The Conservative Compromise on Economic Liberty

"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."   -   Barry Goldwater.

ALTHOUGH WE ALL TRY TO to bolster our political positions, fruitless and often vitriolic differences between the Left and the Right are outward manifestations of far more deep-seated disagreements.

The Libertarian perspective acknowledges the importance of political freedom. However, unlike their Socialist brothers, Libertarians rightly perceive that it is through private economic decisions, through the use of our own resources, that we control the direction of our own lives.

We may argue about ways to structure public education, but if we have the means, we may choose the modality of our children's education. We may argue about the future direction of Social Security, but at best our voices are tiny gusts in the political maelstrom. It is with our private investment choices that we can alter our retirement income. We may argue about the advisability of government lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers, but personal decisions control personal exposure to smoke. It is in the myriad of small and even tiny decisions enabled by private resources that we exercise dominion over our own lives. For most of us that is where freedom lies.

Whenever governments appropriate private resources to public purposes, even purposes universally acknowledged as legitimate, government must do so at the cost of personal liberty. Every dollar collected in taxes represents a small reduction in personal liberty. Libertarians focus on this cost, while Socialists either do not understand or appreciate these costs.

Socialists correctly appreciate that personal freedom can also be circumscribed by anxiety over food, clothing, housing, or medical care. If life is wholly overwhelmed by a persistent struggle for subsistence, real and effective freedom of action is limited. It is hard to be free on an empty belly.

Moreover, a society that allows everyone to rise or fall on their own market merits, an Ayn Rand utopia, will still be confronted with an irreducible number of the impoverished, those incapable of providing for themselves. If this situation persists unresolved, the consequent public unrest may also constrain the effective freedom of even those able to prosper under their own industry.

The Conservative compromise is to acknowledge the necessity of common provision for the indigent, but attempt to limit protection to the indigent. By minimizing the numbers receiving subsistence payments, government encourages the virtues of industry and thrift as well as the pride of independence.

Go To Page: 1 2