of homosexual parents. [3]



Second, libertarianism establishes the voluntary exchange the gold standard of human relationships. Legalizing gay marriage may polarize social relationships and disrupt social tranquillity. Therefore, many libertarians decide to embrace social conservatism to preserve peaceful environment, an indispensable element to personal liberty.



A strong national defense is the vanguard of personal freedom


Government has a solemn obligation to protect citizens’ rights. A strong national defense is necessary to prevent any enemies from doing American’s any harms. Iran nuclear threats are real, and Russian animosity toward democracy may also undermine the rights to liberty enjoyed by most Americans. Military action, under many circumstances, are not only inevitable but also preferable e.g., Libya civil war.



Conclusion


Both ideologies derive their legitimacy from abiding founding principle, which hail individual liberty as its core tenet. The quasi-differences between Conservatism and Libertarianism is largely a result of different interpretations of the concept of individual liberty. Given the fact that individual freedom is the preeminent tenet of both ideologies and free market and limited government are strongly advocated by both ideologies, it is not inappropriate to conclude that Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies.



Comments on “Common Goal”


The introduction of Common Goal is used to show that Conservatism and Libertarians are defined within American culture.



Thank you.



References


[1]. http://www.heritage.org...


[2]. http://www.powerlineblog.com...


[3]. http://www.sciencedirect.com...


Debate Round No. 3
socialpinko

Con

===Deconstruction of Pro's case===


Def. of Conservatism.


Pro has decided to introduce a completely new definition of conservatism this round. While in the last round he portrayed conservatism as a general commitment to liberty, in this round he portrays conservatism as a mish-mash of various different models. Besides not showing how religious/social conservatives actually square into the "liberty" interpretation (Pro merely says they do without argument), Pro's entire (new) conception of conservatism is little more than conjecture. No actual line of reasoning is ever presented. Pro has merely said that X is conservatism just because.


Traditionalism.


Pro's conception of what traditionalism actually is is also badly flawed. In order for something to be traditional, it doesn't need to be some sort of religious truth. Pro seems to entirely ignore my pragmatic traditionalist point from R2. Traditionalism can have two meanings (both encompassed in conservatism): religious and pragmatic. Pro is correct in describing religious conservatives as traditionalist but ignores the other form, pragmatic. Conservatism in this form is traditionalist in that it sees no reason to change what has worked in the past. Tradition is pragmatic and thus in need of being conserved. Pro is essentially setting up a straw man here. Pro's claim that economic conservatism and national defense can't be explained by mere religious truths is correct perhaps, but it need not be in order to be correctly categorized under traditionalism.


Def. Of Libertarianism.


Obviously liberty has a logical limit. Otherwise it would simply be self-defeating (i.e., someone would have the liberty to undermine another person's liberty, etc.). Pro has failed though to show why things like prohibitions on same-sex marriage and other non-aggressive activities is something necessary to protect the liberty of others. The "tradition" thesis of conservatism can easily accommodate this belief though since it the gay marriage issue resembles a mere example of the conservative opposition to non-adherence to tradition.


(A) Pro hasn't actually forwarded an argument here. He merely quotes someone who agreed with him. Moreover, his point here is demonstrably false. Tradition qua tradition isn't necessarily at odds with liberty, but it's not necessarily compatible with it either and that's the thesis Pro is tasked with defending here and has thus far failed to do so. Restrictions on same-sex marriage and adoption is merely a single example of tradition incompatible with individual liberty. See point B for full refutation of Pro's attempted reconciliation of these two.


(B) I really don't feel like getting into all the reasons why Pro's points are wrong but I suppose I'll get in troubs or dropped arguments if I don't respond. First, Pro's point that marriage is recognized as a union between a man and a woman doesn't matter if conservatism really operates under the "liberty" framework since the traditional def. of marriage would only matter to those operating under the "tradition" framework. I count this as an admission on Pro's part. Second, the research paper Pro cites is completely at odds with his conclusion. The paper claims in the "Conclusion" section:


"This study is intended to neither undermine nor affirm any legal rights concerning such. The tenor of the last 10 years of academic discourse about gay and lesbian parents suggests that there is little to nothing about them that might be negatively associated with child development, and a variety of things that might be uniquely positive."


Moreover, Pro in no way shows why simply being "outperformed" (ambiguous enough) is a legitimate argument against same-sex unions for two reasons. One, being outperformed doesn't suggest that children raised by homosexual parents are in any way negatively hurt by virtue of their parents being gay. What I mean is Pro hasn't shown why it's specifically their parents being gay that causes them to be "outperformed" and not at all merely a result of the more negative societal attitudes presented against children of LGTT parents. Again Pro's own source is a great help stating that:


"the findings reported herein may be explicable in part by a variety of forces uniquely problematic for child development in lesbian and gay families—including a lack of social support for parents, stress exposure resulting from persistent stigma, and modest or absent legal security for their parental and romantic relationship statuses"


Second and more generally, Pro's source only claims that there is empirical difference. It doesn't lend credence at all (and in fact explicitly argues against the idea) that homosexual parents are somehow uniquely unqualified to raise children.


Conclusion.


Conservatism and libertarianism base themselves off of different foundations which manifest themselves in some similarities, completely outweighed by the differences. Libertarianism is best described as commitment to liberty. This is shown by the fact that it's the most broad account of self-described libertarians from the utilitarians to the natural rightists to the more left wing factions. Conservatism on the other hand, while usually paying lip-service to liberty and in some instance happening to come to its defense is itself founded on traditionalist principles. The justification for this stemming from a holistic look at self-described conservatives, they are best grouped under a common foundation under the tradition thesis, from religious conservatives with their commitment to religious tradition to pragmatically minded conservatives with their commitment to what's worked in the past. Conservatism and libertarianism happen to connect in some instances but by and large the differences are too great.


Vote Con.
TheElderScroll

Pro

I would like to extend my thanks and appreciation to Pro for his thoughtful argument.

Table Of Content
Final Rebuttal - Def. Of Conservatism
Final Rebuttal - Traditionalism - Why Conservatism is not Traditionalism
Final Rebuttal - Argument against Same-Sex Marriage - A libertarian"s explanation
Final Rebuttal - Comment on Dr. Regnerus"s Report
Principles Underlie Con"s Argument
Summary of the Argument

Final Rebuttal
1. Def. Of Conservatism
A closer examination would reveal that my definition is consistent throughout the debate. In R2, I proffered the following definition: Conservatism is, in general, composed of five distinctive yet complementary principles wit personal liberty celebrated as its core tenet. In response to Pro"s count-argument, I detailed the history behind each principles in the subsequent round. Neither did I propose a new definition, nor did I attempt to conjure any definition without offering any substantial evidence. Historical account is a solid evidence engraved on human civilization. Therefore Pro"s accusation is baseless.

2. Traditionalism - Why Conservatism is not Traditionalism
Pro endeavors to define Conservatism within a narrowly tailed definition without success. I exhorted Pro to explain how economic conservatism can be properly explained within his framework, but Pro has yet done so. Not only does Dictionary not agree with Pro"s definition,[1] but also is the definition itself self-defeating. Traditionalism, undeniably, has its own merit on its pragmatic application, but the definition would either too broad or too narrow to qualify for a definition. Pro suggests that traditionalism amounts to "what has worked." The history, however, has shown that socialism type of economic principle, which is overwhelmingly rejected by most conservatives, may also work. New Deal, the economic measures introduced by President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) in 1933 is widely deplored by conservatives, even If the New Deal succeeded in reducing unemployment substantially. Medicare, created under President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), is the main target in virtually every Republicans proposal to cut federal benefits. Both FDR"s New Deal and LBJ"s Medicare program qualify for Pro"s definition "what has worked." even if neither Presidents" economic principles receive much support among conservatives. Therefore Pro"s definition is not only incomprehensives, but also self-defeating.

3. Argument against Same-Sex Marriage - A libertarian"s explanation
It appears to me that Pro would concede that abortion would not separate Conservatism from Libertarianism. Pro remains unconvinced, however, on same-sex marriage. Pro suggests that restrictions on same-sex would impose unnecessary burdens on personal freedom. In the pervious round, I laid out the framework underlying the argument against the same-sex marriage. I attempt to argue that the hostility toward same-sex marriage is originated from view on liberty, not merely the reminiscent of ancient tradition. According to the defender of traditional marriage, the point that they emphasize most heavily is the necessary link between marriage and child-bearing and child-rearing. English philosopher and social critic Bertrand Russell, once famously concluded: "But for children, they would be no need of any institution concerned concerned with sex....It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution. I.e., heterosexual marriage.[2] Moreover, only opposite-sex unions can produce viable offsprings, and it is therefore better that children be born into a stable union that only opposite-sex marriage can create, and it is marriage that is the foundation of America"s enduring family units, an indispensable element of social tranquility and continuity, in which personal liberty in turns relies on. It is, therefore, proper for the government, to restrict marriage to a man and woman in order to promote children"s general wellbeing. Therefore, it is implausible to consider ban on same-marriage a illegitimate exercise of government authority. For a libertarian, he or she may well support opposite-sex marriage precisely because of his or her concerns about personal liberty. In conclusion, libertarianism may well embrace conservative social value, thereby suggesting that both ideologies are very much alike.

Comment on Dr. Regnerus"s Report
Dr. Regnerus lays out the purpose of his research. He states: "most contemporary studies of gay parenting processes have focused on the present - what is going on inside the household when children are still under parental care....Studies on family structure, however, serve scholars and family practitioners best when they span into adulthood....The NFSS (the report) is poised to address this question." He also cautiously warns the limits of the report: "while the NFSS is not the answer to all of this domain"s methodological challenges, it is a notable contribution in important way." Therefore, the report has its merit and it can contribute to the proposition that children, reared by same-sex parents may be in disadvantage (outperformed) compared to children born in traditional family structure.

5. Principles Underline Con"s Argument
There is an unspoken principle underlying my argument. I consider that for any two ideologies, if both derive their legitimacy from an identical source with a preeminent emphasis placed upon a singular value, they should be treated as ideological allies as long as the alleged differences can be reasonably explained in both ideologies. My principle is an extension to the definition of "ideological ally" defined in R1.

6. Summary of the Argument
In this debate, Pro and I attempt to argue if Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies. As Con, I strive to establish that both ideologies are grounded on the abiding principles of America liberty, proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and promulgated by the United States Constitution. In addition, I argue, under the auspice of historical facts, that Conservatism is composed of five principles including free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American value, and a strong national defense. Furthermore, I contend that Conservatism is liberty centered given the fact that the Declaration of Independence pronounces the U.S. as a land of freedom. I then proceed to define Libertarianism as a belief that each person has the right to live his/her life as he/she choses as long as he/she respects the equal right of others. Subsequently, I assert that Conservatism is not unlike Libertarianism in terms of their social views on abortion and same sex marriage. Finally I manage to establish that a strong national defense, favored by most conservatives, is necessary to the protection of one"s liberty. In summary, I attempt to establish that there are no compelling differences that would possibly separate Conservatism from Libertarianism, thereby concluding that Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideologies allies.

Thank you

7. References
[1]. http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[2]. www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1797
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
=RFD Part 1=

This debate was difficult to judge partially because the points kept getting changed around.

Debate seemed to revolve mostly on values and social stances.

On economic conservatism, I think con never really countered. Pro showed that they shared similar values on economic freedom and liberty and I don't con showing they differed on this.

One large issue was conservatism as traditionalism. As an initial note, I cannot take pros last round arguments about the New Deal and Johnson. New last round arguments can't be counted. Pro and con had different conceptions of traditionalism. I think con was right that pros definition was flawed. Traditionalism doesn't equate with religion and morality. Furthermore, pro never really countered cons argument for conservatism being pragmatic. Pro stated that libertarianism was partially traditional. "If all men are created equal, that is final; If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final; No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions." But anything can be traditional in some sense and I think con clearly showed the type of traditionalism conservatism supports is widely different to libertarianism. Pro also never refuted cons religious interpretation of conservatism, that conservatives often have a religious agenda whereas libertarianism does not support a religious based system. On abortion and gay marriage, pro made a valiant attempt to reconcile a pro-life con gay marriage libertarian view. All he did however, was show they could be reconciled but what's most important is that libertarianism is much more pro abortion, pro gay marriage than conservatism and that they may have different interpretations of liberty. Con also pointed out that pros research paper was "at odds with his conclusion".
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
=RFD Part 2=

Con does not dispute, at least initially, pros interpretation of libertarianism, "just his application of it".

On the common goal, pro stated it was to "Build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish." Con countered by saying that it was ambiguous and any ideology would use those words to define their goal (e.g Marxism). Pro mostly dropped this argument. I didn't see him defending it much in the later parts of the debate.

Pro said that libertarians could support a strong national defense because it could support freedoms and liberty. Con countered by saying it would not necessarily support freedom, because it simply "replaces who's violating it. I don't feel either side did to great on that point.

Pro should have stressed the importance of the economic similarities more. He showed they were similar, but I think he could have highlighted the importance to a larger degree.

The debate was largly mixed. Both sides did well and won on different points and I thought pro was winning at one point. However I believe con overall won most of the arguments so points to con.
Posted by TheElderScroll 4 years ago
TheElderScroll
@RoyLatham
Thank you. Your source is very informative. I believe I did come cross all those names when I read the Heritage paper. I must say that I have a complete new understanding of conservatism after this debate.

@blackbolt1
404 - Page not Found...

@wiploc
First, I must apologize for my bad grammar.
Second, I would agree with you that in absence of a definitive standard, it is a rather difficult task to quantify the value of social conservatism and personal liberty. Which one is more important? Hard to say. That would explain why I decided to focus on reconciling the differences between two ideological spectra instead of just highlighting the similarities.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
I don't want you to vote because you're a votebomber. Also lol at admission of guilt.
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
Its still a correct RFD. Its incorrect that I voted bombed. My RFD is no doubt similar to three of the other four voters. You just don't want me to vote.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Lol @Historygenius- Just restating Pro's position isn't an RFD.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Can someone counter Historygenius' vote?
Posted by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
@ Roy, you forgot to give Pro S & G points.
Posted by blackbolt1 4 years ago
blackbolt1
Upon understanding that the whole American Libertarian movement is based on this book, http://www.fee.org..., which is 90% unabashed conservatism. One has to wonder how they have become the Liberal/Socialist/Party 'lite'. Neither addressed the origins of the partties. Con was more cogent. Pro was wordy, but only to muddle the argument not clarify
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
My comments here go beyond what was in the debate. It's a good subject.

William Buckley defined conservatism as "the doctrine of evolutionary change." Russell Kirk defined "Ten Conservative Principles," http://www.kirkcenter.org... that are generally accepted b conservatives as definitive. Two of the principles are "the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society" and "conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built."

Libertarian economist Frederick Hayak said, ""What our generation has forgotten is that the system of private property is the most important guarantee of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that nobody has complete power over us, that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves."

Some freedoms are more important than others. Abortion and gay marriage are far from being the defining freedoms of a society. Ron Paul said he is "strongly pro-life" and "an unshakable foe of abortion" http://en.wikipedia.org... Paul and religious conservatives like Michele Bachmann agree the issue should be resolved at the state level.

What makes libertarians and conservatives allies is the priority given to economic freedom. It's fundamental to society and more important than any other freedom.

Libertarians often do not believe in evolutionary change, instead demanding immediate radical change in society. That's certainly an important difference, but it is one of methods rather than goals.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by youmils03 4 years ago
youmils03
socialpinkoTheElderScrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: better analysis, fulfillment of proof, and evidence on the Con side of the debate. I also agree with the Con side more. Conservatism and libertarianism are similar in many respects, but I don't know if I would call them allies, especially after having read this debate.
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
socialpinkoTheElderScrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD is in comments numbers 15 and 16.
Vote Placed by 1Historygenius 4 years ago
1Historygenius
socialpinkoTheElderScrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: What's with all the spacing between comments? I felt Pro did better building common ground between the two ideological allies. Their ideologies are similar while they may not be identical. In addition, Pro did a good job explaining conservatism and libertariansm and showing how they compare very well. Pro had a good amount of sources while Con did not.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
socialpinkoTheElderScrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued against a caricature of conservatism, equating it with traditionalism. Pro did a good job of explaining conservatism, although his case would have benefited from citing references (e.g. Kirk, Buckley). The natural alliance comes from the strong common concern with similar, though not identical, concepts of freedom. Con put huge spaces between paragraphs, so large as to be really annoying. I was going to give S&G to Pro, but in R3 Pro adopted the same obnoxious formatting. Arrgh.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
socialpinkoTheElderScrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed the differences between conservatism and libertarianism while pro showed the similarities. Pro did a great job showing what the two had in common but con showing that they have a good amount of differences was enough (in my opinion) to meet his burden of proof showing the two are ideologically divided. Had this debate been about whether conservatism and libertarianism are ideological allies in terms of economic intervention, pro would have won. However this debate also includes government intervention on social issues, something libertarians and conservatism differ greatly on. Arguments to the con, sources to the Pro though since he used a good amount of them in his debate whereas con did not. Very fun and interesting debate, I give it 4 out of 4 stars
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
socialpinkoTheElderScrollTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.