Even among “sincere friends of freedom,” disagreement over government’s role runs deep. Can a state be big enough to defend liberty without also violating it?
My colleague Paul Mueller recently published an AIER Paper on Fusionism. He was kind enough to share it with me for review. I agreed with most, and disagreed with some, of Paul’s arguments. This is healthy. You see, Paul was my student at Hillsdale College 15 years ago, when we first discussed the tension between libertarianism and conservatism.
Then, as now, I have major concerns about conservatism. On the one hand, much of what conservatism (at least some brands of conservatism) stands for is essential as a foundation for a free society. On the other hand, much of what conservatism is trying to do runs counter to the free society, as it would make undue impositions on individual liberty.
My purpose here is not to address Dr. Mueller’s paper or to revisit the libertarian-conservative debate. Rather, I will discuss a tension within the classical liberal movement, a tension that is captured in the works of Austrian economist F.A. Hayek.
As I like to remind readers, Hayek is one of three thinkers, along with Adam Smith and Frédéric Bastiat, who look down on fellows and students in the AIER library.
...read more at thedailyeconomy.org
pull down to refresh
related posts
The answer, as near as we can tell, is zero.
As Dave Smith often notes, America started as the most constrained government in human history and became the largest government in human history.
Not much, almost and probably none
The tension between maintaining a stable social order and protecting absolute individual liberty is the ultimate challenge