Libertarians, Moral Relativism, and Cultural Conservatism

Jan 28, 2010 at 10:34 PM

By Matt Cockerill

Defending a man's unalienable right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," is clearly endorsing some sort of moral objectivity. This runs contra to the notion that there are no "good" and "bad" morals but only "different," morals that vary from person to person and culture to culture.

Thus, contrary to conventional wisdom, it is not the left but the right that is most viable to libertarian appeal. "Traditionalists" and religious righters need not undergo a dramatic conversion to become libertarians. They need only be persuaded that the state shouldn't be used to prevent "immoral" personal behavior. Indeed, by holding the state to the same standard as private society, an NAP -compliant moral absolutist would actually be more consistent in his viewpoint.

On the other hand, the hardcore moral relativists on the far-left need to undergo a total personal rebirth to become libertarians. To be a libertarian, after all, is to support a society where aggression against a man's property is illicit for any reason.

To be sure, the libertarian needn't take any particular moral stand on nonviolent, NAP-compliant practices like polygamy or prostitution, which would of course be legal in the free society. But countercultural types should realize that those receptive to the libertarian view of at least some "universal laws" are unlikely to personally condone such practices.

It is no coincidence that the first libertarian politician to attract a broad following was culturally mainstream. The cultural conservatives that flooded the Paul campaign wouldn't have been receptive to a platform of non-aggression if it were delivered by a social leftist spewing moral relativism.

Posted in:

Blog Policy
Login or register to post comments

Libertarians who live in the mainstream are specially equipped to disarm a lot of social statist arguments. For example, you can't write off Ron Paul's opposition to the War on Drugs as simply "because he wants to get high." Those of us who will defend the rights of others to do things we would never personally condone are going to have to be the ones that bring the statists over to our side.

Submitted by John Freeman (not verified) on January 28, 2010.

I am really happy to see someone on these blogs pointing this out. The libertarian movement is/was a part of the conservative movement. It is very easy to get a right-winger to become libertarian because as you said they both agree with the fundamental principle that government's sole job is to protect our God-given (or non-God given if you don't believe in God) constitutional rights. Great article!

Submitted by Phil Fraietta (not verified) on January 28, 2010.

I think that we would do well to court both the left and right. I consider a social conservative drug warrior no more of a friend of liberty than a big government progressive, but we should try to convert them both.

Submitted by Matt Ciepielowski on January 28, 2010.

I don't think a majority of the Left are really moral relativists, just the more outspoken ones.

Submitted by Druk (not verified) on January 28, 2010.

My big concern with libertarianism is that it only works when there is a moral and responsible society. This is what Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about. The reason liberty worked in America so well then is because there was a moral Christian culture supporting it. But today's culture has become so perverted and debased, that too many people use their liberty to destroy society. Too many libertarians ignore the importance of cultural preservation I think. What one does in their bedroom so-to-speak is one thing, but when its (literally) paraded in the streets, that's another. I would have no problem seeing these freakshow parades they have in San Francisco banned because of their indecency. That's why when it comes to culture, I'm a conservative first and foremost.

Submitted by Sinclair (not verified) on January 29, 2010.

" I would have no problem seeing these freakshow parades they have in San Francisco banned because of their indecency."
Are they harming anyone, or putting anyone in a harmful position?
No? Then they're doing nothing wrong (that is, immoral).

Submitted by Druk (not verified) on January 29, 2010.

You have to remember that in a libertarian society there would be no "public property." Gay pride marches would take place on the private property of someone sympathetic to the cause. You would only have the right to stop them if they entered the property of someone without their consent.

The current "public property," obviously complicates things. I personally don't like this sort of thing (nothing to do with orientation- I just find pda/public sexuality distasteful in general) but the folks that want to march in it have every right to use government roads as anyone else, since they are being looted by the state as well.

Submitted by Matt Cockerill on January 29, 2010.

The moral chritian society you refer to is the society that enslaved Africans and slaughtered Native Americans. A person isn't moral because that person is Christian, nor society for that matter. Religon should have nothing to do with Liberty. The longer we speak in Conservative/Liberal tongues the longer we have to travel towards Liberty. It was Christianity in the early colonies that attempted to prevent the first constitution from coming into existence. I'm not going to bad mouth Christianity or any religion, to each his own. But to say that it is because of a Christian Culture that Liberty ever worked in America? That's an outrage. You're Christian, so you have your Christian glasses on. We've never been legitmally free in this country. Women weren't allowed to vote, and corporations had a way with us in the past, just like it is today.

Ban freakshows? What for? That's not liberty - that's control. So what if freaks want to have a show in the middle of the street? So what! Let them. You want to ban them because YOU don't like it. We've never had real Liberty in this country. Not under Reagan, not Bush, not Clinton, and definitely not now. And definitely not when there were more 'Christians' around.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on January 29, 2010.

Christians have a tendency to believe in natural law, and however misplaced their foundations are the fact remains that natural law is a solid step towards freedom. It's sort of like believing that reality is objective while accepting it on false premises, a practical belief nonetheless.

That being said, I think some of the biggest proponents of liberty came from the left (Ludwig von Mises), and some of the biggest advocates of natural law are atheists (Rothbard). Jeffrey Herbener may have a fun and good time outlining how individual liberty sprung from the individualism that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ creates for each person separately, but his points definitely aren't going to be part of my debate.. armory.

However, if someone can reconcile the contradictory nature of the premise of God's existence than they can surely reconcile an anti-abortion stance with a pro-war stance, and that is what we generally see today within the churches. But.... Fascist atheists like Christopher Hitchens are just as bad, though I believe a higher percentage of atheists are anti-war.