Bargaining with Libertarians

As much as it represents an area of strong interest for me, and as much as I believe that it will be the next round of cultural battle, I've been reluctant to jump into the latest fray between conservatives and libertarians. We haven't even had a post-election weekend, yet!

As you're likely aware, Stephen Bainbridge started the whole thing off with his "Those Annoying Libertarians" post and a related Tech Central Station piece. From the latter:

Most libertarians refuse to accept the proposition that law can and should be based on moral principles derived from natural law. Some of them know that the American people strongly disagree. Knowing that their agenda of radical individual autonomy therefore cannot prevail in democratic processes, they have turned to the courts.

Over the past few days, Glenn Reynolds has turned "annoying libertarians" into a new Instapundit meme here, here, and here. It was the promise of "advice to social conservatives" from Randy Barnett that finally led me to click through to a post on the Volokh Conspiracy, and it was there that I found a paragraph that begs response:

My own view on how to maintain the winning coalition is Grover Norquist's: the "leave-us-alone" strategy, which happens to fit our original Constitution (as amended). This entails leaving gay marriage (which I support) to the states, and the substance of public school curriculum (including moments of silence and pledges of allegiance) to locally-elected school boards. (My only exception would be for when the liberty of adults is at stake as in Lawrence v. Texas, but we have debated this before and I won't be drawn into another debate over this issue right now. I am just identifying this area of disagreement I have with some conservatives.)

Giving due consideration to the time constraints under which Mr. Barnett wrote his post, I still find myself chuckling at the implied tradeoff. We (social conservatives) relent in beginning the slow process of making same-sex marriage a national issue through constitutional amendment, even as momentum builds toward the same elevation through the quick process of litigation; they (libertarians) will look the other way if some schools here and there decide to continue reciting the Pledge and ask the students to spend a quiet moment saying something to Somebody. Central cultural issue; watered down nod to tradition.

Is that the sort of compromise that libertarians will require to maintain our winning coalition? I'm no expert in negotiation, but that wouldn't strike me as fair even were our numbers of adherents relatively even, let alone when the balance leans in the other direction. If we're talking tradeoffs and compromises, there's a pretty obvious issue on which libertarians could begin to soften their stance; it starts with an "A."

Since the libertarians are being sporting enough to advise social conservatives about ways to work together, let me add in my own constructive thoughts: stop presenting society's choice as between reasonable libertarianism and fascistic theocracy. As it happens, in the same post, Prof. Reynolds linked to Eric of Classical Values, who provides a perfect example. Having complained that Bainbridge isn't "entirely fair to small-l libertarians with common sense enough to believe that voting is preferable to using the courts," Eric writes:

I think that big government statism is bad, and that it is immoral to use government force to tell people how to live their personal lives absent harm to others. I consider this a moral view -- my moral "norm" if you will. At the heart of the recognition by the Second Amendment of the right to keep and bear arms is a very moral view that individuals have a right to defend themselves and their homes, and to overthrow a tyrannical government.

This is at once morality AND individual autonomy.

As I and many others have argued before, at the other end of the spectrum (for lack of a better word), there are people who believe that various collections of written words (which they attribute to God) should supersede individual autonomy, and should constitute the final word of human "morality." Their ultimate goal, theocracy, would, by eliminating the element of choice in personal morality, destroy morality in the name of saving it.

Between Eric and Barnett, even baffled social conservatives ought to be able to discern the outlines of libertarians' view of us. The debate is seen as between rational people who wish to ensure the greatest degree of individual freedom and religious nuts picking through "various collections of written words" (also referred to as scriptures, texts, or books) pondering how best to correct God's error of granting free will. If these are the sides, then perhaps it is reasonable to propose trading a state-by-state reformulation of the pivotal institution of marriage for the opportunity to take that first step to theocracy: forcing children to stand quietly for a few moments.