Freedom, Virtue, and the State

In the September 11, 1962 issue of national review an essay of signal importan.ee was published under the title, “Freedom or Virtue?” Written with the grace and knowledge typical of all of Brent Bozell’s work, the essay mounted an attack on the “fusionist” efforts of Frank Meyer and Stanton Evans, in effect affirming that there can be no peaceful coexistence of the “libertarians” and the “traditionalists” among conservatives.

First, let’s take a moment to review Mr. Bozell’s line of argument. He agrees with Meyer, I gather, that man’s goal, his first duty, is to pursue virtue. He outlines the three “propositions” he finds implicit in the “libertarian” position: “A. Man cannot restrain his ‘appetites’ meaningfully—i.e., pursue virtue—without choosing to do so. B. His ability to choose meaningfully and thus to restrain his appetites depends, to a significant degree, on external ‘circumstances.’ C. The more these circumstances favor choice, the ‘better he can restrain his appetites and so achieve virtue; and conversely, as these circumstances become unfavorable, the opportunities for virtue diminish accordingly—and theoretically they can shrink . . . to the zero point.”

WR

About the Author

William F. Rickenbacker

Featured Tags

In the September 11, 1962 issue of national review an essay of signal importan.ee was published under the title, “Freedom or Virtue?” Written with the grace and knowledge typical of all of Brent Bozell’s work, the essay mounted an attack on the “fusionist” efforts of Frank Meyer and Stanton Evans, in effect affirming that there can be no peaceful coexistence of the “libertarians” and the “traditionalists” among conservatives.

First, let’s take a moment to review Mr. Bozell’s line of argument. He agrees with Meyer, I gather, that man’s goal, his first duty, is to pursue virtue. He outlines the three “propositions” he finds implicit in the “libertarian” position: “A. Man cannot restrain his ‘appetites’ meaningfully—i.e., pursue virtue—without choosing to do so. B. His ability to choose meaningfully and thus to restrain his appetites depends, to a significant degree, on external ‘circumstances.’ C. The more these circumstances favor choice, the ‘better he can restrain his appetites and so achieve virtue; and conversely, as these circumstances become unfavorable, the opportunities for virtue diminish accordingly—and theoretically they can shrink . . . to the zero point.”