In my day-to-day interactions with others, I generally find myself, as a libertarian, far closer to those who would call themselves conservatives than those on the left. It is probably because those I know are far less likely to openly and baldly advocate for invading others’ “life, liberty and estates,” as John Locke phrased it, than the left.
While there is often substantial agreement between myself and conservatives in opposing their opponents’ planned violations of liberty, I also remember how often I have heard conservative commentators attack libertarians with a great deal of vitriol for actually voting libertarian, whenever they think an election might be close. They characterize not voting, because both major parties are far more statist than they can support, or voting for a party that far more completely advocates and defends liberty than do conservative (and not so conservative) Republicans, as an indefensible attack on America, because if they voted Republican, they might swing an election their way. This was particularly noticeable in our last election. But they never seem to recognize that the deviations from and desecrations of liberty proposed by those they support can easily justify libertarians’ failure to fall in line behind them.
Those thoughts were triggered by re-reading Leonard Read’s “Go where the action is,” Ch. 1 in his 1970 book, Talking to myself, because he reflected on the relationship between libertarians and conservatives there. And he went farther than my thoughts on the subject, focusing on how libertarians object to the means conservatives (and alleged conservatives) often utilize in pursuit of political power, because they fail to reflect the fact that “All actions and all ideas inimical to a free society are destructive.” At a time when many Americans are coming to realize the statist abuses of our current government, but fail to distinguish between whether liberty or conservativism is the much better alternative, Read’s reflections are worth our further reflection.
- Strange as it may seem, the Foundation for Economic Education [the libertarian think tank Leonard Read founded and headed for many years] receives more criticism from “conservatives” than from out-and-out socialists.
- Certainly, it’s not because those we call socialists find anything to agree with in the freedom philosophy as we define it; far from that…Nor is it because our “conservative” critics necessarily find flaws in our philosophical position.
- Rather, they disagree with the method we commend to advance the practice of freedom, namely, a concentration on improving the understanding and exposition of each freedom-loving individual. These “conservatives” phrase their scoldings in countless ways, the most pointed being “Why don’t you go where the action is?”
- We agree with their admonition…But where is the action? Our critics think it is out yonder--external, where others are--whereas we believe it is internal--inside each one of us. They insist on reforming the ignoramuses; we say let’s look to the flaws in ourselves and see what can be done about that. When the objective is at the high level of individual freedom, the real action is within the individual--not out yonder, not at all.
- They fail to draw the distinction between methods useful for destructive purposes and those having creative potentialities. Warfare, for instance, is destructive. If you go where the action is, where do you go? To where the confrontation is: the battlefield…Enlightenment, on the other hand, is in the creative realm. If you want to go where the action is, where do you go? Again, to where the confrontation is: between the self as is and the higher self that might be. Build me up!
- The tactics effective in attaining destructive ends remain destructive, regardless of the objective. Guns are not useful for catching ideas.
- All actions and all ideas inimical to a free society are destructive.
- Certain methods have an impressive record of achievement when the purpose has been to destroy freedom. All of them are outgoing, exertions at others, pushful suasion; they range all the way from selling-the-masses propaganda, to pressure group activity, to name-calling, to political promises, to deceit, to intimidation and terror.
- “Conservatives” who do not grasp the nature of this problem observe how effectively these tactics “work” in attaining socialistic or interventionist ends and see no reason why the same tactics won’t achieve their ends. The fact that the end they have in view is diametrically opposed to the socialistic end does not seem to warn them that “the end pre-exists in the means;” that the tactics in each case must be consistent with the ends.
- Consider our end or objective: an essentially free society. Upon what does that possibility rest? Our aspiration is out of the question unless there be numerous citizens of an intellectual, moral, and spiritual quality to set a sufficiently high standard, to serve as pattern-setters or exemplars. There must be men and women who not only understand why self-responsibility and individual freedom work their wonders, but also men and women who put these virtues into daily practice.
- When the trend is away from, not toward, a free society…the drift is marked by a decline in human virtue. The trend in the general societal situation, one way or the other, is merely a register of the drift, one way or the other, in personal quality. What is called the social problem boils down to the matter of individual emergence.
- Individual emergence is not and never will be accomplished by imposition. Not one of the tactics effective in destructive programs is useful here; indeed, these out-going, reforming efforts do more harm than good. It is difficult enough for oneself to emerge as a better person; impossible to force such change in another. Emergence is exclusively a self-help project; the change is internal, not external.
- A remark by our great grandmother comes to mind. At the age of 102 she had been gently reminded, “Granny, you’re talking to yourself again.” She replied, “At least, I’m talking to a sensible person.”
- And, what’s wrong with that? She was working on the right person, and shared her reflections with anyone who chose to listen.
- The present situation may require more and better probing, introspection, talking to ourselves, more skillful sharing…But it is doubtful that the method can be improved.
