Sethpayne wrote:In other words, political conservatism is not based on consequentialist thinking. That is, government policies are not evaluated solely on the basis of their effectiveness in solving a given problem
http://www.sethpayne.com/?p=1175
His argument seems to be that individual liberty is a good in itself, which would equate to "deontological libertarianism." I'd never thought about this point before.
Chris Smith responds insightfully,
CSmith wrote:I’m a political liberal and a consequentialist, but I totally agree with you that protecting liberty needs to be first priority. Thing is, I think conservatives often underestimate how much liberty they can gain by giving up a little bit of liberty in another area. Example: taxation to pay for environmental regulation lets me live relatively free of contaminated food, water, air, and medicine
My intuition has always been along the lines of Smith's, that maximal, best results, "freedom", if you want to put it that way, are goal oriented. I do think he's playing a little fast and loose though, because a "consequentialist libertarian" would agree that market failures do exist, negative externalities such as pollution are a reality. The question is whether human nature tends toward markets or a prisoner's dilemma. A consequentialist libertarian believes markets are the rule and PD's the exception, and consequentialist liberals like Smith I suppose think the opposite.
The interesting thing about the deontological conservative in my view is it provides a way out for the problem of inequality. As consequentialist, I can sell out at any time and become a liberal if I become convinced that market failures are the rule, and markets are the exception. But a deontological libertarian by definition must tolerate the rule and the ends the rule being out of alignment. In other words, being a deontological libertarian allows for an economic pie that is smaller than the optimal pie, and this is justified by valuing freedom above all else. Indeed, it seems to me the theological free-will defense against the problem of evil can be translated into political terms. Perhaps the world created is the best possible world God could come up with when the importance of freedom is factored in. The same might be true for conservatives, like Droopy, who wish to justify the ultra-rich. Perhaps market failures abound, but this in itself is not an excuse to resolve them by government coercion; when factoring in the value of freedom, it may be that the best world is one with a smaller pie and the super rich as opposed to one with a larger pie, but with fewer rich and more restrictions on freedom.
You owe me one Droops, I found a way out of the corner I've put you in. However, in exchange for your new life as a deontological conservative, you must quit arguing that it necessarily is the case that the economic pie is maximized in a free market. If you can't give this up, then you're screwed, because you have to reject market efficiency (the super-rich are rich due to unique skills), and thus, accept that markets have drastically failed.