The Conservative Middle: Between Libertarianism and Egalitarianism
The libertarian wants maximal freedom to do as one please — often more than justice allows. The egalitarian wants maximal equality, including of outcome — often more than justice demands.
The conservative position is neither libertarian nor egalitarian, recognizing that each position is misguided because of their failure to utilize the regulatory virtue of justice.
Conservatives recognize that political liberty is an inalienable right given our freedom of choice. Our right to political liberty — that is, to do as we please within society, within limits — flows from our having a free will. Curtailing political liberty too far thwarts human nature and cannot be legitimately done, as it prevents people from living genuinely good human lives.
As well, conservatives recognize equality is an inalienable right given that we are all human persons and have a moral obligation to pursue happiness. While no human person is equal concerning endowments, every human person is equal concerning essence: we are rational animals. Thus, while some human persons may be smarter and taller and better looking than others, no human persons is more a human person than others (including babes in the womb). From this basic fact entitlements follow.
The question then becomes: how do we balance the two? How much of each — liberty and equality — are we entitled to?
The answer resides in considering justice, the regulatory virtue. In the case of liberty, we should seek as much as justice allows; in the case of equality, we should seek as much as justice demands.
Concerning equality, each person is entitled to a sufficiency of economic means for living well. However — against egalitarianism — this is not to say everybody must have the same amount as everybody else. For everybody to have the same amount of everything would be contrary to justice (not to mention impossible), as some people should have more because of their role in society. Even still, justice demands nobody should be without what is necessary to live a good human life. At least concerning economic means, while inequalities of degree (some have more, other less) are permissible by justice, inequalities of kind (some have, some have not) are not. Everybody must be haves in a basic economic respect, even if some have more than others. Nobody should be a have not.
A similar consideration can be extended to everybody having the right to vote: everybody should be a have concerning political power, even if some have more political power (elected officials) than others.
Concerning liberty, people should have the ability to do as they please insofar as they do not infringe upon the basic rights of others. We are meant to reach our end (a good human life) through our freedom of choice. That is what our nature is. To make acting upon free decisions impossible is to thwart human nature: to make a good human life impossible. Thus, political liberty must be granted.
Of course, it is profoundly difficult to determine just how much political liberty can be granted to each individual before somebody else’s rights are violated. While certain cases are obvious (murdering) others are not (travelling when sick).