Is cultural conservatism compatible with libertarian economics?

Economics Political Theory
1

I consider myself to be fairly culturally conservative. Especially in regards to the hedonistic sexual environment that defines modern America. On economics I’m fairly non-ideological and basically a pragmatic utilitarian, whichever policies produce the greatest wealth.

I have read with interest Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the conservatives. Some view the modern conservative movement as somewhat contradictory for the opposite reason. That it supported free-markets and cultural conservatism. I used to think the Christian Democratic opposite that it was free-markets as opposed to the welfare state that produces cultural decadence.

Do you agree with Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the conservatives?

http://mises.org/daily/1766

Hoppe claims that in a truly libertarian society, much of the libertinage we have to day would wither away, and would not be tolerated. Now there would be no state body legislating morality, but there would be no mandatory tolerance, so alternate lifestyles would be denied access to residence and the market. In purely profit terms, this would mean a loss, but many people would be willing to pay that loss to live in a moral community.

Also Hoppe says that the breakdown of the family can be traced to the welfare state. I know Hoppe is fairly hostile to the “marijuana Republican” cosmotarians you can find at Reason Mag.

2

Yes and no. The basic idea is to keep your business public and your private life private. The idea that such ‘alternative’ lifestyles will cease to exist is nothing but a conservative fantasy.

I might even suggest that in a free society such activities will increase as FASCI-CONS will no longer have the power of the state to enforce their morality on others and such ‘alternative’ people will have more ways to make a living.

Lets not forget that in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia the life was pretty conservative. the ‘Alternative’ lifestyles were dealt with iron fist. Even right now in coutries which are not free and highly statist such as India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Mongolia etc. life is pretty ‘conservative’ and 'alternative ’ lifestyles are banned or looked down upon.

An exclusively Conservative culture is only compatible with highly statist and authoritarian environment like Saudi Arabia.

Drop your ‘high moral ground’ if you wanna live in a free society.

3

A libertarian understands that his own personal views about various social phenomena are meaningless. A libertarian may detest the usage of drugs, or homosexual lifestyles, but, at the same time, doesn’t believe that the state has any authority on such matters. A libertarian takes a non-interventionist approach because he/she is familiar with the law of unintended consequences, comparative costs, et al.

Hoppe is speculating about what the future might look like if society embraced libertarian principles. But I don’t see why a homosexual, for example, would be excluded from the market. The market cares about productivity (results), and not about the subjective whims of political philosophers. Will there be those who allow their own moral judgments to get in the way of profit maximization (efficient allocation of resources, and the ability to satiate consumer desires)? Of course, but arbitrary social laws don’t prevent that today. Basketball and Baseball coaches in the 50’s and 60’s were not progressive revolutionaries. They allowed African Americans to play because those players were productive.

4

I believe Hoppe is vaguely referring to cultural evolution and what the results of such an (unchecked) process would be. I can only speculate that societies as we know them today would hardly survive. People would tend to aggregate with those who think and live alike.

In non-urban environment that would be easy: you would expect to see whole regions earring well-deserved nicknames as “conservative hills” and the like. In urban agglomerations (which would by the way, probably not be as monstrously populated as some of our megacities), the cost of aggregation would be too great, and instead of like-minded cities, one would have like-minded quarters with the normally cosmopolitan downtown.

In the longer run, I agree that those with “liberal” (in the American sense) views would be outcompeted by conservatives, in turn outcompeted by conservatives with some liberal traits. The thing could lead to liberals being limited to a small portion of the overall population (discounting teenagers going trough the rebel phase)

5

Hoppe expands on his argument here: http://mises.org/daily/2425

As an example here he states that abortions would be although not outlawed very hard to have in a libertarian society (although I personally don’t disapprove of abortion), this logic can be basically applied to any “alternate” lifestyle.

“The right to have an abortion does not imply that one may have an abortion anywhere. In fact, there is nothing impermissible about private owners and associations discriminating against and punishing abortionists by every means other than physical punishment. Every household and property owner is free to prohibit an abortion on his own territory and may enter into a restrictive covenant with other owners for the same purpose. Moreover, every owner and every association of owners is free to fire or not to hire and to refuse to engage in any transaction whatsoever with an abortionist. It may indeed be the case that no civilized place can be found anywhere and that one must retire to the infamous “back alley” to have an abortion. Not only would there be nothing wrong with such a situation, it would be positively moral in raising the cost of irresponsible sexual conduct and helping to reduce the number of abortions. In distinct contrast, the Supreme Court’s decision was not only unlawful by expanding its, i.e., the central state’s, jurisdiction at the expense of state and local governments, but ultimately of every private-property owner’s rightful jurisdiction regarding his own property it was also positively immoral in facilitating the availability and accessibility of abortion.”

6

Man, religious zealots are so off base with their sense of divine righteousness and are in for a big surprise in a libertarian society. It would be anti-abortionists who would end up with lower incomes, ceteris paribus, in a libertarian society. I’d bet 100 grams of gold on that.

In Hoppe above all that sometimes degrades the quality of the discourse. Mises never alowed his religious feeligns to appear so prominently in his writings.

7

Wasn’t Mises an atheist?

8

I see no reason why a libertarian should believe this. Can’t a libertarian think that his conservative social views are just as objective and true as the non-aggression axiom? Wouldn’t this be a consistent position?

Yes, but Hoppe doesn’t predict that, in a natural order, every practitioner of “alternative lifestyles” would be completely “excluded from the market.” He merely claims that those who publicly exhibit or advocate rotten behavior might not be accepted in many residential neighborhoods (gated communities etc.) or might have a hard time finding a good job. An owner of a gated community who accepts, e.g., gay-“rights” activists as tenants might even incur losses because they put other potential tenants off.

I can’t find any “religious feelings” in Hoppe’s writings. Why do you assume that only religious believers have conservative moral attitudes (e.g., disapproval of baby-killing)? In fact, it seems that Hoppe is an atheist. He endorses Mises’ argument that omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible (Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Kritik der kausalwissenschaftlichen Sozialforschung. Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung von Soziologie und Ökonomie. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1983 [Studien zur Sozialwissenschaft, vol. 55], p. 86, fn. 12).

“Religious fundamentalism, whether of the Muslim, Jewish or Christian variety, is hard or impossible to reconcile with capitalism.” (“Hans-Hermann Hoppe on War, Terrorism, and the World State,” interview by Mark Grunert, Le Québécois Libre, no. 115, Dec. 7, 2002)

At least, Hoppe can’t be a Christian:

“Mainstream Christianity, after confused beginnings and numerous abortive schisms stemming from major inconsistencies and contradictions in the system of the Holy Scriptures, […]” (Hans-Hermann Hoppe: “The Western State as a Paradigm: Learning from History,” in Paul Gottfried, ed., Politics and Regimes. Religion and Public Life, vol. 30 [1997], p. 15)

“As the legitimacy of monarchical rule has waned, the same may be true for Christianity and the Christian Church. In Nietzsche’s words, ‘Gott ist tot.’ [Translation by D.K.: ‘God is dead.’] Nor would a return to the Christian past be desirable, for Christian rationalism was never more than conditional.” (ibid., p. 22)

9

According to George Reisman in this lecture, he was indeed an “atheist”. But it might also be appropriate to call him an “agnostic”.

[quote=“Ludwig von Mises, “Human Action””]

Both principles of cognition—causality and teleology—are, owing to the limitations of human reason, imperfect and do not convey ultimate knowledge. Causality leads to a regressus in infinitum which reason can never exhaust. Teleology is found wanting as soon as the question is raised of what moves the prime mover. Either method stops short at an ultimate given which cannot be analyzed and interpreted. Reasoning and scientific inquiry can never bring full ease of mind, apodictic certainty, and perfect cognition of all things. He who seeks this must apply to faith and try to quiet his conscience by embracing a creed or a metaphysical doctrine.

[/quote]

[quote=“Ludwig von Mises, “Theory and History””]

Whatever the true nature of the universe and of reality may be, man can learn about it only what the logical structure of his mind makes comprehensible to him. Reason, the sole instrument of human science and philosophy, does not convey absolute knowledge and final wisdom. It is vain to speculate about ultimate things. What appears to man’s inquiry as an ultimate given, defying further analysis and reduction to something more fundamental, may or may not appear such to a more perfect intellect. We do not know.

[/quote]

10

What is libertarian economics?

11

Sure, he can. I don’t necessarily agree that it’s consistent, and I absolutely disagree that conservative social views are “objective.” Thinking they are doesn’t make them so—they’d have to be grounded in logic and reason. The basis of the non-aggression axiom is self-ownership; what’s the basis of social conservatism?

In any case, it’s a moot point, because no man has the right to coerce his own views unto others. If you want to work to persuade people of the benefits of conservatism, knock yourself out.

12

I’ve been watching the smear bund take chunks out of Hoppe left and right for years, somehow managing with the style of firebrand biblical interpretation to find foul in every single insensitive thing he says about any group.

13

Not at all. The NAP says that I don’t have the right to violate other person’s property. Social conservatism says homosexuals are evil because they are. I don’t see any connection here. Libertarianism means non interventionism (the essence of the NAP). If you want to show me why you have the right to coercively ban alternate lifestyles, then by all means, go ahead. But you’re going to have to invalidate the NAP as well. Good luck.

14

Ensuric is engaging in the classic thin libertarian fallacy of not being able to distinguish between political justice and general ethics, while acting as if cultural relativism is the “plumbline” necessity for one to be a libertarian. The general ethical view for or against something beyond questions of violence does not inherently translate to a legal/political position for the enforcement of such a view. Having to repeatedly point this out gets annoying.

15

I haven’t really felt like dealing with this “thick-thin” thing that constantly gets brought up. Having to repeatedly say “So what?” gets annoying too. I’ve asked numerous questions before that have been ignored.

What is a “libertarian value”? Anti-racism? Who draws the lines as to a limit on freedom of association?

16

Rothbard’s argumentum e contrario and Hoppe’s argumentation ethics are hardly more rigorous than Aristotelian-Thomist natural-law arguments for traditional morality. Here is Gene Callahan’s explanation of the natural-law position on homosexuality (he gives a counterargument, but I think Thomists have a response).

Non sequitur. Why do you think the non-enforceable parts of morality are unimportant? Do you think the only reason (or one of the reasons) why they are non-enforceable is that they are unimportant?

Consistency (absence of contradiction) is not the same as connection. (But there might even be a connection. Hoppe and Robert Nisbet argue that certain conservative social institutions tend to foster liberty and that liberty tends to foster these institutions. There might also be a deeper connection in that Rothbard bases his property-rights theory on Thomist natural-law ethics, which has also been used as a justification for traditional morality.)

I don’t think (and I have never claimed) I have this right (except on my own property). The point is that the propositions Behavior X is immoral and It is immoral to suppress behavior X in a way that violates property rights are not contradictory.

17

Who made you the king of libertarianism?

So then there’s no problem. I thought you wanted to coercively enforce your social conservative views. I guess I wasn’t clear in my initial post.

18

I agree with Brain. There needs to be a host of cultural values beyond just simple NAP in order to sustain a long term libertarian society.

Culture and Liberty

19

I just don’t see how you can take an ideology that professes freedom and liberty of the individual and then you turn and say that the way they are living is disgusting and wrong. So no they can not be combined to form anything based on freedom, b/c limiting freedom for some based on petty details makes us no different then the state. The idea that the “destruction of the family” is b/c of marijuana, gays, and abortions is stupid. Being a libertarian means being a liberal. Yes employers have every right to discriminate based on whatever principles but to not hire someone b/c they are gay or something like that means that that employer is a plain bigot. This also goes for gays and such, if they ran a business and only hired gays then they are being bigoted.

If we have a revolution and we bring all these empty conservative ideals of family into it, then we will sacrifice what is at the core of libertarianism, individualism. Individuals should be judged on factors that they can help not on things that they have no hope to control.

20

Human beings have always had differing value scales and it is reasonable to expect that they always will unless they are forced into homogeneity by a coercive, central authority. Some people have no interest in consuming psychotropic substances, for instance. Others derive great pleasure from this and believe the benefits to outweigh the costs. What is of importance to a political and philosophical ideology is that one adheres to its basic tenets. The sole ethical tenet of libertarianism (as I practice it) is the NAP. Metaphysical beliefs and personal preferences are therefore irrelevant. Theoretically, a libertarian may belong to any group, consume any substance, or engage in any behavior and remain a principled libertarian so long as he doesn’t violate the NAP.

@Esuric:

I would agree with the first two sentences. The last one conflates the positive and the normative. Being a libertarian does not require an familiarity with the law of unintended consequences, comparative costs, et al. It merely requires that one adhere to the NAP.

Being an Austrian however most certain requires those things.

@E. R. Olovetto:

The non-aggression axiom–only it isn’t “a” libertarian value; it is “the” libertarian value. Or so says Block, and I agree with him.

@David K.:

I fail to see why there need be a single market for anything. If certain sectors of society wish to engage in racist business practices, for instance, then they may do so without fear of retribution by the state. Would such establishments last, given that they are engaging in anti-market behavior? I cannot predict this, but should there be a sufficient quantity of racist patrons to support these businesses then perhaps they will be able to sustain themselves. Those such as myself who disprove of this behavior can peacefully refuse to frequent such establishments in favor of those businesses which discriminate solely in favor of green.

In this way, society would tend to structure itself peacefully such that people of similar social preferences would form sub-societies.

@Andrew Cain:

This is the case for ANY long term society, not just one predicated upon the NAP. I would join you in ardently advocating an array of cultural values beyond the NAP in the free market of ideas. The key to being a libertarian is to not attempt to make one’s cultural values state policy.

In summary, a libertarian is someone who adheres to the NAP. All else–metaphysical beliefs, social values, preferences, etc.–is irrelevant to libertarianism. That is not to say that these things don’t matter. On the contrary, they are all very important aspects of life, and libertarians will likely have a wide array of opinions on these issues. We need not be clones. We just have to keep our mitts to ourselves.