Firstly, it is important to understand that conservatives are not anti-taxation. Obviously, government does have a function – and must be funded to carry out it’s function. Therefore, the rift in thinking on this issue consists of two basic underlying principals: Private Property Rights, and The Functions of Government.

Private Property Rights

I have discussed Private Property Rights at greater length in the second part of my series titled: Why Reject Socialism: Economic Freedom vs. Economic Equality. Rather than repeat myself here – I encourage you to read that section first, if you wish to get a fuller discussion. The conservative philosophy on Private Property Rights breaks down to these summarized points (note – this list isn’t meant to be a strict logical progression):

• Private Property is the result of a man’s labor
• A man’s labor is the result of a man’s rational mind, acting on free choices (in this case, to be productive)
• Thus – The Right to Private Property is really the unalienable right of an individual to the product of that individual’s own mind
• Therefore – the government, being the only institution with the power to take by force, must only be allowed the absolute minimum amount control of an individual’s mind.

That’s just a summary of the viewpoint – but hopefully, you can see how a conservative would view Private Property Rights, and Human Rights as totally inseparable.

The Functions of Government

Though people may differ in some aspect on the conservative view of private property – the functions, or role of government, is where the real disputes appear to be. One of the reasons that conservatives oppose higher taxation, is that the tax money goes from individuals to fund programs that should not lie within the function of government.

Most often – these programs are created out of a desire to ‘fix‘ what some view as a social or societal ill. When these programs are discussed – they are done so in a manner that implies a higher moral necessity, (such as – social justice) thus justifying the program’s existence. Government programs for social problems like: poverty, drugs, health-care, and the environment, are all justified by this moral imperative. However, by far the most common morally justified government crusade is said to combat ‘greed’.

Obviously, thousands of words have been written over this subject, but I think Thomas Sowell accurately relates the conservative’s concern (emphasis mine):

One of the last refuges of someone whose pet project or theory has been exposed as economic nonsense is to say: “Economics is all very well, but there are also non-economic values to consider.” Presumably, these are supposed to be higher and nobler concerns that soar above the level of crass materialism. Of course there are non-economic values. In fact, there are only non-economic values…. Economics does not say you should make the most money possible…. What lofty talk about “non-economic values” usually boils down to is that some people do not want their own particular values weighed against anything.

[...]

“Lofty talk about “non-economic values” too often amounts to very selfish attempts to impose one’s own values, without having to weigh them against other people’s values. Taxing away what other people have earned, in order to finance one’s own fantasy ventures, is often depicted as a humanitarian endeavor, while allowing others the same freedom and dignity as oneself, so they can make their own choices with their own earnings, is considered to be pandering to “greed.” Greed for power is more dangerous than greed for money and has shed far more blood in the process. Political authorities have often had “revolutionary values” that were devastating to the general population.”

-Thomas Sowell

For some reason, people seem to view private parties as the only entity capable of greed. Likewise, many people view the government as somehow above and exempt from any form of ‘greed’. Of course, this assumption is utter rubbish to anyone who has even the faintest grasp of governments throughout history. J. R. R. Tolkien hit the nail on the head in the opening of The Fellowship of The Ring:

“Nine rings were gifted to the race of men, who above all else desire power.”

Even in America, where our founders were wise enough to create a system of checks and balances, a constitution, and bill of rights designed to limit the power of government – the government still remains the single most powerful entity. Conservatives view, as Sowell correctly states, the greed for power, as far more dangerous than the greed for money and property.

T.S. Elliot said:

Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm– but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.

While private corporations can be greedy for money, they do not have the power of force to take money from your pocket, as the government does. Thus – the functions and role of government, from the conservative perspective, ought to be limited only to those things that are absolutely necessary to protecting the existence of a civil and free society.

Historian, Paul Johnson wrote:

“The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.”

At this point – most people will begin to argue that, since “money is power,” certain social programs actually help equalize the playing field and protect the individual. I will concede that this could be possible. However, these programs must be judged by their end results, and not by the nobility of their intentions. While I don’t have the time here to present the data –  in most cases, it can be shown that the end results are not worth the tax money invested.

Milton Friedman also talkes about this idea extensively in this video that I discussed previously:

Thus, for the most part, conservatives believe that increasing taxes does two things.

1. It takes away property – and thus the rights of the individual to the product of their mind.
2. It increases the power of the government through massive programs, which do not provide results justifying their existence.

In my view – this is really a bi-partison idea. I personally think that you and I, are far better judges of what to spend our money on, than the federal government. The problem with federal programs is that they cannot possibly account for the vast diversity of the people under them. (Take for instance, No Child Left Behind. How in the world can the federal government possibly account for the needs of each individual school – let alone each student?) The more localized and individual a solution can be, the better.

So when I hear about how a new government solution (requiring more taxes) is coming that will ‘fix’ things – I believe the response, “Thanks, but no thanks!” is justified by history, as well as a sober view of society and reality.

Consider this my Tea Party sign. I would hope that these ideas are discussed at the protests today.

“You see, the problem is, Conservatives do not believe that anything good can be accomplished when people come together to get something done.”

The host was basically trying to make the point that, with regard to protecting our environment, everyone must work together. Obviously, this statement is true. One person being careful to turn their lights out, and make sure their refrigerator door is shut, won’t really have much of an impact on the environment as a whole. If any real impact is to be made, then everyone must take part. This is essentially how collectivism is defined: a view which stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective (or group), rather than the importance of separate individuals. (-wiki)

The problem is simply that the statement the host made is a Strawman. I don’t know of anyone that actually believes nothing good can come from people working together. There are many good things that can be achieved when people work together towards a common good.

However, the crucial point the host missed is that Conservatives do not believe individuals should be forced into collectivism by coercion. (It is important to note here that in America, the government is the only authority which has the power to force you to act involuntarily.)

In other words, Conservatives reject collectivism because a person’s individual liberty is necessarily sacrificed by force of government, for the collective. Consider the opening of the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

America was founded upon the idea that Government does not create or establish Rights. Rather, Rights are intrinsic to each individual (granted by God) – and that Government is established only to protect (or provide security for) those individual Rights. Power lies primarily in the individual – not the government. Consider the Bill of Rights. Is the Bill of Rights a list of Rights that government gives to individuals? No. It is a list of Rights in which the Government cannot impede.

I’m sure you are thinking of one obvious objection:

But sometimes, isn’t Collectivism required to protect individual Rights?

Had the Air America host accurately represented Conservative’s objection to collectivism by coercion, his next objection may have been, “But in the case of Anthropogenic Global Warming, (a potential threat to everyone), wouldn’t individual rights be better protected in the long run by some form of forced collectivist action now?

Yes…potentially. However, as is usually the case with environmental threats, you would absolutely be sacrificing individual liberty, over something that is a potential threat and hotly debated (The environmental debate is a huge topic I will expand on in a post of it’s own). Anytime this happens – power is transferred from the individual, to the government. One doesn’t have to be a renowned historian to realize that governments do not give back power once they obtain it (thus, ‘checks and balances’).

It is important to point out here that there are many other ways to accomplish group oriented goals, such as environmental protection and conservation, without sacrificing personal liberty through government coercion. The government can, and probably should, encourage behavior that may benefit society – but this doesn’t require action by force.

But Isn’t Individualism Just Selfishness and Greed?

Milton Friedman has a great response to this objection:

The simple question is – what system is better than individuals making choices in their self-interest? The problem is that collectivist systems eliminate personal choice and freedom, in an attempt to create some form of greater virtue. Of course, how is something virtuous, if you are not free to choose it? Not to mention – who among men, has better wisdom to decide what is right for you, other than yourself? (This will be further discussed later in this series when we talk about Socialism, Oligarchy & democratic mob-rule.)

Also – the above misconception has more to do with people not putting individualism in the proper context. The argument for individualism is not one saying that you should disregard others needs and only watch out for yourself. Nobody is arguing that people shouldn’t care about one another. However, conservatives are nearly always claimed to hold this view: “You just don’t care about other people.” This is a misunderstanding.

Again – the conservative argument for individualism revolves around government’s relationship to individuals in society – not your personal relationship with other people. Interdependence between individuals is a very healthy thing for society – but it is only healthy when it is entered freely by personal choice. You are not a free person if the government gets to decide for you, how you should interact with other individuals (beyond the protection of each person’s rights).

So how does all this tie in with Socialism?

Socialism is Government Coerced Collectivism

Socialism is defined as:

Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources

-wikitionary

A couple things should be clarified from this definition: when you read “Support social and economic equality,” this refers to equality of results – Not equality, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence (‘…All men are created equal…’) of each individual. Equality of the individual means that each person has completely equal status, rights, and freedoms, simply by being a person.

Socialism aims to make people socially and economically equal. It can only achieve this goal by using government power to deprive the Rights of some, in order to “help” others.

Continue to Part 2 – Why Reject Socialism? (part 2): Private Property, and Economic Freedom vs. Economic Equality

For example, most conservatives would agree with the intention of most social programs, such as the minimum wage, or social security. However, the question that a conservative might ask would be, a) does the particular social program achieve its stated goals, and b) does it do this by trampling upon another individual’s liberty?

Milton Friedman discusses many of these misconceptions (still totally relevant today) about capitalism, greed, social security, minimum wage, the free market, etc in the video below: