In the March 2011 Imprimis, Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn observed that, “while on most campuses the debate is between Democrats and Republicans, here at Hillsdale, political arguments usually occur between libertarians and conservatives.”
In a speech on Oct. 24 sponsored by the Lyceum, Associate Professor of Philosophy Nathan Schlueter staked out his side of this debate. His view becomes plain when one learns the title of the speech—“What’s Wrong With Libertarianism?”
After briefly describing his initial exposure to libertarianism, Schlueter explained why he, as a conservative, chose nonetheless to engage honestly with the principles of libertarianism.
“I liked some things about libertarianism, others I didn’t like so much,” Schlueter said. “Libertarians accused conservatives of being irrational, obscurantist, and hostile to change.”
Still, he remained unsatisfied with conservative responses to libertarianism. Connecting with former Hillsdale professor – and unconventional libertarian – Nikolai Wenzel compelled both professors to examine each other’s views in an honest way.
Schlueter did just that in Wednesday’s speech, taking eight of what he identified as the most common premises of libertarianism and critiquing each one.
Along the way, he challenged: the idea that the Founders were libertarian; the denial of a common good; the Rothbardian conception of conscription and taxation being equivalent to slavery and taxation, respectively; the rejection of the possibility of government-imposed virtue; and many more.
Schlueter’s arguments culminated in what he called a “case study” of marriage in modern society. He claimed that same-sex unions are and always will be fundamentally different from heterosexual marriage.
“No same-sex couple can achieve conjugal union,” he said.
Without conjugality as any union’s basic principle, Schlueter said, the rational basis for denying legal recognition to any union of any kind or number disappears as well.
After the speech, several students affiliated with the Classical Liberal Organization held an informal roundtable at A.J’s Cafe to discuss what they had just heard. Their opinions ranged from semi-concurrence to severe disagreement.
Junior Annie-Laurie Setten said that society would be better off if government simply vacated its current role of recognizing any type of union—contrary to Schlueter’s advocacy for government-sanctioned heterosexual marriage. Sophomore Savannah Tibbetts took issue with Schlueter’s claim that civil rights legislation in the 1960s had a dispositive effect on the country’s racial attitudes.
“Correlation is not causation,” she said.
Schlueter and Wenzel are currently working on a book about the conservative-libertarian debate. Essays with their arguments can be found on the website Public Discourse.