Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
What Libertarians Can Learn from Edmund Burke
What Libertarians Can Learn from Edmund Burke
Mar 18, 2025 11:52 AM

In his new book, The Great Debate, Yuval Levin explores the birth of America’s Left and Right by contrasting the views of Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke. I’ve written previously on his chapter on choice vs. obligation, and in a recent appearance on EconTalk, Levin joins economist Russell Roberts to discuss these tensions further, addressing the implications for libertarians and conservatives a bit more directly.

It should first be noted that Roberts and Levin offer a dream pairing when es to such discussions. Roberts, a self-professed libertarian and classical liberal, offers each guest a unique level of intellectual empathy, meeting even the most vigorous intellectual opponents at their best and brightest arguments (see his discussions with Jeffrey Sachs). Likewise, Levin, while a true-and-through conservative, is not prone to the variety of anti-libertarian caricatures that predominate the Right. If we hope to uncover the actual distinctions between the two, these men are up to the task, and the historical context makes it all the more meaty. Listen to the whole thing here.

About halfway through (36:39), Roberts asks Levin directly how a libertarian might discern between Burke and Paine, admitting sympathies for both sides. Levin answers with a lengthy response, noting, first, how libertarians typically take a more Burkean approach to centralized knowledge and power:

There is a strong and important strand of libertarianism that is very Burkean, because it emphasizes especially the limits of our knowledge and the kind of skepticism about the uses of power. And so ultimately believes that power needs to be restrained because there are permanent limits on what we can do…And it inclines many libertarians to market economics and to restraints on the role of government and the power of government. And in that sense aligns them with a lot of Conservatives who think more like Burke.

Yet as Levin continues, this skepticism often vanishes when es to individual knowledge and decision-making:

There is also an important strand of libertarianism that is very utopian about what freedom can make possible, and especially in social life–that is, by liberating people from moral constraints and traditional social and cultural constraints, we can make possible a degree of liberty that will enable a degree of human happiness that’s otherwise not possible. That’s also a very important part of libertarianism. And that is a very, very Painean way of thinking. The sense that, the problems we have are functions of restraints on us, and that those restraints ought to be lifted.

This pooh-poohing of all restraints and over-elevation of individualism, Levin argues, ultimately leads to statism, and it did so with Paine in regards to economic redistribution. “By insisting that society consists only of individuals and government,” he says, the Left and some libertarians “ultimately argue that anything that individuals can’t do, government should do.”

Burke, on the other hand, emphasized the space between:

Burke answered this by saying the life of a society happens between the individual and the state–in the family, in munity, in civil society as we would now describe it; and in the market. And so, the most important things about society are what we see in that space between the individual and the state. Paine made an argument that a lot of Progressives today make, which is that what happens in that space is actually illegitimate. That what happens in that space between the individual and the state are a lot undemocratic power center centers. Right? Who elected the Catholic Church to tell us what to do or around a hospital or whatever, around a school? All of these institutions don’t have any authority. They don’t have any legitimate authority. And they need to be cleared out. And not only that but they often provide shelter for certain attitudes and prejudices that don’t belong in a free society. And so Paine argued, described them, as a wilderness of turnpike gates, between the individual and his rights. And this is an argument that is still very important.

Roberts appreciates Burke in this regard, and believes it’s an area where his fellow libertarians, particularly libertarian economists, can learn and grow. Unbeknownst to many conservatives, many libertarians don’t actually prefer these narrow ends, despite the lopsided messaging:

My personal take on this is that libertarians especially, economists…spend too much time defending the market and not enough time defending civil society. And it encourages–part of it is just a matter of taste and expertise–but it encourages people to treat civil society or non-government solutions as therefore business-oriented. And that’s the worst extreme, as if a church, synagogue, mosque, charity, club–all those incredible institutions munities that we voluntarily choose that somehow we just forget about those, and we just think about profits as the thing that drives improvements. And that I think is the mistake that libertarians, or at least economists, make in defending smaller government. I think they miss–they don’t put enough emphasis on these munities.

Between the two, then, we cut through a variety of misconceptions, whether libertarian in origin (e.g. “conservatives love centralized power!”) or conservative (“libertarians hate the family and civil society!”), bringing us, yet again, where the true disagreement rests: views on choice vs. obligation.

As Roberts openly affirms, libertarians would do well to emphasize these other areas, and it’s a lesson that Burke aptly teaches. But as Levin duly reminds him quickly thereafter, Burke’s elevation of these arrangements demands a tempered view of choice. These other spheres of life — the family, business, the church, institutions — are not often “chosen” in the ways we like to imagine, and even when they are, they certainly won’t flourish if we approach them with a sort of blind Painean resistance to constraints.

In the end, I would hope that at least some political libertarians could agree that while we need a Burkean skepticism of knowledge and power, we need one that has a healthy skepticism not just of the State and other bastions of authority, but of our own individual sin. The resulting framework will surely involve more empowered individuals, but such empowerment needs to be driven by knowledge and wisdom that is embedded and developed munity and oriented toward transcendent ends and obligations.

In empowering the individual to be free to collaborate and associate, let us not make the mistake of Paine in casting off all constraints and dismantling all distinctions and relationships with the steamroller of narrow individualism.

We are not alone. Our contexts plex and varied, and not just in the marketplace. In freeing ourselves from government tyranny, let us realize that true es not just when we are free to choose, but also when we submit ourselves to the family, the church, and any number of obligations that are bound to stampede over our autonomy in profound and mysterious ways.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
The consuming self as tyrant
“Consumerism is, quite precisely, the consuming of life by the things consumed. It is living in a manner that is measured by having rather than being.” -Richard John Neuhaus In a free economy, we each serve distinct roles as both producers and consumers. As producers, we create and serve, leveraging the work of our hands to meet the needs of our neighbors. As consumers, however, we look to ourselves and our own needs. Consumption is good and necessary thing, but...
Upstream: A Conversation on Artist Renee Radell
On the Upstream segment of this week’s Radio Free Acton podcast, I discuss the visual art of Renee Radell with Gregory Wolfe. Radell’s work is the subject of Renee Radell: Web of Circumstance (Predmore Press, 2016, 220 pages, $80), a book presenting a career overview of her artistic efforts. In his review of Web of Circumstance for The University Bookman, Wolfe – founder and editor of Image magazine – determines the panying text by Eleanor Heartney superficial in contrast to...
A holistic view of Christian vocation
In a society where personal identity is conveyed by one’s job title, it is of little wonder that the nation’s youth are so anxious about career choice. But what if your identity is found in Christ? What if living vocationally has nothing to do with finding the “perfect” career? ...
The archbishop of Canterbury eyes a ‘broken’ economy
Defending the free market and advocating for ever-greater access to capital is of paramount importance during uneven economic patches. That is how Christians should ments from Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, who recently said that the economy is “broken.” The archbishop cited familiar economic data of unequal economic growth, youth hopelessness, and questions about wage stagnation. Many of these are part of a ing report from the IPPR’s Commission on Economic Justice, of which he is a member. But...
Erasing the cross: Public vs. private sector
The European discount grocery chain Lidl stirred controversy by removing the cross from its products’ labels, so as not to give offense. Eagle-eyed consumers noticed that Eirdanous, its Greek food line, featured a picture of a blue-domed Greek Orthodox Church by the sea – but unlike every other such church, its cupola was not topped by a cross. pany Photoshopped the symbol of Christ’s victory over death and Hell off of the Anastasi(in Greek, literally, “resurrection”) Church inSantorini. Perhaps to...
The monopoly markup
Note: This is post #48 in a weekly video series on basic microeconomics. Ever wonder why pharmaceuticals are so expensive? In this video by Marginal Revolution University, Alex Tabarrok shows how low elasticity of demand results in monopoly markups. This is especially the case with goods that involve the “you can’t take it with you” effect (for example, people with serious medical conditions are relatively insensitive to the price of life-saving drugs) and the “other people’s money” effect (if third...
Missiles, threats and sanctions: How should the United States respond to North Korea?
The North Korean people are not the same as the North Korean regime. Photo: “Pyongyang, North Korea” by (stephan) (CC BY-SA 2.0) Today the United Nations Security Council will meet and vote on a resolution to impose new restrictions on North Korea. This resolution is a direct response to recent North Korean missile activity and threats from Kim Jong Un. On July 4, North Korea tested an intercontinental ballistic missile and claimed it could hit any nation on Earth and...
7 Figures: Income and poverty in the U.S.
The U.S. Census Bureau released its latest report on e and poverty in the United States today. Here are seven figures from the report you should know about: 1. Real median household e increased 3.2 percent between 2015 and 2016—from $ 57,230 to $59,039. (This figure surpasses the previous high reached in 1999.) 2. Real median es in 2016 for family households ($75,062) and nonfamily households ($35,761) increased 2.7 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively, from their 2015 medians. (This is...
Explainer: What you should know about single-payer healthcare
Today, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is unveiling his legislation for a single-payer healthcare system. Here is what you should know about single-payer systems and Sanders’s proposal: What is single-payer healthcare? In a single-payer healthcare system, the government pays for all medically necessary service for of all citizens, regardless of e or ability to pay. Does the U.S. have a single-payer system? In the U.S. most citizens over the age of 65 and people under 65 who have specific disabilities qualify...
5 Facts about the 9/11 aftermath
Today marks the 16th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil. Here are five facts you should know about what happened in the aftermath of the events on September 11, 2001: 1. It took 99 days—until December 19, 2001—for thefires at Ground Zeroto be extinguished.Cleanup at Ground Zero wasn’t pleted until May 30, 2002. It took 3.1 million hours of labor to clean up 1.8 million tons of debris at a total cost of cleanup of $750...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved