Last week on Public Discourse, Prof Justin Dyer offers a review of Jeffry Bell’s Why America Needs Social Conservatism. He states:
“What divides social conservatives from social liberals,” Bell claims, “is this: Most—not all—social conservatives believe the words in that sentence [from the Declaration] are literally true. Most—not all—opponents of social conservatism do not believe those words are literally true.” In Bell’s account, the key words in question are “truths,” “self-evident,” “Creator,” and “unalienable.” Whether or not you take these concepts seriously, Bell suggests, is a likely indicator of where you fall on the polarizing social issues of our day. “Most social conservatives,” he maintains, “believe, with the Declaration, that our rights would not exist if not for the theistic God who gave them.” “Most social liberals,” however, “believe that equality and human rights are the product of human enlightenment—of progressive self-illumination.”
I agree, as far as it goes. But I would just add that there are two kinds of libertarians. Some libertarians base their minimum government views on natural law. These people can easily make common cause with social conservatives, and may indeed best be described as social conservatives rather than libertarians. The other kind of libertarian takes a position of complete skepticism with respect to morality on pretty much anything except liberty. These guys (and it is almost always guys) are more like nihilists than conservatives.
This is consistent with the argument made on today’s edition of the Public Discourse, “Why I am Not a Libertarian.”
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” The “harm principle,” first formulated by J.S. Mill, is a moral claim. It cannot be derived from moral skepticism without committing a self-referential fallacy: The argument, “We don’t know what is right or wrong, therefore it is wrong to do x,” is obviously invalid.
I agree with this. I find it disturbing that so many libertarians make these kinds of arguments. By sticking with moral skepticism, they are missing the opportunity to make a more careful and principled argument for minimum government.
