http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1674
Libertarianism, Conservatism, and All That
by Jude Blanchette
[Posted November 16, 2004]
Every person attracted to the thought of Ludwig von Mises is eventually
faced with the question: should I be a conservative or a libertarian or must
I choose at all? The Mises Institute even added this point on its Frequently
Asked Questions ("Are you conservative, libertarian, anarchist, socialist,
or what?"). The current political moment demonstrates the importance of the
issue. Conservatives generally think their man won the election but
libertarians look at the Bush presidency and see war, big government, and
violations of rights all around.
As for Mises himself, has long been identified with the political Right and
American conservatism. Mises, however, regarded himself as a liberal in the
classical sense, and even used the world libertarian to describe his
views.Moreover, his criticisms of the political right stretch from his 1919
book on European politics ("Every reactionary lacks intellectual
independence") to his 1956 book on method, in which he argued that it was
the conservatives who brought socialism to Britain. "The essence of an
individual's freedom is the opportunity to deviate from traditional ways of
thinking and of doing things," he wrote.
Part of the confusion is due to the limits of postwar political
classification, which tend to shoehorn people into roles as created by the
two dominate political parties. They don't account for someone like Mises
who was, as Rothbard argued , a political radical, and yet rather
conservative on cultural and social matters. He championed drug legalization
but not use, defended the family as a market-based institution; loved global
trade but hated war, despised feudal institutions and egalitarian political
ethics.
The key to understanding this is lost on many people. It comes down to the
distinction between force and voluntarism. He believed that one could find a
certain behavior or practice abhorrent, all the while defending the
individual's right to engage in it. Today, most of our contemporaries tend
to think all behavior should be either required or forbidden with little
room for choice.
The same trouble is reflected in discussion of globalism: most people find
it strange to be against protectionism, for global trade, but against war.
Somehow they confuse loving one's nation with either failing to trade with
others or waging war on them. These are the types of confusions that come
with the embrace of the label conservative. But to the old liberal school,
to hold views that are consistently pro-peace and pro-trade are all in
keeping with the core principle.
Mises's distinction between power and choice is for many, obvious and vital
for the continuance of a free society. Certainly society may, indeed ought,
to assert pressure on individuals to conform to societal norms. This,
however, is quite different from advocating that the coercive apparatus of
the state be used to impose its view of what constitutes "proper" behavior
(See Henry Hazlitt's wonderful essay, "In Defense of Conformity" (The
Intercollegiate Review) Fall, 1970, pp. 25-29).
F.A. Hayek stated that one of the gravest errors of contemporary juridical
opinion was to assume that all "laws" arise out of legislation. In fact,
proper legislation simply codified laws that were preexistent. Societal laws
(be they customs, mores, dress codes, cultural conformity) are the private
sector's method of regulating behavior. They act as voluntary surrogates to
state compulsion.
Libertarians like Mises got this-they understood that the voluntary society
has a way of weeding out aberrant behavior. Far from being the playground
of licentiousness, the liberal commonwealth breeds an atmosphere in which
tolerance and diversity are balanced with values and mores.
Another major area separating libertarians from conservatives concerns the
meaning and place of principle and its relationship to politics.
Libertarians have a strict understanding of the right and wrong of public
affairs, and argue that anything less leaves too much room for power to
manipulate its way into private life. They point to the history of
Republican presidents, for example, and see alarming levels of government
growth.
Conservatives, however, condemn ideological strictures, and recommend a more
piecemeal approach to evaluating the role of government. They suggest that
we back the lesser of two evils in politics. They instruct us to prefer the
good to the perfect, and are ready for compromise. While this may seem
reasonable, in practice we find that conservatives have great difficulty in
knowing where to draw the line.
Libertarians and conservatives have differed over these and other
fundamental issues over the last fifty years. What follows is a
bibliographic attempt to answer the question of what makes libertarians and
conservatives different. Where possible I have linked to the articles and
books, but much of the debate transpired before the advent of the internet,
and is only available in hard copy (for now).
Two sources in particular warrant special attention-Bill Buckley's National
Review and Murray Rothbard. In many ways they encapsulate the rift. Whereas
they may have found many points of agreement when National Review was
founded in 1955 (and even this is a stretch), by the early 60's, the New
Right was far removed from its old right roots. Militant anti-communism
coupled with an increasing social conservative statism were tendencies many
libertarians found distasteful. If the modus vivendi of the early 1940
revival of the libertarian/conservative movement had been the defeat the
leviathan state, only the libertarians stayed the course with any
consistency.
The Old Right
As with any political label, it is hard to encapsulate a movement or any
group of individuals in a word, or in this case two words. Yet it can safely
be said that the "Old Right" was born in protest to Roosevelt and the New
Deal. Its leaders were H.L Mencken, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, John T.
Flynn, Suzanne La Follette and Felix Morley. It is notable that what one
finds in their writings one can still find in the work of most libertarians
today. In fact, it could be argued that the modern libertarian movement has
more in common with conservatives of the 30s and 40s than do contemporary
conservatives. The ideas of the Old Right conservatives (skepticism of
government planning, isolationist foreign policy and a general belief in the
free market) have taken a back seat to the modern conservative emphasis on
domestic pragmatism and international interventionism.
It must be stressed that there was no single Old Right movement that spoke
in unison. As a movement, it was primarily an opposition movement, and as
such, the general beliefs outlined above are just that-general beliefs.
However, in order to delineate the conservative and libertarian movement, it
is useful to start here. NB: This listing of Old Right sources is by no
means exhaustive; I have only attempted to give an overview of the movement
to show how far conservatives of today have moved from their original
beliefs.
For excellent overviews of the Old Right movement, see Sheldon Richman, New
Deal Nemesis: The 'Old Right' Jeffersonians (Independent Review, Vol. I, No.
2, Fall 1996)and two pieces by Murray Rothbard, The Anti-War, Anti-State
Right (Continuum, Summer 1964, pp. 220-231 and first published as "The
Transformation of the American Right.") and The Old Right (originally
published in Inquiry, 3, 18 [October 27, 1980], pp. 24-27.) Next to the
economic policies of the New Deal, foreign adventures abroad were the
primary concern of the Old Right. See Rothbard's essay, The Foreign Policy
of the Old Right. There is an excellent collection of pre-1945 conservative
thought entitled, "The Superfluous Men: Conservative Critics of Modern
Culture, 1900-1945" (Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1999). You can read
the introduction here.
While there are many who comprised the Old Right, three are worth singling
out for the volume of their writing, and the influence they had during the
late 30's and early 40's. The first is Felix Morley, the Pulitzer Prize
winning editor of the Washington Post (1933-1940), president of Haverford
College, co-founder of Human Events and prominent critique of American
imperialism. See Joseph R. Stromberg's Felix Morley: An Old Fashioned
Republican Critic of Statism and Interventionism (Journal of Libertarian
Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp 269-77) and Felix Morley: An Old Fashioned
Republican. Leonard Liggio, in Felix Morley and the Commonwealthman
Tradition: The Country-Party, Centralization and the American Empire
(Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 279-86) looks at
Morley's historical analysis of the libertarian movement and the rise of the
state. Of Morley's books, Freedom and Federalism (Indianapolis: Liberty
Fund, 1981 [1959]) and The Power in the People (Nash Publishing, 1972
[1949]) are his best critiques of imperialism abroad and the welfare state
at home.
Frank Chodorov, born Fishel Chodorowsky to Russian immigrants, was a
powerful voice among the Old Right. Influenced primarily by Albert Jay Nock
and Henry George, Chodorov was a prolific writer and ardent opponent of the
State in any of its manifestations. In 1969, M. Stanton Evans noted, "The
Chodorov imprint is visible in every phase of conservative effort." William
F. Buckley was greatly taken with his four-page journal of opinion,
analysis. Indeed, in a letter to E. Victor Milione, Buckley admitted, "It is
quite unlikely that I should have pursued a career as a writer but for the
encouragement [Chodorov] gave me just after I graduated from Yale." For
overviews of Chodorov's life and influence, see Aaron Steelman's Frank
Chodorov: Champion of Liberty, Joseph Stromberg's Frank Chodorov: A
Libertarian's Libertarian and Charles Hamilton, "Frank Chodorov and the
American Right," (The Libertarian Review) December, 1979, pp. 20-22. In
Frank Chodorov, R.I.P, Murray Rothbard provides a touching tribute to his
mentor, while in The Freeman's "People on Our Side: Frank Chodorov" (May 5,
1952) John Chamberlain provides a brief summary of Chodorov's political
thought. All of Chodorov's works are worth reading, especially Out of Step
(New York: Devin-Adair Company, 1962), One is a Crowd (New York: Devin-Adair
Company, 1952), The Income Tax: Root of All Evil (New York: Devin-Adair
Company, 1954) and Fugitive Essays (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1980).
John T. Flynn considered himself a liberal his whole life. Born in 1882
Maryland, Flynn rose to prominence as an economic journalist who gradually
became FDR's severest critic. His prose is peppered with acerbic wit and
keen insight. Perhaps the best place to start is with Flynn's magisterial
achievement, The Roosevelt Myth (San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes, 1998
originally published by Devin-Adair in 1948). Flynn's other works include,
As We Go Marching (New York: Doubleday, 1944), The Decline of the American
Republic (New York: Devin-Adair, 1955), While You Slept (New York:
Devin-Adair, 1951), Country Squire in the White House ( Philadelphia, PA :
Da Capo Press, 1972), Forgotten Lessons: Selected Essays by John T. Flynn
(Irvington, NY: FEE, 1995) and The Road Ahead: America's Creeping Revolution
(New York: Devin Adair, 1953). For two overviews of Flynn's life and
writings see Justin Raimondo's John T. Flynn: Exemplar of the Old Right
(Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. X, No. 2 (Fall 1992) and John F.
McManus' Principles First (The New American, January 31, 2000).
In addition to the contingent of Old Right publicists and journalists, there
was active conservative resistance to the New Deal and foreign
interventionism within the political arena. See Justus D. Doenecke's, Not
to the swift: The old isolationists in the cold war era (Lewisburg, PA:
Bucknell University Press, 1979) and Storm on the Horizon: The Challenge to
American Intervention, 1939-1941 (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).
For a look at congressional isolationists, see John C. Donovan,
"Congressional Isolationists and the Roosevelt Foreign Policy" (World
Politics, vol. 3, No. 3 (Apr., 1951), 299-316.)
The Resurgence
The twelve years beginning in 1943 and ending in 1955 are pivotal in
understanding the gulf that exists today between modern conservatives and
libertarians. While the two groups could write for the same magazines in
1940s and early 50s, they rarely spoke by 1955. If domestic economic
planning and the rise of the welfare state were paramount concerns for both
groups in the early 40s, Soviet aggression abroad and communist infiltration
at home became the id�e fix of his emerging New Right by the mid fifties.
By the early '40s, the American people had lost much of their faith in free
enterprise liberalism. Shaken by the Great Depression and the bombing of
Pearl Harbor, America, and indeed most of the Western world, increasingly
looked to government for security and stability. To Robert Crunden, "The war
period, 1939-1945, marked the nadir of individualistic, Jeffersonian thought
in the United States."
Yet in 1943, stirrings on the Right were evident with the publication of
three remarkable books by three remarkable women. It took Ayn Rand's The
Fountainhead, Rose Wilder Lane's The Discovery of Freedom, and Isabel
Paterson's The God of the Machine to reinvigorate the anti-statist movement.
If the Old Right was a movement characterized by anti-statist dissent, the
epoch beginning in 1943 was marked by a positive vision for liberty. While
polemic warnings continued to occur (think Road to Serfdom and As We Go
Marching) the free market was slowly gaining intellectual legitimacy.
At least at the beginning of the incipient movement, conservatives and
libertarians could find a common enemy in the growth of the New Deal welfare
state. As strength in the movement gathered, the two groups quickly
discovered they had little in common. Perhaps the most divisive issue was
that of foreign policy, specifically what to do about the Soviet Union. In
addition to the publications listed below, readers should seek out issues of
the old Human Events and Robert LeFevre's Rampart Journal.
The Freeman
Much of this emerging divergence played out in the pages of The Freeman, one
of the only publications at the time aimed exclusively at an anti-statist
audience. In its modern reincarnation (it had been published first by
Albert Jay Nock in the 20s, by his prot�g�e Suzanne La Follette as The New
Freeman and finally under the editorship of Frank Chodorov in the 1940s) The
Freeman was to be an answer to liberal (in the contemporary sense)
publications that glorified the state. As Freeman Editor John Chamberlain
was to observe in his autobiography, "If the Nation and the New Republic had
not sold intellectuals on the virtues of the planned economy in the '20s and
early '30s, there would have been no Roosevelt Revolution." The Freeman was
to reverse this trend.
Several articles in particular stand out for their importance in dividing
conservatives from libertarians. In Frank Chodorov, "The Return of 1940,"
(The Freeman) V, 3 (September, 1954), pp, 81-82, Chodorov warns of the
impending danger to domestic liberty as America mobilized for WWII. Future
co-founder of National Review, William S. Schlamm, rebuts Chodorov in "But
It Is Not 1940," (The Freeman) V, 5 (November, 1954), pp. 169-71. Not one to
drop issues lightly, Chodorov fired back in, "A War to Communize America,"
(The Freeman), V, 5 (November, 1954), pp. 171-74. V. Orval Watts
courageously argues for free trade with Communist Russia in, "Should We
Trade with Russia," (The Freeman), V, 8 (February, 1954), pp. 295-97.
America's international role is criticized in Frank Chodorov, "One
Worldism," (The Freeman), V, 9 (March, 1955), pp. 334-36 and Samuel B.
Pettengill, "Crusading in Asia," (The Freeman), V, 10 (April, 1955), pp.
430-32.
Modern Age
Much like The Freeman, Modern Age provided conservatives and libertarians a
forum in which to voice their respective opinions. Founded in 1957 by the
late Russell Kirk, Modern Age represented the "traditional" camp of the
conservative movement, although it was receptive to a wide-range of
opinions. The very first issue contained Felix Morley's "American Republic
or American Empire," (Modern Age) I, 1 (Summer, 1957), pp. 20-27, a
particularly stinging criticism of interventionist foreign policy. The
following essays deal with the conservative/libertarian paradigm:
Donald Atwell Zoll, "The Future of American Conservativism: a New Revival?"
(Modern Age) XVIII, 1 (Winter, 1974), pp. 2-13;
Ronald Hamowy, "Liberalism and Neo-Conservatism: Is a Synthesis Possible?"
(Modern Age) VIII, 4 (Fall, 1964), pp. 350-59;
Donald Atwell Zoll, "Philosophical Foundations of the American Political
Right," (Modern Age), XV, 2 (Spring, 1971), pp. 114-29;
M. Stanton Evans, "Varieties of Conservative Experience," (Modern Age) XV, 2
(Spring, 1971), pp. 130-37;
Gary North, "Reason, Neutrality and the Free Market," (Modern Age) XV, 2
(Spring, 1971), pp. 138-42;
Russell Kirk, "Libertarians: the Chirping Sectaries," (Modern Age) XXV, 4
(Fall, 1981), pp. 345-51;
John Hospers, "Conservatives and Libertarians: Differences of Theory and
Strategy," (Modern Age) XXV, 4 (Fall, 1981), pp. 369-80.
New Individualist Review
This brief but brilliant journal was edited by several of Hayek's students
from the University of Chicago (including Mises Institute Senior Faculty
member Ralph Raico). Published from April 1961 until the winter of 1968,
the New Individualist Review'sdecline left a gaping hole for libertarian
scholarship. See
Edward Facey, "Conservatives or Individualists: Which Are We?" (New
Individualist Review) I, 2 (Summer, 1962), pp. 24-26.
John Weicher, "Mr. Facey's Article: A Comment" (New Individualist Review) I,
2 (Summer, 1962), pp. 26-27.
William F. Buckley, Jr. and Ronald Hamowy, "'National Review": Criticism and
Reply" (New Individualist Review) I, 3 (November, 1961). pp. 3-11.
James M. O'Connell, "The New Conservatism" (New Individualist Review) II, 1
(Spring 1962), pp. 17-21.
John P. McCarthy, "The Shortcomings of Right-Wing Foreign Policy" (New
Individualist Review) II, 1 (Spring, 1962), pp. 44-52.
Benjamin A. Rogge, "New Conservatives and Old Liberals" (New Individualist
Review) II, 3 (Autumn, 1963), pp. 31-34.
Ralph Raico, "The Fusionists on Liberalism and Tradition" (New Individualist
Review) III, 3, pp. 29-36.
National Review
Love it or hate it, National Review's role in the conservative/libertarian
movement is hard to deny. From its inception in November, 1955, Bill
Buckley's magazine was to exert a profound influence on the shape and
direction of the conservative movement. Almost from the beginning, however,
the magazine's masthead indicated that the "extreme" individualism and
isolationism of the libertarian movement would not be tolerated. While the
occasional libertarian managed to sneak his way into its pages, National
Review was (and remains) vehemently interventionist. Most of the following
essays are negative attacks on libertarians, or libertarians attacking other
libertarians:
Ramesh Ponnuru, "1984 in 2003?" (National Review) Vol. 55 Issue 10, p. 17,
2p.
Ramesh Ponnuru, "A Duty of Government?" (National Review ) Vol. 54 Issue
19, p. 24.
William F. Buckley "Murray Rothbard, RIP" (National Review) Vol. 47 Issue 2,
p. 19, 2p. .
"Has the Libertarian Movement Gone Kooky" (National Review) Vol. 31 Issue
31, p. 967, 7p.
Ernest Van Den Haag, "The Libertarian Argument" (National Review) Vol. 27
Issue 25, p. 729, 3p.
James Jackson Kilpatrick, "The Libertarians: Nothing if Not Consistent"
(National Review) Vol. 27 Issue 39, p. 1117, 4p.
Ernest Van Den Haag, "Libertarian Ideology," (National Review), XXXI, 23
(June 8, 1979), pp. 725-39.
Jerome Tuccille, "The Failure of Libertarianism," (National Review), XXIX,
16 (April 29th, 1977), pp. 489, 511.
For a more recent debate between National Review and the libertarians, see
Jonah Goldberg's, "Libertarians Under My Skin," " Farewell, Lew Rockwell"
and "The Libertarian Lobe." Responses here, here and here. David Frum's
infamous article, "Unpatriotic Conservatives ," received a host of criticism
(and rightfully so). See in particular Justin Raimondo's "Commissar Frum ,"
Samuel Francis's "'Mainstream' Conservatives Opposing Frumpurge (Quietly,
Belatedly)," Williams Rusher, "Civil war on the American right," and Gene
Callahan's "Axis of Drivel."
Libertarian Forum, Left and Right, and the RRR
Rothbard produced a large amount of writings that deal with definitional
problems associated with the conservative/libertarian split. See
Murray Rothbard, "A Note on Burk's Vindication of the Natural Society,"
Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 19, No. 1 (January 1958), pp. 114-18.
Murray Rothbard, "Stop Reagan!" (The Libertarian Forum), VIII, 12 (December,
1975), pp. 1-2.
Murray Rothbard, "To The Elections" (The Libertarian Forum), IX, 10
(October, 1976), pp. 1-2.
Murray Rothbard, "The End of Ideology," (The Libertarian Forum), X, 3
(March, 1977), pp. 1.
Murray Rothbard, "The Tuccille Defection," (The Libertarian Forum), X, 4
(April, 1977), pp. 4-5.
Murray Rothbard, "New Right: National Review's Anniversary ," (Left and
Right), II, 2 (Winter, 1966), pp. 8-13.
Murray Rothbard, "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty," (Left and
Right), 1, 1 (Spring, 1965) pp. 4-22 (or in HTML).
Lew Rockwell, "Unity on the Right." (Rothbard-Rockwell Report) V, 5 (May,
1994), pp. 17-19.
Lew Rockwell, "Paleoism: Past, Present, and Future" (Rothbard-Rockwell
Report) VI, 12 (December, 1995), pp. 1-9.
Lew Rockwell, "Conservative Wars" (Rothbard-Rockwell Report) VI, 11
(November, 1995), pp. 5-9.
Murray Rothbard, "Dead Wrong" (Rothbard-Rockwell Report) V, 10 (October,
1994), pp. 11-12.
Murray Rothbard,For a New Isolationism.
Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty.
Frank Meyer and Fusionism
Frank Meyer was a long-time editor of National Review and the originator of
what Brent Bozell called "fusionism." It represented Meyer's noble attempt
to unite conservatives and libertarians under a banner of anti-statism and
tradition. For many, Meyer's philosophy was nothing novel. Rather, it
merely represented a certain type of libertarian, e.g., one who believed in
the limited powers of the state, all the while holding Judeo-Christian
values. A good place to start is Meyer's book, In Defense of Freedom, in
which he defines his philosophy. See also:
Murray Rothbard, "Frank Meyer and Sidney Hook."
Patrick M. O'Neil, "The Failure of Fusionism in the Libertarian-
Traditionalist Debate." Samuel Francis "(Con)fusion on the Right."
Kenneth Silber, "The Fusionist Path."
Murray Rothbard, "Frank Meyer on the Communist Bogey Man." (Left and Right),
III, 2 (Spring-Summer 1967).
Murray Rothbard, "Fusionism" (Rothbard-Rockwell Report) VI, 8 (August,
1995), pp. 1-6.
Murray Rothbard, "Frank S. Meyer: The Fusionist as Libertarian Manqu�,"
(Modern Age) XXV, 4 (Fall, 1981), pp. 352-63.
Dr. Enrico Peppe's review of Meyer's "In Defense of Freedom" can be read
here.
"Freedom and Virtue: The Conservative/Libertarian Debate," published by ISI
and edited by George W. Carey is an excellent attempt to explore the
potentialities of the fusionist path. The book's introduction can be read
online here and Brian Doherty's review here.
Recent/Relevant Writings
The recent war in Iraq has only compounded the conservative/libertarian
rift. A new round of zoo-like curiosity from the left has turned the names
Strauss and Kristol as well as paleo- and neo- into household regulars.
Below are a host of internet articles that cover the war, neo-conservatism,
and the general state of conservatism and libertarianism (including Hayek's
classic "Why I am Not a Conservative."
Llewellyn Rockwell, "Are Markets Boring"
Joshua Muravchik, " The Neoconservative Cabal"
Arnold Kling, "My Libertarian Persuasion"
Peter Augustine Lawler, "Compassionate Conservatism vs. Libertarianism"
W. James Antle III, "The Conservative Crack-Up"
W. James Antle III, "Conservative-Libertarian Split: Liberals Get It,
Conservatives Don't"
W. James Antle III,"The Conservative-Libertarian clash: Values and the free
society"
Joseph Stromberg, "Conserving Nothing "
Thomas Fleming, "Abuse Your Illusions"
Francis Fukuyama, " The Fall of the Libertarians"
Jerry Taylor & Peter VanDoren, "Big Foot vs. Invisible Hand"
Tibor Machan, "Libertarian Answers to Conservative Challenges"
Lew Rockwell, "Neo-Conservative Archive "
Justin Raimondo, "Neoconservatism Versus Libertarianism"
Wall Street Journal, " American Conservatism " This is an attempt by the WSJ
to define the American brand of conservatism.
Samuel Francis, "Does Conservatism Have a Future?"
Richard Ebeling, "The Fall of Libertarianism or the Failure of
Interventionism? A Reply to Francis Fukuyama"
Uncommon Knowledge, " The Fight on The Right" This is an archived video of
the interview program sponsored by the Hoover Institution.
James Bovard, "The Neocon War on Peace and Freedom"
Robert J. Lieber, "The Neoconservative-Conspiracy Theory: Pure Myth"
Rachel Alexander, "The New Conservative Divide: Paleocons versus Neocons"
Laura Flanders , "Conservative Unity? " Includes link to a James
Bovard/David Frum radio debate.
Edward Feser, "What Libertarianism Isn't"
Edward Feser, "The Trouble With Libertarianism"
David Gordon, "Right by Half"
The Intercollegiate Review, " The State of Conservatism: A Symposium"
John Robbins, "Conservatism versus Objectivism"
George Carey, "Civil Libertarianism vs. Civil Society: A Conservative's
Reflections on Freedom of Speech"
William A. Rusher, "Conservatism's Third and Final Battle"
Harry Browne, "Freedom First: Libertarians are not part of the "Right"
Franklin Foer, "Once Again, America First"
John Goldberg's three-part attempt to "define" neoconservatism can be read
here
Thomas Fleming, "Abuse Your Illusions"
F.A Hayek, "Why I am Not a Conservative"
David Gordon, "Rothbard on Strauss"
Paul Gottfried, "What's In a Name? The Curious Case of 'Neoconservative' "
Russell Kirk, " The Conservative Movement: Then and Now"
Justin Lambert, "Is there a conservative split?"
Stephen Bainbridge, "Law and Morality in America"
Jude Blanchette, "Freedom and Morality: A Response to the Prof"
Fred Barnes, "A 'Big Government Conservatism'"
____________________________
Jude Blanchette is a research fellow at the Foundation for Economic
Education. [EMAIL PROTECTED] A version of the bibliography appeared on
LRC. Post Comments on the Blog.
In response to many requests, it is now possible to set your credit-card
contribution to the Mises Institute to be recurring. You can easily set this
up on-line with a donation starting at $10 per month. See the Membership
Page. This is one way to ensure that your support for the Mises Institute is
ongoing.
--
Jay P Hailey ~Meow!~
MSNIM - jayphailey ;
AIM -jayphailey03;
ICQ - 37959005
HTTP://jayphailey.8m.com
8497) Potty Mouth! Potty Mouth!
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
