The Instigator
thett3
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
DaylightGnosticism
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Conservatism and Libertarianism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
thett3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 876 times Debate No: 26589
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

thett3

Pro

Resolved: Conservatism and Libertarianism are ideological allies.

I am Affirming. The burden of proof is shared, my opponent needs to show that on balance, the goals of Libertarianism and Conservatism are too far apart to be treated as actual allies.

What exactly defines a Libertarian and Conservative will be a point of contention between my opponent and myself, but my opponent acknowledges upon accepting that the definitions need to be within reason.


For clarification I will be defending Hoppes thesis that statist conservatism is essentially self defeating. Citing one's sources outside of the debate is permissible.

Anyone is welcome to accept the debate.
DaylightGnosticism

Con

I accept this round as per condition of acceptance. Second round I will post opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
thett3

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting. Having debated him before, I know that I'll have my hands full for this debate.

Hoppes thesis can be summed up as follows: The ideological goals of conservatism can only be achieved by embracing anti-statist libertarianism. That is, while modern conservatism is muddled and confused with seemingly incomprehensible goals, if one digs deeper into the crux of the ideology they will find that it indeed does have coherent goals, and a coherent worldview that can only be properly implemented under a libertarian order. What these are will be elaborated on shortly.

Wikipedia defines an ideology[1] as "...a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things..." From this it follows that ideologies are transcendental to the times, events, and circumstances in which an individual finds themselves; that is, while times change the worldview of those subscribing to conservatism, anarchism, liberalism, and every ideology in between would remain roughly consistent.

Let me first begin by defining the terms, and justifying those definitions. That will, of course, be at the crux of this debate. I have no doubt that there are many self-styled conservatives, likely including my esteemed opponent, who would vehemently disagree with the thesis I am going to defend, but recall that, mostly due to statism, conservatism in our day and age is a confused ideology-as proof, one in the United States needs to look no further than the modern day champions of "conservatism", the confusing mess of libertarianism, classical liberalism, and neo-"conservatism" (national socialism): the Republican party. Some will posit that to be a conservative one must merely prefer the status quo. This definition is useless, as Hoppe points out, assuming that the posited definition[2]:

"Because different laws, rules, and political institutions are in place at different times and/or different locations, what a conservative supports depends on and changes with place and time. To be a conservative means nothing specific at all except to like the existing order, whatever that may be."

Such a meaning must be discarded then. Indeed, using said definition, Democrats in the United States, and Communists in the late Soviet Empire were Conservative! An obvious paradox.

To be a Conservative then must mean something different. Hoppe defines[3]:

"The term conservative must have a different meaning. What it means, and possibly only can mean, is this: Conservative refers to someone who believes in the existence of a natural order, a natural state of affairs which corresponds to the nature of things: of nature and man...Moreover, the natural is at the same time the most enduring state of affairs. The natural order is ancient and forever the same (only anomalies and accidents undergo change), hence, it can be recognized by us everywhere and at all times."

True conservatives everywhere support the family unit as the fundamental building block of society, respect of private property rights, and order. These things correspond with the natural order; this explains much of the the modern day Republican parties message of "family values" and (general) rejection of big-government (after all, the more members of a society relies on government, the weaker the family unit becomes).

I will not pause to deter any foreseeable objections that may come from this definition, as my opponent will undoubtedly raise any of merit in the next round, but I will say that I believe this definition of conservatism to be irrefutably true.

Now, I will move on and explain why conservatives must be libertarians, and libertarians must be conservative. It needs to be conceded as truthful that the welfare state erodes the value of the family unit since relying on ones government keeps one from having to rely on ones family, and the welfare state is inherently redistributive- taking wealth from the haves to give to the have nots, a violation of property rights if there ever was one- and thus true conservatives must unashamedly oppose the welfare state. This is compatible with libertarianism, the platform of the U.S. Libertarian party even goes so far as to directly challenge the welfare state[4], saying:

"We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual...Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. " [Emphasis mine].

However, it goes without saying that most political ideologies have comparable goals, so what is it about libertarianism and conservatism that makes them so intricately entwined? Well, most if not all conservatives are concerned with, and rightfully so, the cultural and moral degeneracy that is plaguing us, world over in our modern day. What they often fail to realize is that this damage is directly caused, again world over, by the state.

One can do no better than to once again quote Hoppe[5]:

"
No wishful thinking can alter the fact that maintaining the core institutions of the present welfare state and wanting to return to traditional families, norms, conduct, and culture are incompatible goals. You can have one-socialism (welfare)-or the other - traditional morals-but you cannot have both, for social nationalist economics, the pillar of the current welfare state system...is the very cause of cultural and social anomalies...By subsidizing with tax funds (with funds taken from others) people who are poor (bad), more poverty will be created. By subsidizing people because they are unemployed (bad), more unemployment will be created. By subsidizing unwed mothers (bad), there will be more unwed mothers and more illegitimate births, etc"

Redistributive policies, including the welfare state, inherently reduce the incentive to be a producer, because the fruits of one's production is taken from them-not only is this a violation of private property rights, but moreover it is used toprovide incentives for bad and immoral things and discourage the natural order, the order of private property. For this reason, conservatives must be opposed to the welfare state and taxation in all it's forms, lest they experience cognitive dissonance-meaning of course, that they must be libertarians. In regards to most self styled conservatives, [6] "Most contemporary conservatives, then, especially among the media darlings, are not conservatives but socialists." The "compassionate conservatism" of George Bush and Rick Santorum is nothing less than socialism.

Why must Libertarians, then, be conservatives? Well, libertarianism is fundamentally conservative[7]! After all, Libertarians believe that "the principles of justice are eternally and universally valid (and hence, must have been essentially known to mankind since its very beginnings)" just as conservatives believe that normalcy is widespread and ancient. Libertarianism, despite what many of it's young adherents may believe, is not a new (post-war) ideology, but rather one established under ancient, conservative framework. Modern libertarianism, with its reverence for private property and individualism, can only be regarded as an ideological offshoot of conservatism.

In conclusion, Hoppe states that libertarian ethics actually provide conservatism a "more rigorous moral defense" of the natural order. For these reasons, these two ideologies must be regarded as one of the same, and inseparable allies. The modern welfare-warfare state is responsible for the destruction of traditional ethics and values, and it is this that conservatives must stand with libertarians to oppose.


I look forward to my opponents reply, and already urge the readers to cast a ballot in affirmation.

Citations:

http://www.debate.org...
DaylightGnosticism

Con

DaylightGnosticism forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
DaylightGnosticism

Con

DaylightGnosticism forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
DaylightGnosticism

Con

DaylightGnosticism forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
thett3
That has potential :) Ill get back to you on it
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Thett, would you be interested in doing this debate with me? I've been itching to do it ever since you did the debate with Ft.
Posted by BlackVoid 4 years ago
BlackVoid
"Having debated him before, I know that I'll have my hands full for this debate."

Orly?
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Love it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
thett3DaylightGnosticismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forgot to show up.
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
thett3DaylightGnosticismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, and Pro had good arguments.