The Chicago Tribune reports on a discussion between their staff and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace:

“He said his views were based on his personal “upbringing,” in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.”

I bring this up to illustrate the fundamental difference between “conservatives”, as General Pace may taken, and Libertarians.

This is a difference that is frequently obscured when the two groups are in agreement on given issues. Some good examples are brought to light by the recent ambivalance of religious conservatives toward former N.Y. Mayor Giuliani’s presidential candidacy.

While they are attracted to his “strong leadership” image and his support for the war against the people of Iraq, They are put off by libertarian remarks such as “I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,”

But why are there differences? Fundamentally, there is really only one difference, the basis of belief.

“He said his views were based on his personal “upbringing,” in which he was taught that certain types of conduct are immoral.”

Here we find the core of the conservative belief system; It’s never about independent thought, It’s never about critical inquiry. It’s about unquestioning acceptance of the prescriptions of authority.

For General Pace, homosexual behavior is “immoral” not because it violates a given individual’s rights, but simply because he was “taught ” it is immoral.

This is implicitly held up by the media, in this instance, the Tribune, as the appropriate basis for moral tenents.

Libertarianism, by contrast, however vaguely or implicitly accepted, by it’s very nature, is based on a reasoned understanding of human nature and a grasp of it’s social implications.

“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Says General Pace, but where is his basis for condemning the private, consentual acts of informed adults as “immoral”?

“I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”

Well, of course not. At least, the General understands the nature and implications of moral issues. But by failing to found them on a rational basis, that is, by failing to apply his own capacity for reason to the formulation of moral standards, he leads himself, as do all “conservatives” into untenable conundrums where someone’s rights must be violated.

“As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” said the General.

It is absurd to equate a particular type of mutually agreed upon behavior with a failure to keep an agreement (adultery). The former has no moral implications for the broader social context; the latter clearly does.

This is the nature of the problems that conservatism must constantly confront. Problems conservatism generates for itself.

Problems that Libertarianism preempts, and therefore need never face.

—The Bikemessenger