Regarding Conservatism
Alexander S. Peak

31 March 2006


I came across a Facebook group created by a friend of mine by the name of Tamas.  The group was named <i>Conservatism</i>, 
and had a description which reads, “For social and fiscal Conservatives who are fed up with the hypocrisy of Liberalism 
and PC ‘culture.’”

I can definitely go with the fiscal-conservatism, but I can’t really see how one can defend the free market, which is 
based on individual action and rational self-interest, without also supporting the freedom of the individual from 
government.  It almost seems hypocritical, but I don’t feel I want to go so far as to say that.  Surely, it’s 
inconsistent.  Free enterprise works because of individual sovereignty, and any attempt to collectivize the people under 
the government will ultimately have a negative adverse effect on the free market.  For example, the government controls 
what substances we can put into our bodies.  The effect is that these substances are harder or impossible to sell on the 
free market, and a black market ultimately forms, just as one forms when guns are banned.

I also think it may be worth noting that another term for fiscal conservatism is “market liberalism.”  This dates back in 
many ways to the days of classical liberalism; unfortunately the socialists stole and ruined the term.  Adam Smith, huge 
advocate of free trade, author of <i>An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations</i>, and coiner of the 
term “invisible hand,” would have been considered a liberal back in his day.  John Locke, who, in his <i>Second Treatise 
of Government</i>, argued in favour of Life, Liberty, and Estate (property), as well as the right of the people to 
overthrow the state (which in effect helped lead to our Revolution against the Crown), would also have been considered 
liberal back in that day.  Frédéric Bastiat, too, who advocated totally free markets, was considered a liberal, and even 
sat on the left-wing of the French Parliament.  So, in this classical sense, Republicans are actually more liberal than 
Democrats on economic issues; the Democrats would be more appropriately labeled socialist economically.

The differences and similarities between so-called “conservatism” and so-called “liberalism” are interesting to look at.  
This may seem especially true for a libertarian, or it may just be that I’m a political junkie, and ideologies form a nice 
little maze to get through.  You never know if you’re really looking at a mirror image of yourself, or a passage-way to 
somewhere else.  If we are to look at the roots of each of these two terms, we find one is steeped in the love of 
traditionalism, and the other longingly pursues Liberty.  For America, a strive for Liberty is seen as a tradition, and in 
this sense, we might just conclude that modern liberalism and modern conservatism are one in the same.  The problem 
therein is that neither modern “liberalism” nor modern “conservatism” really strive for Liberty.  They are the same only 
in the sense that both are statist, or in that both typically consider the ends as a justification of the means.  They 
both stand in many ways as a perversion of what they are meant to mean.

Back in 1960, Friedrich A. Hayek wrote an essay he titled <i>Why I Am Not a Conservative</i>.  This was written thirteen 
years before the formation of the Libertarian Party.  In this essay, Hayek breaks down what he saw to be conservatism, and 
explains why he was an old-school liberal.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.  For more information on this 
type of license, see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/