CONSERVATIVE BLINDNESS ON PRINCIPLE

by Jacob G. HornbergerFebruary 20, 2015

One of the things that totally befuddle conservatives is the unwavering commitment to principles which characterizes libertarians. Conservatives just don’t get it. When it comes to the matter of principle, conservatives have one great big blind spot.

Many years ago, when I discovered libertarianism, one of the first essays I read was entitled “Drowning in a Sea of Buts” by Leonard E. Read. Read pointed out that everyone favors freedom except for this and except for that. By the time one adds up all the buts, society has drowned in a sea of buts.

Consider the most popular mantra employed by conservatives: “Individual liberty, free enterprise, private property, and limited government.” They’ll rarely give a speech without that mantra included in it. It’s also found on their websites, in their articles, and in their books.

Now, let’s consider all the conservative buts or exceptions that come with that conservative mantra:

We conservatives believe in individual liberty, free enterprise, private property, and limited government … except for the following areas:

1. Retirement (Social Security).
2. Healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, regulation, and licensure).
3. Education (public schooling, charter schools, licensed private schools, vouchers, grants).
4. Farm subsidies.
5. Economic activity (economic regulations).
6. Monopolies (Postal Service).
7. Foreign aid (including to foreign dictatorships, such as Egypt).
8. Corporate bailouts.
9. Monetary policy (Federal Reserve System, FDIC, fiat money, banking regulations).
10. Drug laws.
11. Immigration controls.
12. Trade restrictions.
13. Sanctions and embargoes.
14. Permanent standing military establishment.
15. Overseas empire of military bases.
16. National-security state.
17. Foreign interventionism.
18. Regime-change operations.
19. Secret surveillance.
20. Indefinite detention without trial.
21. Secret prisons.

Undoubtedly, I have missed a lot more exceptions, but do you get my point? By the time you add up all the exceptions, everyone is now living under a regime of omnipotent government, even while conservatives keep convincing telling themselves and everyone else how committed they are to “individual liberty, free enterprise, private property, and limited government.”

Needless to say, libertarians have no exceptions when it comes to the principles of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property, and limited government. We oppose all those exceptions that conservatives embrace. We would dismantle them all.

But what conservatives just don’t get is that the reason we don’t have exceptions to freedom is because of our commitment to principle.

The core principle of libertarianism is the nonaggression principle — that it’s morally wrong to initiate force against another person. Thus, we hold it’s morally wrong to murder, rob, steal, burglarize, rape, or do anything else that violates the rights of another person.

Conservative, of course believe that too. But the rub comes in the form of government. If government is doing any of these things, libertarians hold that the action continues to be morally wrong. Not so with conservatives. They say that if it’s the government doing it, it becomes holy and sacrosanct. That’s why, for example, they exalt the government’s assassination of people. Murder is wrong when it’s committed by private individuals but in the eyes of conservatives, it becomes a holy act when committed by the troops or the CIA.

Or consider welfare programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, farm subsidies, or public schooling. If a thief robs a person of $10,000 and gives it all away to seniors, the poor, people who need medical care,  or people whose children need an education, conservatives, like libertarians, would say that that’s morally wrong. The guy is a thief even if he uses the money for good.

When the government forcibly takes money from people and gives it to seniors, the poor, people who need healthcare, or public schooling districts, libertarians continue to uphold the immorality of the action. Not conservatives. They love it and believe that it has become a moral, compassionate act given that the government is doing it.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of libertarians is our unwavering commitment to principle. That confounds conservatives because they threw in the towel on principles generations ago, for the sake of popularity, credibility, votes, money, and power. Conservatives would love nothing more than to have libertarians become like them. We libertarian must never do that. We must never become like them. We must continue to hew to principle. It is the only way to achieve individual liberty, free enterprise, private property, and limited government. And it’s the right thing to do.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

(67)

(8)

Share on email

This post was written by:Jacob G. Hornberger

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show Freedom Watch. View these interviews at LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.

JACOB G. HORNBERGER

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

FIND FREEDOM

TAGS

Immigration Money and Banking

America Does Not Have A "Free Market Capitalist" Economy

America Does Not Have A "Free Market Capitalist" Economy

I say quite often that America does not have a Free Market Capitalist economic system and sometimes the befuddled looks I get from those that hear this provokes them to question what I mean by it. The answer is simple and can be broken down into two parts, the two definitions of what is being asked.

"What is a Free Market?" and "What is Capitalism?"

The answers to these two questions together with an understanding of the current mode of economic activity gives a clear indication that the statement, "America does not have a Free Market economic system" is true.

So what is a free market economic system?
Free Market principles point to an economic system where business are unfettered by regulation, licensing, special fees and taxation, a system where all manner of salable goods are on the market without prohibition or exclusion. It is a system where the buying habits of those consumers would drive the manufacturers and distributors to produce or stock items that were valued by customers and discontinue or remove goods that have lost favor or marketability and sales numbers. This provides that customers are able to actually drive the economy by their buying habits and wants, without the interference of an outside entity.

This would of course be in contrast to the current system of high regulation, increasing taxation, special licencing, educational requirements and so on the American system is plagued by. Economists who advocate this idea of unfettered markets, also see that allowing prices and wages to form naturally and the availability and manufacture of goods to lie in the interest of those who have the capability to produce and the want to produce in trade for profit is a nearly unfailing concept in the ways of maximum efficiency of producers as well as maximum favorable market conditions for consumers.

With this some may say that the deregulation of businesses will (could/would) lead to businesses being able to skirt environmental concerns, livable wages, price gouging, and so on. In response to this one can argue on the case of environmental concerns that the information that a retailer or manufacturer was damaging the environment, the consumers voice could be heard by lowering or altogether abandoning or boycotting the product, manufacturer and retailers and distributors. When profits and sales decrease a signal is sent that certain practices are not favorable or condoned. This is the aspect of "market self regulation".

On the issue of wages. Wages should be set by employer and employee. If in the scenario an employer is offering too little pay the potential employee can ask for more or refuse. By no means should the wage of any person be determined by anyone other than the laborer and the job provider. In the system we have now wages are set by government decree, in an attempt to make a fair wage government actually provides yet another hurdle for a prospective employee to jump in order to gain employment. If the set wage is too high for the business, they will refuse to hire. Minimum wage laws also hinder the ability of these businesses to adjust wages based on experience of each employee, there is always a floor that they cannot overcome. Again a control on the level of wages offered by businesses is not a Free Market principle. It is a system of control.

Pricing controls work similar to wage controls, being that wages are prices and vice-versa, it stands that any interference in the marketable value being set by someone other than the seller negates the definition of free market practice.

So what is Capitalism?

Capitalism is defined many ways depending on the social structure lense those defining it look through. To make this easier we can go with two differing opinions, one from Wikipedia (which I use because of it's high use of editing from other editors) and then a definition from the website WorldSocialism.org (including this one because it highlights the idea that the word has different meanings depending on who you ask and how they define it).
According to Wikipedia Capitalism is "is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labor.  In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged."  This is the definition, or close to it, that most non socialists agree upon.

With this definition in mind we can see that there are a large number of businesses and services that are not privately owned, ran, or funded but are so called public services and are controlled by government, whether county, state, or federal, and are funded through taxation instead of consumerism. This leads me, to say that we may define America as a mixed economy, but definitely not a pure Capitalist economy.

According to the website WorldSocialism.org though Capitalism is something to be feared and abhorred based on their claim of worker exploitation. The definition they detail is,"Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means for producing and distributing goods (the land, factories, technology, transport system etc) are owned by a small minority of people. We refer to this group of people as the capitalist class. The majority of people must sell their ability to work in return for a wage or salary (who we refer to as the working class.)"

They go on to say,"The working class are paid to produce goods and services which are then sold for a profit. The profit is gained by the capitalist class because they can make more money by selling what we have produced than we cost to buy on the labor market. In this sense, the working class are exploited by the capitalist class. The capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class whilst reinvesting some of their profits for the further accumulation of wealth."

And with this in mind we can ask the socialist this question, "isn't the worker also a capitalist, as they value their time and effort less than the wage they are paid? If they did not value the wage more than the time or effort they would not work, as in a socialist society, goods are given freely based upon need and taken based upon production, or better said by their economic muse Karl Marx, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This proclaims that no matter how productive you are, your effort is only for the benefit for the others who wish not to work or do not perform as you do. What incentive does that leave to work hard, or even harder? What incentive does that leave to work at all? What incentive does that leave to create, to innovate, or to improve upon goods? If there is no benefit for someone to excel at a good or service it will be done at a minimum speed and quality.


With that being said we can look at the American economy as a partial capitalist economy and a partial socialist economy. There are many areas that the State has complete control over production or service. Roads, Schools, Protection Services, Old Age Insurance are a few of the largest and easiest to see. In that the capitalist is still beholden to government entities in order to start or continue in their business. We can also see THAT is in no way a "free market" system.