Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Libertarians, Religious Conservatives, and the Myth of Social Neutrality
Libertarians, Religious Conservatives, and the Myth of Social Neutrality
May 14, 2025 11:41 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
‘Being Black At University Of Michigan’ (#BBUM) Students Should Transfer To Howard University
Contrary to the spirit of cooperation and solidarity, a group of black students at the University of Michigan believe they should receive some sort of special treatment because they are black. While the students may have legitimate concerns regarding campus culture, making outrageous demands is the least effective means of asking the administration to take their concerns seriously. In fact, given their unreasonable and unrealistic expectations it would be best if all of these protesting black students simply transferred to...
Audio: Rev. Robert A. Sirico on the Foundations of Liberty
Acton Institute President Rev. Robert A. Sirico made an appearance on The Price of Business with host Kevin Price on Business 1110 KTEK in Houston, Texas. The conversation focused on the importance of liberty and the vital need to understand the foundations of our freedoms. You can listen to the interview via the audio player below. ...
Handing Down Poverty, Mother To Daughter
The New York Times unwittingly highlights many of the points from the Acton Commentary, Maria Shriver’s Big, Big Government Rescue Plan For Women. In a piece entitled “Sarah’s Uncertain Path,” the Times takes a look at poverty in America, focusing on a pregnant 15 year old girl. Sarah’s family certainly has a rough go of it. And the Times would lead us to believe, just as the aforementioned Government Rescue Plan, that Sarah’s family and those like them are victims:...
Dietrich Bonhoeffer on the search for Christian freedom
While imprisoned by the Nazis at Tegel military prison, and shortly after learning of the last failed attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler, Dietrich Bonhoeffer penned a short poem for his friend, Eberhard Bethge, titled “Stations on the Road to Freedom.” e across the poem before, but in recently reading Eric Metaxas’ fine biography of the man, I was reminded of its power and potency in describing the essence of Christian freedom.It es all the pelling given its context, serving as...
Rural Cuba and the tragedy of the commons
Michael J. Totten has a new piece on his travels through Cuba, this one focused on rural Cuba. “Most of the Cuban landscape I saw is already deforested,” he writes. “It’s just not being used. It’s tree-free and fallow ex-farmland. I’ve never seen anything like it, though parts of the Soviet Union may have looked similar.” Economists refer to this sort of thing as “the tragedy of mons,” and nobody does it well as munists. Parts of the travelogue are...
A Big Government Rescue Plan For Women
We’re scolded for blaming the poor, judging their lifestyle choices, says Elise Hilton in this week’s Acton Commentary. But what good can we do if we refuse to look at systemic issues? We are told that we are guilty of blaming the poor, judging their lifestyle choices. But what good can we do if we refuse to look at systemic issues that indeed cause poverty: irresponsible sexual choices, dropping out of school, a revolving door of men in women’s and...
National Religious Freedom Day In The U.S. And The Vision of Jefferson
Perhaps it’s because we Americans are still getting over Christmas, or talking about the Super Bowl, but National Religious Freedom Day doesn’t get a lot of press. But indeed: January 16 is National Religious Freedom Day, adopted originally by the state of Virginia and now remembered annually by the White House. Penned by Thomas Jefferson, the Statute for Religious Freedom reads, in part: Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall pelled to frequent or support any religious...
The Netherlands Try To Cure ‘Dutch Disease’: Welfare State
wants to talk about disease and dysfunction. It’s not a medical condition, though; it’s an economic one. Far too few governments rein in their countries’ bloated welfare states before disaster strikes. As a result, some citizens eventually suffer the economic equivalent of a heart attack: wrenching declines in living standards as they are victimized by unsustainable programs’ endgame. Greece and the city of Detroit are only the most recent grim examples. The Dutch, Boskin says, seem to be making a...
Is There a Moral Basis for the Free Market?
The morality of the market, important as it is in a free society, says James Stoner, is not the only kind of morality that matters mon life: So is there a moral basis for the free market? Sure, but it is part of plex moral environment that rightly limits market freedom even as it supports it. The morality of the market, important as it is in a free society, should not be mistaken for the only kind of morality that...
The Ever-Persistent, Always-Destructive Myth of Overpopulation
The Nordic philosopher and priest Anders Chydenius (1729-1803) — the “Adam Smith of the North” — once asked: Would the Great Master, who adorns the valley with flowers and covers the cliff itself with grass and mosses, exhibit such a great mistake in man, his masterpiece, that man should not be able to enrich the globe with as many inhabitants as it can support? That would be a mean thought even in a Pagan, but blasphemy in a Christian, when...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved