What the L?

Once upon a not-so-very-long-ago Conservatives distinguished themselves from big "L" Libertarians. We knew why, and we embraced the distinctions. Conservatives have traditionally seen Libertarians as misguided allies in the effort to defend western civilization and preserve our small "l" libertarian foundations. The primary distinction between these two libertarian branches of political philosophy can be attributed to a fairly significant difference in worldview.

The distinction between Libertarian and Conservative has long been clearly demarcated by differences on issues like supporting open borders, pornography, abortion, prostitution, gambling, and drug use. Conservatives have rejected these positions, and Libertarians have embraced them. While policy issues related to these areas may fluctuate to some degree within the different camps, the underlying philosophies do not, and the camps invariably return to their roots over time. How these two universes, primarily rooted in the same soil of individual liberty, arrive at odds on these issues is dictated by the basic axioms of their philosophies. It is an inevitable outcome of differences in worldview.

The basic schism between left and right worldview stems from an individual's understanding of the nature of man. Is man fundamentally good, or bad? If a person believes that man is fundamentally flawed, he will tend to be a conservative. If a person believes that man is fundamentally good, he will tend to be a liberal. Generally, the Libertarian will either disregard any assumption regarding human nature, or embrace that man is fundamentally good. This is a primordial American struggle, as captured in the discussions of America's founders in Federalist 51:

"...But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself..."

America's founders built our form of government on the premise that man is fundamentally flawed and unperfectable. The Conservative has historically viewed the Libertarian as a utopian that ignores the threats of societal decay and cultural deconstruction. The paradox of Conservative philosophy is its basic acceptance of the fact that individual liberty can only be preserved through order. The ability to reconcile these disparate thoughts is a uniquely Conservative trait. If someone recoils at that premise, there is a good chance they are not a Conservative. It is a basic tenet of conservatism that societal decay is a building block of statism, and a direct threat to individual liberty and self determination. This is axiomatic for the Conservative - based on millennia of observed human experience. Chaos is the ultimate ally of tyrants, grist for tyranny's mill.

For the Conservative, societal decay and cultural deconstruction are always on one side of the scale. Individual liberty is on the other. Because men are not angels, that balance is precarious and requires our constant vigilance and sobriety at every consideration.

I am alarmed at the nature of the "debate" over the current THC issue in Texas. This is an issue that demands less capriciousness and more thoughtfulness from every side. The discussion has devolved into lecturing and yelling at each other. It is pretty obvious that neither side is listening to the other, and that the tactics being employed will simply guarantee that will continue indefinitely. There is virtually no serious effort of persuasion underway on either side.

As a Conservative, I don't support drug legalization because I don't believe that the combination of the welfare state and a culture of dependency is compatible with limited government. I do support medical use, and don't see any rational argument for disallowing that. What I find strange is how legalizing THC drug use exploded into the hill so many people are ready to die on when it wasn't even a serious topic of discussion in Texas five seconds ago. And it would be great if I never heard another "conservative" brag about all the bucks it could bring into the state coffers.

Texas never intended to legalize hemp as a retail drug. A lot of people made a choice to exploit a loophole in the 2018 farm bill. It's ironic because the hemp lobby has shouted down everyone who opposed hemp legalization for years on the premise that hemp isn't a drug, and then immediately exploited a law that was clearly intended to not legalize THC drug use. These businesses knew what they were doing, and I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.

It's also clear that there are a ton of genuine health needs that can be served better by THC than other available options. Our elected officials have a duty to sort that out with serious consideration. There is a deep dysfunction in our medical and pharmaceutical establishments. Dealing with much more dangerous things than THC is daily routine for them, but they can't find a way to deliver an effective and easily produced drug in obvious demand. Fix that.

The regulatory difficulties with any level of THC legalization are real. The articulated burdens on law enforcement are real. The THC related increases in medical adverse reactions since 2019 are real. The lack of representation for people relying on THC for basic quality of life is real. The certainty that this isn't all going to be sorted out this instant is real. It's a real mess.

It's as strange as it is unfortunate that this issue was handled in such a way as to throw the whole discussion into instant bedlam. It still isn't clear how we went from having essentially no statewide discussion about this between the ill fated 2018 farm bill and today, to having a full blown nuclear melt down on the topic. It's bemusing, in a pathetic sort of way, to watch people suddenly pontificating on a topic they weren't dimly aware of, and certainly weren't clamoring about, until it blew up. Now it's a hill to die upon depending on whatever echo chamber they want to be popular in. Narrative. Branding. Clicks. What could go wrong with such a thoughtful approach?