Last Wednesday, the oft-associated libertarians and conservatives took off the gloves in an attempt to answer the question, “Which is the more desirable philosophy?” Debating on the libertarian side was Liya Palagashvili, an Institute for Justice intern, and Cato intern Sara Scarlett. On the conservative side was Daniel Anderson and Shannon Hale, both of whom are Heritage interns.
Cato intern Sara Scarlett, on the libertarian side, jumped on the question in her opening remarks stating that conservatism is not even a philosophy at all. Institute for Justice intern and SFL Executive Board Member Liya Palagashvili also had some fantastic and fiery points.
But don’t just take my word for it, watch the video!
The debate inspired Bryan Caplan of George Mason University and EconLog to blog about the issue of libertarianism v conservatism in two distinct posts. Opening up his two-part series he says, “I had a blast at Wednesday’s Libertarianism vs. Conservatism Debate at Cato. It’s great to see students who care enough about fundamental ideas to publicly argue about them. Some attendees would have preferred a more focused topic, but I would have just slightly tweaked it to: “Why Libertarians Should Be Conservatives / Why Conservatives Should Be Libertarians.” Check out Bryan’s posts, Why Libertarians Should Be Conservatives and Why Conservatives Should Be Libertarians.
href="http://digg.com/submit?url=http%3A//studentsforliberty.org/news/video-libertarianism-v-conservatism-debate/">
Pingback: Libertarianism vs. Conservatism Debate Heats Up Washington « Students for Liberty, UC Berkeley
Pingback: Libertarianism v Conservatives | Whiskey and Car Keys
I found the libertarian side more convincing- based on reason and evidence and allowing even conservative values to be decided by the thoughts and conscience of the individual.
The weight of each virtue or tradition should be up to each person, and not be forced by the state.
I was almost expecting the conservative side to drop the quote “It takes a village to raise a child.”
Nice arguments were from both sides though.
A mere branch of authoritarianism that doesn't think Alcohol has any lasting effects.
Great Debate.
I think the Libertarians pulled this one out – though the Conservatives have attractive ideas, the truth of the Libertarians is undeniable.
Pingback: Students Debate Libertarianism and Conservatism | Republican Liberty Caucus
Great video, and excellent debating Libertarians! Unfortunately, conservatives cant see the difference between true conservatism and fusionism, the 20th Century fusion of libertarian & conservative positions in the wake of FDR’s hijacking the “liberal”(not really) cause–look at his original platform.
A stronger conservative presence would have been better, as they just appealed to authority and made no arguments. I was expecting some kind of communitarian/classical republic arguments about civic virtue (they kind of incoherently wandered in this direction w/o focus) and the role of the state in culture.
Anyways, nice debating Libertarians. You really made some excellent points.
Excellent debate. I’m a conservative-leaning libertarian so I respect the idea of institutions like family, church, community, etc as a bulwark against the state. That said, the conservative debaters here reminded me of why I converted from a conservative to a libertarian. When asked how far the state should go to regulate unhealthy behavior, the conservatives were staunchly against legalized marijuana but on regulating sleep they laughed, “well, we’re not liberals.” Its that lack of ideological consistency that turned me.
This was painful to watch for me. The conservative interns allowed themselves to be steered into traditional (and predictable) intellectual pitfalls. They came off as a group of people wishing to impose their moral values on others. That is NOT conservatism.
The first round of rebuttals were TERRIBLE… where the hell did they find these Heritage interns? Clearly these are writers and researchers, not debaters.
Also, someone please tell the second CATO speaker to stop yelling at me. She believes what she's saying… I get it.
And don't get me started on the fact that we waltzed a chubby, balding, white guy up as our first speaker – and they put up a smoking hot (ethnically vague) chick with an English accent… super. Need I reference the communication theories wrought from the Nixon/Kennedy debate?
*is depressed*
I'm more of a libertarian in my beliefs, but I must salute the conservative debaters for their cool, calm, and collected response to the strident attacks of the libertarians. I found many of their comments to be downright below the belt and aimed more at making the conservatives look foolish than answering the proposed topic. Bad form.
Moreover, comments on physical appearance show nothing other than a lack of intelligent commentary and aren't appreciated. Seth might do better in future to remember that.
Seth, a good conservative would be wise to remember Reagan's 11th commandement; thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican in public. Especially to make rude personal comments about their appearance.
Also, no one 'put me up', I volunteered for the chance to debate.
Thank you,
Sara Scarlett
Thanks to everyone involved in organizing the debate, I found it really interesting. I also posted recently to the "Is Conservative a Dirty Word" article about this, but I'm interested in what the debaters and others think about the future of the historical libertarian/conservative coalition in the US. If many conservative positions are as "perverse" and "grotesque" as Sara says (I'm not being facetious here, I agree with the characterization), how can libertarians continue to ally with them? And how can the movement for liberty expect support from the many people who are repelled by social conservatism/moralizing/authoritarianism when it so tied up with it politically?
Pingback: Fusionism and Liberaltarianism « Libertas
My impression:
The way I saw it, the libertarians simply made fewer mistakes than the conservatives.
Both sides sounded flawed. The conservatives shot themselves in the foot when it came to general logos, namely on the drug issue. More powerful conservative debaters certainly exist.
Likewise, despite sounding "smarter," the libertarians made themselves come off as amoral, hostile to virtue, elitist, and borderline anarchic. It is the sort of patronizing presentation that will crush a libertarian when it comes to addressing mainstream America* ; of the negative ethos that sentences you to 3rd party irrelevance by decree of the median voter. More powerful libertarian persuaders certainly exist. I was reminded of Rachel Maddow.
Too much passion, reliance on strawman, and above all else, too much hostility for the opposing view. They would've gained points by taking care to sound equally calm as the conservatives.
Both teams need to keep practicing. The conservatives most definitely, but the libertarians are not exempt. Its not what you say, its how you say it.
~David~
*[believe it or not, the audience of "mainstream" America primarily consists of apolitical individuals *not* in the 18-34 year demographic. If you can't frame your philosophy in a manner that'd get ma and pa from Kentucky on board, nothing you say matters. Regardless of your believes, you must *sound* like you hold their values. Candidate Obama knew this. When will libertarians understand?]
Dear Sara,
That was a brilliant and articulate speech. I always enjoy watching Libertarians clobber Republicans in debate. The "what is inserted into my body" part was especially smart because it should remind the audience that conservatives once supported the complete subjection of woman's bodies to men, a repugnant and stupid idea.
By the way are you single? Just kidding.
"Libertarians clobber Republicans"
Conservatives =/= Republicans.
I personally believe libertarianism to be a form of liberalism, having very little to do with conservatism.
This is just innacurate…libertarianism believes the less government, the better. Conservatism traditionally sticks to this as well. Liberalism is different in the fact that it has socialist and communist roots that tend to believe that the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people and government should work to help people directly.
When I say "socialist and communist roots", don't think I mean this in a bad way. I don't view communism or socialism as scary like most of us Americans do. It's just a different perspective.
Personally, after delving much deeper into Libertarianism, I find that they really are the only people that have answers to our problems. It all revolves around getting off of the Keynesian ideas of economics and understanding Austrian economics.
Dam, we dropped the ball on federalism.
Pingback: Conservatives v. Libertarians « The American Tory
In my opinion Sara did the best job in this debate, but the whole thing was rather difficult to listen to. Liya came across as loud-mouthed, agitatedly inarticulate, and hostile. I agree with ‘David’s’ assessment for the most part, although the Rachel Maddow remark threw me. The more Daniel spoke, the more obvious his glaring inconsistencies and naivete became. I’m surprised neither of the libertarians directly called the traditionalist conservatives out on their equation of government with society.