Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Libertarians, Religious Conservatives, and the Myth of Social Neutrality
Libertarians, Religious Conservatives, and the Myth of Social Neutrality
Sep 1, 2025 3:52 PM

When es to our view of individual liberty, one of the most unexplored areas of distinction between libertarians and religious conservatives* is how we view neutrality and bias. Because the differences are uncharted, I have no way of describing the variance without resorting to a grossly simplistic caricature—so with a grossly simplistic caricature we shall proceed:

Libertarians believe that neutrality between the various spheres of society—and especially betweenthe government and the individual—are both possible and desirable, and so the need for bias toward a certain e is not only unnecessary, but contrary to liberty.

Religious conservatives, in contrast, recognize that such neutrality between individual and social spheres is illusory and that bias is an intractable aspect of human nature.

If these caricatures are generally appplicable (as I believe they mostly are), then it helps to explain how libertarians and conservatives can use language that is similar—if not exactly the same—and e to wildly different conclusions.

For example, over a decade ago David Boaz of the Cato Institute helpfully defined the Key Concepts of Libertarianism. One of these key concepts is the “rule of law”:

The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by mands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or e.

I choose this example because it is a statement that, on initial examination, conservatives and libertarians would generally agree with. The reason for this, I believe, is that conservatives have largely adopted the libertarian way of framing such concepts. However, once we consider the statement in the light of the different views of bias and neutrality we can better understand why it is self-contradictory.

Let’s start with the claim that individuals are governed by legal rules that are “spontaneously developed.” While we can all agree that such legal rules should be applied neutrally and without bias (that is, generally speaking, what we mean by the rule of law), they are not “spontaneously developed” by a neutral and unbiased method.

All legal rules are made by humans and filtered through human institutions, such as courts and legislatures. They are therefore subject to the various biases of the people who develop the legal rules.

As the judge and legal scholar Richard Posner has said, if judges are not introspective, their candor will not illuminate the actual springs of their decisions. When asked to explain ment he replied:

If a case is difficult in the sense that there is no precedent or other text that is authoritative, the judge has to fall back on whatever resources he has e up with a decision that is reasonable, that other judges would also find reasonable, and ideally that he could explain to a layperson so that the latter would also think it a reasonable policy choice. To do this, the judge may fall back on some strong moral or even religious feeling. Of course, some judges fool themselves into thinking there is a correct answer, generated by a precedent or other authoritative text, to every legal question.

What Posner is saying is that the legal rules that we think are “spontaneously developed” are often influenced by “strong moral” or “religious feeling.” plicates Boaz’s claim that these rules should,

. . . protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or e. [emphasis added]

If the rules are biased in favor of a particular moral or religious feeling, then they are biased in favor of a particular result or e and are likely to be unsuitable for protecting the freedom of individuals to “pursue happiness in their own way.”

To take an example from the realm of bioethics, if a judge is influenced by his “religious feeling” that human life has an intrinsic dignity, then it can lead him to develop legal rules that hinder individuals from pursuing happiness in their own way (e.g., having an abortion).

When libertarians recognize this truth (which happens too infrequently) they search for ways to do the impossible: remove the human bias from the system. Or, more precisely, what they prefer is to add more libertarian bias into the system since for their conception of the rule of law to be coherent requires that the majority share the exact same bias toward the ideal of unfettered individualistic pursuit of self-defined happiness.

Needless to say (at least saith the conservatives), that ain’t gonna happen.

As I mentioned earlier, conservatives generally recognize that such neutrality is illusory and that bias is an intractable aspect of human nature. This puts us about a half-step ahead of our libertarian cousins, for while we e to the recognition more quickly we are left with the same need for everyone (or at least the majority of folks) to share our bias in order to get what we prefer.

(This is partially why conservatives are in favor, as G.K. Chesterton said, of giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. By including the “democracy of the dead” we ensure we have a plurality on our side.)

Since libertarians and conservatives end up in the same place, desiring to immanetize the eschaton by getting everyone to share our general bias, why should we prefer the conservative position? Because conservatives are able, though not always willing, to harness bias and use it to our advantage by directing it toward ordered liberty—the only type of liberty that is sustainable.

By placing an overemphasis on individual liberty without an equal accent on individual virtue, the libertarian unwittingly erodes the foundation of order on which her political theory stands. Order is a necessary precondition of liberty and must be maintained from the lowest level of government (the individual conscience) to the highest (the State). The individual conscience is the most basic level of government and it is regulated by virtues. Ordered liberty, in this view, is not an end unto itself but a means by which eudaimonia (happiness or human flourishing) can most effectively be pursued. Liberty is a ponent of virtue, but it cannot serve as a substitute.

Religious conservatives recognize that all institutions have a bias either toward or away from virtue and ordered liberty. We can either harness and direct the bias of institutions towards a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles or we will lose both order and liberty. There is no neutral ground in which the seed of freedom can grow uncultivated.

*Throughout this post, the terms “religious conservatives” and “conservatives” are usedinterchangeablyto refer to political (though not necessarily theological) conservatives whose views are influenced and sustained by religious principles. The way I use the terms here will likely also apply to many people who would self-identify as “religious libertarians.” People are free to choose their own labels, of course, but I agree with Russell Kirk that “If aperson describes himself as “libertarian”because he believes in an enduring moralorder, the Constitution of the UnitedStates, free enterprise, and old Americanways of life-why, actually he is a conservative with imperfect understanding of thegeneral terms of politics.”

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
DCI John Luther: Secular Authority
John Luther is pierced for Jenny's transgressions.An essay of mine on the wonderful and difficult BBC series “Luther” is up over at the Comment magazine website, “Get Your Hands Dirty: The Vocational Theology of Luther.” In this piece I reflect on DCI John Luther’s “overriding need to protect other people from injustice and harm, and even sometimes the consequences of their own sin and guilt,” and how that fits in with the Christian (and particularly Lutheran) doctrine of vocation. Indeed,...
Wong and Rae on How and When to Fire Someone
Donald Trump's tagline: "You're fired."Last week I raised the question of whether being a Christian businessperson means you do some things differently, and particularly whether some of these things that are done differently have to do with terminating an employee. Here’s a snip of what Kenman Wong and Scott Rae say in their recent book, Business for the Common Good: Although panies may take on certain employees as an act of benevolence, it is not the norm. Employees are bound...
30 Years Ago Today: Reagan’s Westminster Address
The Washington Post’s editorial page reminds us that today is the 30th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s address at Westminster Hall, London. The speech, famous for its “ash heap of history line,” was Reagan’s challenge to the Soviet Union’s very legitimacy and pointed to its hollow core. Reagan’s great strength was not just America’s military posture against the Soviets, but that he truly made the Cold War a battle of moral ideas. It was a decisive pivot away from America’s policy...
Review: Can One Kill ‘For Greater Glory’?
Immediately after watching For Greater Glory, I found myself struggling to appreciate the myriad good intentions, talents and the $40 million that went into making it. Unlike the Cristeros who fought against the Mexican government, however, my efforts ultimately were unsuccessful. The film opened on a relatively limited 757 screens this past weekend, grossing $1.8 million and earning the No. 10 position of all films currently in theatrical release. Additionally, the film reportedly has been doing boffo at the Mexican...
The Dangers of Democratic Tyranny
In the context mentary on protests like those in Quebec and the Occupy movement more broadly, it’s worth reflecting on the dangers of democratic tyranny. The “people” can be tyrannical just as an individual sovereign or an oligarchy might. That’s why Aristotle considered democracy a defective form of government, because it too easily enshrines the will of the majority into an insuperable law. As Lord Acton put it, “It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is...
Samuel Gregg: Unions and the Path to Irrelevancy
On National Review Online, Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg demolishes the left’s knee-jerk explanation for labor union decline, which blames “the machinations of conservative intellectuals, free-market-inclined governments, and businesses who, over time, have successfully worked to diminish organized labor, thereby crushing the proverbial ‘little guy.'” Gregg writes: “The truth, however, is rather plex. One factor at work is economic globalization. Businesses fed up with unions who think that their industry should be immune petition are now in a position to...
Buying a House Makes People Less Entrepreneurial
Suzy Khimm points out an interesting study from the UK’s Spatial Economics Research Centre: Our fixed-effects estimates show that purchasing a house reduces the likelihood of starting a business by 20-25%. … This result is driven by homeowners with mortgages and persists for several years after entering homeownership. … We argue that this finding can be rationalized by the fact that homeowners typically have to overinvest in housing (Brueckner, 1997; Flavin and Yamashita, 2002) and therefore cannot adequately diversify their...
Samuel Gregg: Why Austerity Isn’t Enough
Writing on The American Spectator website, Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg looks at the strange notion of European fiscal “austerity” even as more old continent economies veer toward the abyss. Is America far behind? Needless to say, Greece is Europe’s poster child for reform-failure. Throughout 2011, the Greek parliament passed reforms that diminished regulations that applied to many professions in the economy’s service sector. But as two Wall Street Journal journalists demonstrated one year later, “despite the change in the...
How Junk Bonds Killed the Three Martini Lunch
A recent editorial in the New York Times claims that during the 1980s leveraged buyouts “contributed significantly to the growth of the e gap, moving wealth from the middle class to the top end.” First Things editor R.R. Reno explains why the real story is plicated, more interesting, and explains much more than e inequality: The upper middle class world responded to the leveraged buyout revolution by upping mitments to education and economically oriented self-discipline. The old white-collar social contract...
Samuel Gregg: A Necessary Symbiosis
Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg reviews America’s Spiritual Capital by Nicholas Capaldi and T. R. Malloch (St Augustine’s Press, 2012) for The University Bookman. … Capaldi and Malloch are—refreshingly—unabashed American exceptionalists. One of this book’s strengths is the way that it brings to light a critical element of that exceptionalism through the medium of spiritual capital. Part of the American experiment is mitment to modernity—but a modernity several times removed from that pioneered by the likes of the French revolutionaries,...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved