In the true TFAS spirit of inspiring civil discourse and dialogue, TFAS hosted a lively “Libertarianism vs. Conservatism” debate on Thursday, Jan. 17, to explore the vital questions and contentious issues that can turn these sometimes-political allies into philosophical foes.
“In recent years, TFAS launched a free speech initiative, hosting lectures and events with a particular focus on the importance of one of America’s first freedoms,” remarked debate moderator and TFAS Director of International and Continuing Education Programs Brenda Hafera, as she opened the evening’s debate.
“We recognize the fundamental role of deliberation in a free society, allowing us to refine our views and alter them when we find we are in error,” she said. “At the same time, we hold that, as Thomas Jefferson said, ‘not every difference of opinion is a difference of principle,’ and so we can extend to our fellow citizens the courtesy of engaging in a civil manner.”
We recognize the fundamental role of deliberation in a free society, allowing us to refine our views and alter them when we find we are in error.” – Brenda Hafera, TFAS Director of International and Continuing Education Programs
Representing the libertarian perspective was TFAS faculty member Dr. Nikolai Wenzel, economics professor at Fayetteville State University and co-author of the new book, “Selfish Libertarians and Socialist Conservatives?” Dr. David Azerrad, director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics and AWC Family Foundation Fellow Institute at The Heritage Foundation, defended the conservative viewpoint.
The two scholars faced off with compelling opening remarks, detailing the essential differences between the two perspectives.
More than 60 TFAS alumni, supporters and friends packed the house at TFAS Headquarters to hear the two spar. Following opening remarks, each debater had equal time to persuade the audience – and those watching online – that their viewpoint was superior.
Both gentlemen held their ground while answering tough questions on John Stuart Mill’s “Harm Principle,” government regulation in the free market and America’s immigration policy.
Wenzel’s libertarian viewpoint drew from Public Choice Theory and the Austrian School of Economics, while Azerrad’s viewpoint focused on the notion that republican self-government is rare, fragile and must be preserved for posterity.
Watch the full debate on Facebook live below:
