TGIF: What Is Capitalism?

So, what is capitalism? The answer will depend on who's being asked. Language, like markets, basic law, and customs, is a spontaneous order. No one plans it. Words drift in their meaning in ways that probably can’t be fully explained. Language is a tool that people use to think and communicate, so it’s adapted according to needs, changing circumstances, and even confusion.

That doesn’t mean we can say nothing about words like capitalism. My views on that word have changed over the years; I once contributed to a book called Markets, Not Capitalism. The book was meant to show that the free market differs from capitalism. Is it right? Again, that depends on how one defines capitalism. As far as I can tell, most people who dislike capitalism also dislike the idea of a market-based society. Some prominent pro-market thinkers, Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek among them, disliked the word for a variety of reasons. 

At any rate, the word is not going away. Since no one controls the language, we should put communication before personal preferences. Let's define our terms clearly and then talk about reality.

Despite variation in the definition of capitalism, most people would agree that market orientation is at its heart. They evaluate the market differently, but it is the market that they are evaluating. So we have some common ground, even as we disagree over whether capitalism is a good or bad social arrangement or whether it conceptually includes or excludes a given practice.

I, along with many others, consider capitalism to be the social arrangement in which people are free to engage in the production and exchange of goods and services, typically for money. Left unmolested, that is what people do. Those activities generate prices, which reflect supply and demand and guide further action. To live is to act, which is to aim at ends by deploying means, which is to value. The root of this never-ending process is the wish to sustain life and to live in a particular way. (See the work of Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and Ayn Rand for details.)

The institution of interpersonal exchange logically has presuppositions. It stands on a foundation. It presupposes that persons own themselves and the things they nonaggressively obtain; it also presupposes the security of contracts. These things can be violated in practice, but they are departures from the logic of the system. Historical capitalism developed over a thousand years as persons, their property (including their bodies), their contracts, and their enterprises came to be more and more respected—that is, as political power decentralized and, consequently, diminished, thanks in part to jurisdictional competition, that is, the power to vote with one's feet. (People disliked paying taxes for war and having their trade and investments disrupted.) Growing religious toleration played an important role in this process of individual liberation and spreading cooperation.

Where property and contracts became more secure, per capita wealth dramatically increased, setting an example for others. As Adam Smith put it, “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”

This is not to say that injustice and aggression disappeared abruptly and completely. Of course, it did not. Who could have expected that? It would take time. Another way of saying this is that capitalism—to be clear, that means laissez-faire or free-market capitalism—was not fully achieved anywhere. It still hasn't been. But it would be wrong to attribute the great wealth generated by capitalism to injustice such as slavery and conquest. Advanced civilizations of the past conquered, plundered, and enslaved, but they did not produce astonishing, sustained, and widespread wealth. Capitalism and classical liberalism in Western Europe and America did something different, something special.

Societies can be judged by how close they came to achieving capitalism. We can distinguish particular practices and institutions as either capitalist or anticapitalist. It follows that crony capitalism, state capitalism, and political capitalism, etc., are not capitalist variations but moves away from capitalism (that is, from self-ownership, property rights, contract, and free exchange). Those labels are contradictions in terms because they entail limits on peaceful, productive market interaction. The predatory, which supposedly acts in the name of the collective, in effect makes itself the senior part-owner of what was or should have been private property. The system is no longer a fully market system, even if people who own capital ask for the intervention. Thus free-market capitalism is a redundancy.

For example, a political arrangement in which slavery and slave markets exist does not qualify as capitalism. Why not? Because in that basic respect, the arrangement does not fully embody self-ownership, property rights (which flow from self-ownership), and free exchange. Southern slave holders claimed that "their" slaves were property, but that was a category error because persons can be property owners, not property. Good Lockeans, the abolitionists called the slave holders "man stealers." 

Similarly, a political system in which politicians and bureaucrats may interfere with people’s property and free exchange through taxation, regulation, trade barriers, subsidies, government ownership, etc., should not be called capitalist. It would be a mixture of capitalism and interventionism or socialism.

We can sum up by saying that only laissez-faire capitalism—the consistent separation of state and economy—qualifies as real capitalism. Anything less than laissez faire is less than capitalism. The government cannot regulate an economy, which is an abstraction. What it can do is restrict real individuals in their peaceful, productive market interactions. Restriction requires the use or threat of aggressive force and violence. In contrast, a capitalist society is a humane society.

Call it what you will, the system that respects our freedom to engage in mutually beneficial market relations—and its prerequisites—is worth defending against its Classic Marxist and Marxist Lite detractors, who have to distort categories like “exploitation” to make their spurious case. Capitalism, despite not being fully embraced, ushered in an era of unprecedented personal freedom and sustained, widespread wealth. Capitalism is anti-exploitationism.

(I have not reinvented the wheel. Thus related reading: “The European Miracle” by Ralph Raico, “Reconsidering Gabriel Kolko: A Half-Century Perspective” by Robert L. Bradley Jr. and Roger Donway, "Capitalism, Socialism, and 'The Middle Way': A Taxonomy" by Bradley and Donway, "Beyond 'The Money-Making Personality': Notes toward a Theory of Capitalist Orthopraxy" by Roger Donway (Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 21:1 July 2021) and The Libertarian Mind by David Boaz (especially chapter 2: "The Roots of Libertarianism.")

TGIF: "Liberalism and Capitalism"

Ludwig von Mises's 1927 path-breaking work in political theory speaks to the current generations. In section 5 of his introduction to Liberalism: The Classical Tradition, Mises sounds impeccably relevant in describing how the opponents of liberalism and the market economy twist facts that are plainly before our eyes. You'll see how he refuted the absurd claim that capitalism serves only a tiny privileged and exploitative group. The work of most thinkers passes away soon after they do. Not so with Ludwig von Mises.

He began the section by acknowledging what should be obvious. Governments have always interfered with individual freedom, free enterprise, and free markets—in a word, capitalism—in substantial ways. Laissez faire has never been allowed. That does not prove it is impossible, only that people either did not understand the system or did not want its success demonstrated. Mises wrote:

A society in which liberal principles are put into effect is usually called a capitalist society, and the condition of that society, capitalism. Since the economic policy of liberalism has everywhere been only more or less closely approximated in practice, conditions as they are in the world today provide us with but an imperfect idea of the meaning and possible accomplishments of capitalism in full flower. Nevertheless, one is altogether justified in calling our age the age of capitalism, because all that has created the wealth of our time can be traced back to capitalist institutions. It is thanks to those liberal ideas that still remain alive in our society, to what yet survives in it of the capitalist system, that the great mass of our contemporaries can enjoy a standard of living far above that which just a few generations ago was possible only to the rich and especially privileged.

This could have been written yesterday. The fabulous wealth that Americans and the inhabitants of other semi-capitalist countries enjoy would have been unfathomable just a short time ago. Previous generations would laugh at how we use the word poor today. That's what even partial freedom has accomplished. Those lagging behind have been compelled to live without the market economy, to their misfortune. We would all be richer with complete freedom.

To be sure, in the customary rhetoric of the demagogues these facts are represented quite differently. To listen to them, one would think that all progress in the techniques of production redounds to the exclusive benefit of a favored few, while the masses sink ever more deeply into misery. However, it requires only a moment’s reflection to realize that the fruits of all technological and industrial innovations make for an improvement in the satisfaction of the wants of the great masses. All big industries that produce consumers’ goods work directly for their benefit; all industries that produce machines and half-finished products work for them indirectly. The great industrial developments of the last decades, like those of the eighteenth century that are designated by the not altogether happily chosen phrase, “the Industrial Revolution,” have resulted, above all, in a better satisfaction of the needs of the masses. The development of the clothing industry, the mechanization of shoe production, and improvements in the processing and distribution of foodstuffs have, by their very nature, benefited the widest public. It is thanks to these industries that the masses today are far better clothed and fed than ever before. However, mass production provides not only for food, shelter, and clothing, but also for other requirements of the multitude. The press serves the masses quite as much as the motion picture industry, and even the theater and similar strongholds of the arts are daily becoming more and more places of mass entertainment.

As economist Bryan Caplan says, mass consumption requires mass production, and nowhere in history has mass production benefited only a small segment of society. Mises continued:

Nevertheless, as a result of the zealous propaganda of the antiliberal parties, which twists the facts the other way round, people today have come to associate the ideas of liberalism and capitalism with the image of a world plunged into ever increasing misery and poverty. To be sure, no amount of depreciatory propaganda could ever succeed, as the demagogues had hoped, in giving the words “liberal” and “liberalism” a completely pejorative connotation. In the last analysis, it is not possible to brush aside the fact that, in spite of all the efforts of antiliberal propaganda, there is something in these expressions that suggests what every normal person feels when he hears the word “freedom.” Antiliberal propaganda, therefore, avoids mentioning the word “liberalism” too often and prefers the infamies that it attributes to the liberal system to be associated with the term “capitalism.” That word brings to mind a flint-hearted capitalist, who thinks of nothing but his own enrichment, even if that is possible only through the exploitation of his fellow men.

Here, things in some ways have changed for the worse. The illiberals of the so-called left and right tribes have indeed made the word liberal a pejorative. It's become almost as pejorative as capitalism. But as Mises pointed out, one simple and undeniable fact about the market economy is overlooked:

It hardly occurs to anyone, when he forms his notion of a capitalist, that a social order organized on genuinely liberal principles is so constituted as to leave the entrepreneurs and the capitalists only one way to wealth, viz., by better providing their fellow men with what they themselves think they need. Instead of speaking of capitalism in connection with the prodigious improvement in the standard of living of the masses, antiliberal propaganda mentions capitalism only in referring to those phenomena whose emergence was made possible solely because of the restraints that were imposed upon liberalism. No reference is made to the fact that capitalism has placed a delectable luxury as well as a food, in the form of sugar, at the disposal of the great masses. Capitalism is mentioned in connection with sugar only when the price of sugar in a country is raised above the world market price by a cartel. As if such a development were even conceivable in a social order in which liberal principles were put into effect! In a country with a liberal regime, in which there are no tariffs, cartels capable of driving the price of a commodity above the world market price would be quite unthinkable.

In other words, the illiberal pins on the market economy the failings that come from the government's subversion of the market economy.

The links in the chain of reasoning by which antiliberal demagogy succeeds in laying upon liberalism and capitalism the blame for all the excesses and evil consequences of antiliberal policies are as follows: One starts from the assumption that liberal principles aim at promoting the interests of the capitalists and entrepreneurs at the expense of the interests of the rest of the population and that liberalism is a policy that favors the rich over the poor. Then one observes that many entrepreneurs and capitalists, under certain conditions, advocate protective tariffs, and still others—the armaments manufacturers—support a policy of “national preparedness”; and, out of hand, one jumps to the conclusion that these must be “capitalistic” policies.

Note his reference to the military-industrial complex as anti-capitalist. In the Trump-tariff age, Mises's next segment is particularly apt.

In fact, however, the case is quite otherwise. Liberalism is not a policy in the interest of any particular group, but a policy in the interest of all mankind. It is, therefore, incorrect to assert that the entrepreneurs and capitalists have any special interest in supporting liberalism. Their interest in championing the liberal program is exactly the same as that of everyone else. There may be individual cases in which some entrepreneurs or capitalists cloak their special interests in the program of liberalism; but opposed to these are always the special interests of other entrepreneurs or capitalists. The matter is not quite so simple as those who everywhere scent “interests” and “interested parties” imagine. That a nation imposes a tariff on iron, for example, cannot “simply” be explained by the fact that this benefits the iron magnates. There are also persons with opposing interests in the country, even among the entrepreneurs; and, in any case, the beneficiaries of the tariff on iron are a steadily diminishing minority. Nor can bribery be the explanation, for the people bribed can likewise be only a minority; and, besides, why does only one group, the protectionists, do the bribing, and not their opponents, the freetraders?

Mises here rebuts the notion that business is a monolithic class that calls all the shots. In fact, diverse interests vie for favors from the state. One industry's subsidy is many other industries' expense. Beware simple models. They will lead you astray. Mises went on:

The fact is that the ideology that makes the protective tariff possible is created neither by the “interested parties” nor by those bribed by them, but by the ideologists, who give the world the ideas that direct the course of all human affairs. In our age, in which antiliberal ideas prevail, virtually everyone thinks accordingly, just as, a hundred years ago, most people thought in terms of the then prevailing liberal ideology. If many entrepreneurs today advocate protective tariffs, this is nothing more than the form that antiliberalism takes in their case. It has nothing to do with liberalism.

Ideas, not interests, rule the world? We need to pay more attention to this guy.

TGIF: The Aim of Classical Liberalism

These are dark days for liberalism. I mean full, across-the-board, laissez-faire free-market, classical liberalism, otherwise known as libertarianism. While some budget-cutting and bureaucracy slimming will probably go through, those steps, though necessary to advance toward liberalism, are not sufficient.

What's conspicuously missing from the regime's activities is a ringing and unmistakable endorsement of full individual liberty, which requires a free-market economy. The imagined dichotomy between economic liberty and personal liberty is a snare and a delusion. What's more personal than how one makes and spends his money? Ominously, we've heard no such endorsement of liberty from the regime.

The cuts in government now being touted might increase liberty, even if unintended; then again, it might not. It depends on how the regime deploys the power and personnel left in place. All signs point to a regime run by a man who sees the theoretically private sector as merely an extension of his domain. A truly liberal program would combine the dramatic shrinking of government with comprehensive deregulation and other market-freeing measures so that private firms could provide the legitimate services that the government ostensibly provides now. For example, eliminating Medicaid would be paired with a radical freeing of the medical market, which would expand services and lower prices. (Admittedly, much deregulation, such as abolishing licensing, would have to occur at the state level.)

Dark days for liberalism are nothing new. That's been the norm for many decades. The economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), one of the greatest liberal champions, lived through them. Throughout his long life he never stopped fighting for freedom and free enterprise, no matter how bleak the outlook. I look to him for encouragement.

Mises was born in what is now Ukraine, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He was educated at the University of Vienna, where he discovered the Austrian school of economics (a line of thought having nothing to do with Austria per se). He left Europe for America in 1940, a wanted man by the Nazis. It seems that being a liberal economist, a prominent anti-socialist, and a descendant of a Jewish family was hazardous to one's health in those days.

In 1927, after living through the catastrophe known as the Great War (later World War I), Mises published his political manifesto, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition. He had already published his pathbreaking book The Theory of Money and Credit (1912), which not only integrated money into general economic analysis but also showed that government creation of credit and fiat currency caused the boom-and-bust cycle. Next came Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (1922), which showed once and for all that socialism could never create or sustain a modern large-scale society in which everyone could prosper because private property in the means of production, which socialism forbade, was indispensable for market-price formation and thus economic calculation, without which no one (including bureaucrats) could make rational economizing plans in a world of scarcity. Had Mises retired at that point, our debt to him would have been limitless. Thankfully, he kept working despite the odds. His magnum opus, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, was published in 1949.

In his introduction to Liberalism, section 4, Mises set out how he saw "the aim of liberalism." Let's look at what he wrote.

There is a widespread opinion that liberalism is distinguished from other political movements by the fact that it places the interests of a part of society—the propertied classes, the capitalists, the entrepreneurs—above the interests of the other classes. This assertion is completely mistaken. Liberalism has always had in view the good of the whole, not that of any special group. It was this that the English utilitarians meant to express—although, it is true, not very aptly—in their famous formula, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” Historically, liberalism was the first political movement that aimed at promoting the welfare of all, not that of special groups. Liberalism is distinguished from socialism, which likewise professes to strive for the good of all, not by the goal at which it aims, but by the means that it chooses to attain that goal.

Mises here was identifying a central part of what Adam Smith called the "system of natural liberty." It favored no particular group. Rather, it held out the promise of freedom and hence opportunity for all. (Obviously, it was inconsistently implemented, most horribly through slavery, though slavery had been practiced by virtually all people in virtually all places from time immemorial.) It is liberalism that ushered in the first mass production of all kinds of goods, that is, production for the entire population and not just for the aristocracy. That was revolutionary. The world was never the same afterward.

As for socialism striving for the same goal as liberalism. That was true, at least in theory, until the mid-20th century, when the New Left arose, jettisoned the goal of mass affluence, and substituted the "age of limits," that is, environmentalism.

Mises had in mind, not any good-faith critics, but "those critics of liberalism who reproach it for wanting to promote, not the general welfare, but only the special interests of certain classes." He thought they were "unfair and ignorant" because by "choosing this mode of attack, they show that they are inwardly well aware of the weakness of their own case. They snatch at poisoned weapons because they cannot otherwise hope for success."

For example, those critics accuse liberals of callousness because they oppose government interference with production. Mises showed that criticism to be baseless.

If a doctor shows a patient who craves food detrimental to his health the perversity of his desire, no one will be so foolish as to say: “The doctor does not care for the good of the patient; whoever wishes the patient well must not grudge him the enjoyment of relishing such delicious food.” Everyone will understand that the doctor advises the patient to forgo the pleasure that the enjoyment of the harmful food affords solely in order to avoid injuring his health.

Who would disagree?

But as soon as the matter concerns social policy, one is prone to consider it quite differently. When the liberal advises against certain popular measures because he expects harmful consequences from them, he is censured as an enemy of the people, and praise is heaped on the demagogues who, without consideration of the harm that will follow, recommend what seems to be expedient for the moment.

Continuing his medical metaphor:

Reasonable action is distinguished from unreasonable action by the fact that it involves provisional sacrifices. The latter are only apparent sacrifices, since they are outweighed by the favorable consequences that later ensue. The person who avoids tasty but unwholesome food makes merely a provisional, a seeming sacrifice. The outcome—the nonoccurrence of injury to his health—shows that he has not lost, but gained. To act in this way, however, requires insight into the consequences of one’s action. The demagogue takes advantage of this fact. He opposes the liberal, who calls for provisional and merely apparent sacrifices, and denounces him as a hard-hearted enemy of the people, meanwhile setting himself up as a friend of humanity. In supporting the measures he advocates, he knows well how to touch the hearts of his hearers and to move them to tears with allusions to want and misery.

Mises is right in describing the demagogue, who makes promises to the economically illiterate votes—prescribing measures that will bring general misery later. With the government's debt at over 100 percent of GDP and looming budget deficits of $2 trillion or more for the future, who would argue with him?

Antiliberal policy is a policy of capital consumption. It recommends that the present be more abundantly provided for at the expense of the future. It is in exactly the same case as the patient of whom we have spoken. In both instances a relatively grievous disadvantage in the future stands in opposition to a relatively abundant momentary gratification. To talk, in such a case, as if the question were one of hard-heartedness versus philanthropy is downright dishonest and untruthful. It is not only the common run of politicians and the press of the antiliberal parties that are open to such a reproach. Almost all the writers of the school of Sozialpolitik [interventionist social policy] have made use of this underhanded mode of combat.

The interventionists and socialists heap this abuse on liberals as a way to distract the public from the fact that the statists seek power over people's freedom in the market and society at large. The statists want to give orders for the people's own good. Really?

That there is want and misery in the world is not, as the average newspaper reader, in his dullness, is only too prone to believe, an argument against liberalism. It is precisely want and misery that liberalism seeks to abolish, and it considers the means that it proposes the only suitable ones for the achievement of this end. Let whoever thinks that he knows a better, or even a different, means to this end adduce the proof. The assertion that the liberals do not strive for the good of all members of society, but only for that of special groups, is in no way a substitute for this proof.

We must add that it is liberalization and globalization—liberty—that have nearly eradicated extreme poverty in the world. You can look it up. Mises would not be surprised. But remember, he was writing in the 1920s.

The fact that there is want and misery would not constitute an argument against liberalism even if the world today followed a liberal policy. It would always be an open question whether still more want and misery might not prevail if other policies had been followed. In view of all the ways in which the functioning of the institution of private property is curbed and hindered in every quarter today by antiliberal policies, it is manifestly quite absurd to seek to infer anything against the correctness of liberal principles from the fact that economic conditions are not, at present, all that one could wish. In order to appreciate what liberalism and capitalism have accomplished, one should compare conditions as they are at present with those of the Middle Ages or of the first centuries of the modern era. What liberalism and capitalism could have accomplished had they been allowed free rein can be inferred only from theoretical considerations.

In 2025, in light of the dramatic fall in poverty and the improvement in the other markers of well-being, we can readily see, if we look, what Mises was writing about: social cooperation founded on individual freedom, private property, the division of labor, voluntary exchange, and human creativity would empower people to live the kind of lives they want to live—unless they want to live as predators, which most people don't.

Pseudo-Liberalism

"The detractors of liberty are in this sense right in calling it a 'bourgeois' issue and in blaming the rights guaranteeing liberty for being negative. In the realm of state and government, liberty means restraint imposed upon the exercise of the police power.

"There would be no need to dwell upon this obvious fact if the champions of the abolition of liberty had not purposely brought about a semantic confusion. They realized that it was hopeless for them to fight openly and sincerely for restraint and servitude. The notions liberty and freedom had such prestige that no propaganda could shake their popularity. Since time immemorial in the realm of Western civilization liberty has been considered as the most precious good. What gave to the West its eminence was precisely its concern about liberty, a social ideal foreign to the oriental peoples. The social philosophy of the Occident is essentially a philosophy of freedom. The main content of the history of Europe and the communities founded by European emigrants and their descendants in other parts of the world was the struggle for liberty. 'Rugged' individualism is the signature of our civilization. No open attack upon the freedom of the individual had any prospect of success.

"Thus the advocates of totalitarianism chose other tactics. They reversed the meaning of words. They call true or genuine liberty the condition of the individuals under a system in which they have no right other than to obey orders. In the United States, they call themselves true liberals because they strive after such a social order."

—Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

What Full Liberalism Is Not About

"Liberalism is a doctrine directed entirely towards the conduct of men in this world. In the last analysis, it has nothing else in view than the advancement of their outward, material welfare and does not concern itself directly with their inner, spiritual and metaphysical needs. It does not promise men happiness and contentment, but only the most abundant possible satisfaction of all those desires that can be satisfied by the things of the outer world."

"Liberalism has often been reproached for this purely external and materialistic attitude toward what is earthly and transitory. The life of man, it is said, does not consist in eating and drinking. There are higher and more important needs than food and drink, shelter and clothing. Even the greatest earthly riches cannot give man happiness; they leave his inner self, his soul, unsatisfied and empty. The most serious error of liberalism has been that it has had nothing to offer man’s deeper and nobler aspirations.

"But the critics who speak in this vein show only that they have a very imperfect and materialistic conception of these higher and nobler needs. Social policy, with the means that are at its disposal, can make men rich or poor, but it can never succeed in making them happy or in satisfying their inmost yearnings. Here all external expedients fail. All that social policy can do is to remove the outer causes of pain and suffering; it can further a system that feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, and houses the homeless. Happiness and contentment do not depend on food, clothing, and shelter, but, above all, on what a man cherishes within himself. It is not from a disdain of spiritual goods that liberalism concerns itself exclusively with man’s material well-being, but from a conviction that what is highest and deepest in man cannot be touched by any outward regulation. It seeks to produce only outer well-being because it knows that inner, spiritual riches cannot come to man from without, but only from within his own heart."

—Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition

 

TGIF: Full versus Shrunken Liberalism

Language, like the old common law and other customs, is a decentralized, undesigned, spontaneous institution. It serves humanity well. Nothing is perfect, of course, but no alternative—if one were conceivable—could hold a candle to it.

One of the downsides is that people may change how they use handy expressions; more wordy phrases may be needed to replace a "corrupted" one. Here's one: classical liberal. Liberal, of course, originally related to individual liberty and its conditions and consequences: private property, constraints on government power, and free markets. It still means something like this outside of America. (A few pioneering liberals, such as Gustave de Molinari, thought the free market could produce security better than the state could.)

Then "progressives" hijacked the word liberal in America and England. Perhaps they didn't want to be associated with socialism. Now it meant advocating the welfare state and government intervention in the market for the sake of so-called "social justice." Private property was pushed to the back burner. The commitment to free speech and other civil liberties continued, but "modern liberalism" had little else in common with original liberalism even in the matter of war and peace.

Because of this change, the qualifier classical became necessary to distinguish original liberals from the welfare/warfare-state, or mixed-economy, advocates. Later, classical liberals started using libertarian to ensure no one was confused. That word has the same root as liberty, and even though socialists of various stripes had used it, the word has nothing to do intrinsically with socialism, that is, the abolition of private property in the means of production. Since socialism must extinguish liberty, the word libertarian is supremely inappropriate for that philosophy.

Like free people and free markets, language never stands still. Lately, classical liberalism has come to mean not advocacy of individual liberty across the board; rather, it signifies a "modern liberal" (an opponent of laissez faire) who continues to believe in free speech. Today we have the spectacle of nonclassical classical liberals. Go figure.

Why did this happen? It seems this came about because in this century, many welfare-state liberals, Democrats for the most part, gave up on free speech. Their former heroes, such as Supreme Court Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, stopped being heroes. Just recently Barack Obama, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and Democratic VP candidate Tim Walz have unambiguously opposed free speech and First Amendment protection on the internet and social media. Kerry summed up his side's case well: because all sorts of views and information are easy to come by these days, "it's really hard to govern today." Poor politicians. Meanwhile, Clinton, who favors repealing Section 230—which exempts social media companies from liability for what users post—says that if those companies do not monitor content as the government wishes, "We lose total control." Control of what? Us, you and me. Obama says government oversight is required, and Walz compared freedom of expression to shouting fire in a crowded theater. First Amendment? What's that? Pathetic, all of them.

These alleged liberals were delighted to see the government lay its heavy hand on social media to suppress information they did not like about COVID-19, Hunter Biden's laptop, and other matters. In some quarters, opposition to free speech combined with a rising interest in an anti-Western value system ("woke-ness") and cultural Marxism left over from the 1960s. Criticism of the Enlightenment grew more common.

Fortunately, this was too much for some "modern liberals." So those who remained committed to reason and free speech picked up the label classical liberal to distinguish themselves from their former colleagues.

The new classical liberals, of course, are not original classical liberals. They are modern welfare-state interventionist liberals, not advocates of individual liberty across the board, including the free market. I've heard some of these thinkers, whom I admire and have learned from, insist that they are still on the "left" and so are not "economic liberals." (I would not put original liberalism on the left-right spectrum, which is incoherent.)

Hence, I suggest we distinguish full liberalism from shrunken liberalism.

Shrunken liberalism espouses free speech, free press, abortion rights, and other civil liberties —but that is pretty much it. What's missing? Any direct reference to so-called economic liberty!

As I've explained before, I don't like the term economic liberty because full, original liberalism refused to carve the individual into personal and economic spheres. The a person is an integrated whole. Each pursues a variety of chosen ends, some involving money and some not, and adapts means best suited to his objectives. Economics is necessary for analyzing those pursuits and the social implications, but the ends are neither economic nor non-economic. They simply are personal ends. The marketplace for goods and services is a marketplace of ideas. The price system, which communicates information to us all, should be protected by the First Amendment.

That is why full liberals proudly did and do champion full-spectrum freedom: civil liberties, the free market, and peace, with its complementary opposition to imperialism and what Jefferson called "entangling alliances." It's as important today as it was in the time of Richard Cobden, John Bright, Lord Acton, Herbert Spencer, William Graham Sumner, and Ludwig von Mises.

It was Sumner who answered the charge of isolationism leveled against the opponents of the empire-building during the Spanish-American War (a charge made today against noninterventionists) with this:

When the others are all over ears in trouble, who would not be isolated in freedom from care? When the others are crushed under the burden of militarism, who would not be isolated in peace and industry? When the others are all struggling under debt and taxes, who would not be isolated in the enjoyment of his own earnings for the benefit of his own family? When the rest are all in a quiver of anxiety, lest at a day's notice they may be involved in a social cataclysm, who would not be isolated out of reach of the disaster? What we are doing is that we are abandoning this blessed isolation to run after a share in the trouble.

in his book 1927 book, Liberalism, laissez-faire advocate and intellectual destroyer of socialism Mises declared:

The liberal critique of the argument in favor of war is fundamentally different from that of the humanitarians [who sought a bloodless "moral equivalent of war"]. It starts from the premise that not war, but peace, is the father of all things. What alone enables mankind to advance and distinguishes man from the animals is social cooperation. It is labor alone that is productive: it creates wealth and therewith lays the outward foundations for the inward flowering of man. War only destroys; it cannot create. War, carnage, destruction, and devastation we have in common with the predatory beasts of the jungle; constructive labor is our distinctively human characteristic. The liberal abhors war, not, like the humanitarian, in spite of the fact that it has beneficial consequences, but because it has only harmful ones.

The list of full-liberal positions is not random. As Mises pointed out, war is antithetical to individual freedom, private property, the division of labor, and global free exchange, Altogether this constitutes social cooperation.

So we must point this out to the well-meaning shrunken liberals. Bravo on your continued commitment to free speech, other civil liberties, and reason! But don't stop there. Without full liberalism, we aren't fully free.

TGIF: Hurrah for Real Globalization!

Globalization, like the free market and classical liberalism generally, isn't wildly popular these days, is it? People blame globalization for all sorts of bad things, and the raps are usually bum. In truth, to the extent that governments keep out so-called foreign people, goods, and money, they make nearly everyone poorer. Even the few immediate beneficiaries pay a price in the long run.

So who speaks up for real globalization? I have to add the adjective real because counterfeit globalization has been circulating for a while. That's politically managed commerce where governments, most prominently the U.S. government, manage cross-border private trade and migration. When that happens, we -- especially the poorest people in the world -- not only miss out on the full wealth-creating benefits of worldwide freedom, but we also suffer all kinds of consequences that follow from bumbling politicians and bureaucrats making decisions for the rest. Let's have no more of that, if you please.

One of the top voices favoring real globalization is Deirdre N. McCloskey, the Cato Institute Distinguished Scholar and specialist in classical liberal history. McCloskey has been writing big and important books on how it was the growing acceptance of bourgeois virtues and culture over hundreds of years that lifted the world materially. McCloskey calls it the "Great Enrichment." Most people don't appreciate how rich we are in the West and how rich the world's absolute poorest could be in fairly short order. Freeing individuals and the market is the key

A new essay by McCloskey, "Globalization Creates a Global Neighborhood, Benefiting All," is featured in a 12-part Cato series called "Globalization: Then and Now." It's an apt title for what McCloskey sets out to do.

It begins:

The word “globalization” delights some and terrifies others. But it’s merely the gradual emergence [in] our world of a single economy.

It’s a natural and beneficial result of humans doing what humans have done since the beginning, making their families better off by working hard, inventing new stuff, keeping alert, looking around, making little deals, etc. The result of all this human liberty of choice has been globalization. At various scales of time, it’s been happening from the caves to the modern world, or from 1350 to 1800, or from 1776 to 2024.

That's right. The international movement of people and wealth is not new, although it was never embraced wholeheartedly and uninterruptedly. Governments and other barriers, such as self-defeating cultural biases against foreigners and markets, got and still get in the way. But when those barriers are lowered or, better, are removed and governments loosen their grips, a single unified market emerges, with its tendencies toward one price through arbitrage (buy low, sell high), increased specialization and division of labor, higher productivity, more and cheaper known goods, and more innovation -- that is, new things. Hence, people are enriched across the board, no matter where they began.

Prosperity has even spread to communist China and India, thanks to economic liberalization. (Political liberalization, on the other hand, was not embraced by China's rulers, and the future of economic liberalization is by no means certain.) The same wealth-enhancing process would spread to other poor areas if rulers and bad values were repudiated by the people longing for better lives. It's already happening, and McCloskey has the data. (The West can help by not insisting that the poor countries pretend that fossil fuels are destroying the planet -- they aren't. The poorest people need them badly, as do we all.)

"It’s all about liberty," McCloskey writes.

In light of all this, why is "Buy American" so popular? It's because people never learned to think economically or overcome self-defeating biases. That goes for politicians too. Spending more than necessary to buy so-called American-made goods (Really? No foreign parts whatsoever?) leaves buyers less money with which to buy other things (also hurting the makers of those things) and leaving foreign producers less money with which to buy American goods that can compete without government help. Don't worry about the "balance of trade," which Adam Smith knew was "absurd" in 1776. (Have you checked your trade deficit with your Amazon lately? Probably not.)

And if the nation should "protect" itself from other nations' exports, shouldn't each U.S. state protect itself from the other states' exports? How about each city and town? Or each neighborhood? Heck, let's go all the way down to household self-sufficiency. That would create maximum employment. It would also create maximum poverty. Specialization and the division of labor saves and enhances lives, and as Adam Smith noted, "The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market."

This is not to say that no one loses in the short run from the market's dynamism. But should the automobile and personal-computer industries, which have benefited everyone a million ways beyond description, have been throttled to protect (in the short run) the relative few in the buggy and typewriter industries? Such thinking would have sentenced us to cave-dwelling. It's absurd to think change can be stopped anyway. People won't permit it. What we should do is safeguard all freedom so the few immediate losers can adjust speedily, smoothly, and comfortably. The richer the society, the easier that is.

As McCloskey points out, U.S. manufacturing employment, which has fallen since 1945, is not the same thing as manufacturing output, which has diminished less than employment as world production has grown. American workers have gotten more productive, so fewer are needed to make a given array of products than previously. But that frees up those workers to make things or, importantly, to provide services we couldn't afford yesterday. Human wants are infinite. It's labor that is finite. We'll always need stuff, and we're waiting to see what new things innovators will offer us to make life better.

For all these reasons, McCloskey tells Americans, "Quit being fearful about globalization.... Globalization is part of liberty."

TGIF: Don't Blame Wokeism on the Unfinished Liberal Revolution

The National Conservatives are not only wrong about genuine liberalism -- that is, libertarianism -- they also apparently haven't bothered to read up on what they think they're attacking. Take Yoram Hazony, author of Conservatism: A Rediscovery, who recently appeared on the YouTube show Triggernometry. As Hazony makes clear, for him it's straw men all the way down.

Throughout the interview he uses the word liberalism for the philosophy he blames for saddling the West with wokeism. That's unfortunate because people use that term in many ways. What definition does he have in mind? I think we can infer that he means something like libertarianism (and not, say, Nancy Pelosi's "liberalism") since he faults the philosophy for its powerful commitment to free markets. Although he's not thoroughly opposed to free enterprise, he favors a government strong enough to step in when the "national interest" (ascertained by whom?) requires it. National conservatism without a commitment to government power to override the free market would be like a square circle.

Like other right-wing critics of libertarianism, Hazony believes that Western societies are in the woke soup because Enlightenment liberalism is intrinsically prostrate before its leftist adversaries. Why would that be? In his eyes, it's because liberalism's only message is this: do your own thing. He told Frances Foster and Konstantin Kisin:

If you [liberals, presumably] raise children and you tell them, "Look, do whatever you want. Do whatever feels good. Use your own reason, exercise your own thinking, and come to your own conclusions, and you don't give them anything else, a great many people, maybe the majority, end up stuck and unable to make the decisions among, you know, what exactly is it I'm supposed to do and what is it I'm supposed to believe.

I have no idea why Hazony thinks that liberalism teaches people to do whatever feels good, or that, as he says elsewhere, that freedom is "all they need." One of the first things liberal parents would teach their children is to respect other people's rights: specifically, don't hit other kids and don't take their stuff without asking.

By the way, "do whatever feels good" is hardly the same as "use your own reason, exercise your own thinking, and come to your own conclusions." How does Hazony not see that?

Further, using your own reason does not mean: don't read history, don't learn from others' experiences, don't absorb the moral and political lessons of those who came before. Liberalism is not about the individual's starting from scratch and reinventing the wheel. Rather, it means that you shouldn't blindly accept what others tell you. Use your head. We have much to learn from other people and other ages. So what's Hazony's real beef with liberalism?

As this makes clear, he clearly doesn't know what liberalism is, but he's certain he knows what it has wrought:

Liberalism is what brought woke neo-Marxism. Every single institution that the woke neo-Marxists are running now was a liberal institution 15 years ago. So if liberalism had the antibodies, if it was enough to say let's just be free, if that was strong enough to be able to defeat woke neo-Marxism we wouldn't be where we are today....

Liberalism brought Marxism.

Have you noticed how everything the woke left favors these days -- to be sure, genuinely abhorrent stuff -- is reflexively condemned by the right as "neo-Marxist" -- even when the idea in question has nothing to do with the material forces of history and economic classes? You'd think Marxism was the only evil in the world. Actually, It's not.

Sometimes, when Hazony thinks he's scored points on liberalism, he sounds a bit like a liberal, such as when he reminds us that each individual is born into a culture, which ought not to be automatically rejected. The reason he doesn't realize that liberals can agree with this is that he thinks -- wrongly -- that liberals are Jacobins, who aspire to wipe the social slate clean and start over. Some liberals have occasionally sounded like they're saying something like that, but to suggest that Jacobinism or utopianism is intrinsic to liberalism is to do a disservice to an honorable and valuable -- yes -- heritage.

While Hazony concedes that it might be okay to reject some inherited traditions, he seems uncomfortable with that prospect. As he puts it, your forebears "hand[ed] down things [and] you have a responsibility to fight for those things." Why? Because they were handed down?

I prefer Thomas Sowell's take: another culture may well have features that are better than one's own -- superior at dealing with an aspect of life.

The entire history of the human race, the rise of man from the caves, has been marked by transfers of cultural advances from one group to another and from one civilization to another....

Cultures exist to serve the vital practical requirements of human life -- to structure a society so as to perpetuate the species, to pass on the hard-earned knowledge and experience of generations past and centuries past to the young and inexperienced, in order to spare the next generation the costly and dangerous process of learning everything all over again from scratch through trial and error -- including fatal errors.

Cultures exist so that people can know how to get food and put a roof over their head, how to cure the sick, how to cope with the death of loved ones, and how to get along with the living. Cultures are not bumper stickers. They are living, changing ways of doing all the things that have to be done in life. [Emphasis added.]

Every culture discards over time the things which no longer do the job or which don’t do the job as well as things borrowed from other cultures. Each individual does this, consciously or not, on a day-to-day basis. [Watch the video; read the text.]

Problems with change occur not when people are free to adopt "the stranger's ways" (the supposedly scary phrase is from Fiddler on the Roof); they occur when those who favor change have access to state power -- especially when government controls or strongly influences education, the media, and other commanding heights. Then some people, however well-meaning, can potentially impose their preferences on the rest.

Without access to power, people are free to adopt changes for themselves and try to persuade others, but then they would have to wait to see if the new ways catch on. Change, under those circumstances, tends to happen at the margin, although exceptions can't be ruled out. (Social contagion is possible.) But even then, free people would have peaceful consensual ways to protect themselves and their children from unwanted change. This is where freedom of association kicks in.

In general it seems reasonable for individuals to provisionally defer to tried-and-true ways because they have apparently passed the cultural natural selection test. Yet one also ought to remain open to demonstrations of better alternatives. Liberalism delivers the best of both: stability without stagnation and dynamism without chaos. But individual rights must be respected.

As a national conservative, Hazony of course favors nationalism. If all he means is that a world of many nation-states is preferable to a global empire, then libertarians stand with him. If we can't get rid of power, at least let's disperse it among small competitive jurisdictions. But he means much more than that since he and his fellow National Conservatives favor trade restrictions and other forms of welfare-state industrial policy. And I presume he would oppose secession, at least from nation-states he approves of. (He is an Israeli.)

Hazony commits a major blunder when he says that liberalism is inherently imperialist and that nationalism is inherently anti-imperialist. How does he figure that? Since liberals believe they have identified universal principles, he says, it is committed to imposing those principles on everyone. If you fail to see his logic, I imagine you're not alone.

Contrary to Hazony, liberalism doesn't says it has the one true way for everyone to live. Rather, it says all people ought to be free to decide how to live. Liberalism, which seeks to limit state power, doesn't entail imperialism because that would expand state aggression both domestically and abroad. Thus "liberal imperialism" is a contradiction in terms. Nationalist imperialism, however, is not.

While I wouldn't expect Hazony to be persuaded by what I'm about to say, I will point out that the alarming and long-standing decline of liberalism can be plausibly explained by its initial incompleteness politically, economically, legally, and even morally. Twentieth-century liberal writers, scholarly and popular, pointed this out repeatedly and tried to do something about it. That's why they wrote so much. These included Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Leonard Read, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, and most fundamentally, Ayn Rand, who argued persuasively (to me at least) that as long as a secular or religious ethics of self-sacrifice predominated in a culture, the political-economic-legal system rooted in individualism and private property would never be whole-heartedly embraced because it would be tainted by the alleged sin of "selfishness."

Even the doctrine of limited government kept liberalism from fully blossoming because, as we've learned so often the hard way, limited governments don't stay limited. (See my article "Anthony de Jasay on Limiting Power.")

Thus liberalism didn't yield because it was inherently weak. It yielded because it was fatally compromised from the start. That's my answer to Hazony's question of why wokeism has succeeded. We don't need illiberal national conservatism to win back our freedom.

TGIF: Compete Liberalism

Many people formerly of the left, who have bid good riddance to their former political home, believe they can retain the mantle of authentic liberalism while ignoring its free-market component. They don't want socialism, and they appropriately dislike the right-wing. But they also can't abide the libertarian commitment to free markets either. So they declare themselves centrists void of ideology.

The problem with this approach is that the commitment to market freedom lies at the heart of authentic, classical liberalism, or libertarianism. Liberalism and pro-market enthusiasm go hand in hand.

The misstep I have in mind may stem from the fallacy that personal liberty is distinguishable from economic liberty. Note how many people who call themselves civil libertarians would reject the unqualified label libertarian. This fallacy in turn may be a legacy of the mind-body dichotomy, which holds that human beings are a union of material and nonmaterial "substances."

People under the sway of this view should understand that dividing human beings into mind (or spirit or conscience) and body, with the former more exalted than the latter, is a discredited idea. (Gilbert Ryle goes to great lengths to show this in his 1949 book, The Concept of Mind.) People are conscious, self-conscious material beings who need to act and interact in a variety of ways in order to flourish. As Thomas Szasz put it, mind is a verb, not a noun. Thus, no matter what philosophers, judges, and legislators may say, no grounds exist for safeguarding so-called personal liberty (expression and religion, among others) more vigilantly than so-called economic liberty (buying and selling). There is only individual liberty. Or: whether money is involved or not, all liberty is personal liberty.

To see this point, one need only ask what could be more personal than how one chooses to earn a living. Freedom of conscience is sacred, but it is inseparable from the freedom to pursue one's projects in the material marketplace. Products are embodied ideas. Prices, someone once said, are arguments aimed at persuasion. Would one be able to operate in the marketplace without freedom of expression? I don't think so. Yet look at how the bifurcation of human beings leads to limits on and violations of speech stigmatized as commercial speech. These go beyond mere prohibitions on fraudulent claims. Please explain that, civil libertarian free-speech "absolutists."

Governments don't regulate markets; they regulate people. So much for the misguided notion that liberty comes in two flavors, with the "spiritual" being more exalted than the "material."

One reason for the rejection of free markets by freedom-minded people is ignorance of the economic way of thinking, which is acquired not innate. This ignorance is manifested in many ways, but here's a prominent one: the belief that society must choose between government-regulated markets or unregulated markets. What's wrong with this set of choices? Two things are wrong. It posits a false option -- scary unregulated markets -- and omits a real option -- self-regulating markets. (More on the latter in a moment.)

The phrase unregulated market in fact is a contradiction in terms. It is as inappropriate as the term society would be when applied to a collection of people that displays no order whatsoever. Societies have a general regularity of some kind. That's what the word means. Likewise, markets by nature are regulated.

But by whom or what? It's tempting to say they are self-regulating, but that would be only a convenient shorthand. What regulates free markets are free people acting as entrepreneurs, producers, investors, borrowers, lenders, and consumers. Market forces, which in one sense are impersonal, turn out to be people who are at liberty to, say, buy, and sell as they see fit. Hence, the necessity for individual freedom, including the freedom to acquire and use private property, which Marx said would be abolished when socialism's time came. (Can you imagine?)

It is the freedom to own things, trade, and compete, and the freedom to turn down what's on offer, that regulates (or restricts) participants in the market. It's what keeps sellers from charging $100 for an apple or employers from paying workers $1 an hour in dangerous environments. It's what prompts producers, guided by the price system, to step up when supply falls short of demand, and buyers to tighten up temporarily when demand exceeds supply -- with the result that consumers, who are the point of it all, remember, are better served despite life's ups and downs. But to be effective, market forces must not be tampered with by politicians and bureaucrats, however honorable their intentions may be, because the interventions will invariably harm its ostensible beneficiaries. (We see this unerringly with the minimum wage and price controls.)

It matters whether the government or "the market" does the regulating. Politicians and bureaucrats necessarily have limited knowledge and -- let's be frank -- perverse incentives, including career ambitions and the temptations of power. Their primary tool is the threat of physical force against the disobedient.

In contrast, market forces operate peacefully through the actions of countless participants, each with intimate knowledge of his or her own circumstances as well as bits of the socially scattered information about resource supplies, know-how, and the like. Force and fraud are forbidden and redressable. Bureaucratic regulation will tend to be irrelevant at best and inimical at worst to what people care about. Moreover, it will tend to foster business concentration by increasing the burdens on smaller firms.

We end up with a big impersonal bureaucracy and big business (bigger, that is, than what is good for consumers and employees). Indeed, it does matter who or what does the regulating.

Objections that the free market leaves some people behind or that it subjects society to abusive monopoly, long-term unemployment, and inflation miss the mark. Before markets and profit-seeking became widespread and respectable, the consumption gap between the rich and everyone else was enormous. It was the spread of markets (admittedly far from fully free) that introduced unheard-of mass production, which has steadily and radically closed the consumption gap and cut absolute poverty worldwide. A visitor from the not-so-distant past would be astounded at the living standard of people we today regard as poor. The many in the developing world who still lag behind desperately need a liberal individualist pro-property legal framework, freedom, and free markets, which would provide badly needed cheap and reliable energy powered by fossil fuels. (The snobbery of Western elites in this matter is atrocious.)

Further, I suspect that many semi-liberals are motivated not by moral and economic objections, but by aesthetic objections to the marketplace. They find competition, profit, and the pursuit of self-interest unattractive. Too bad: there is actually something beautiful about an institution that adjusts peacefully to people's wants, rewarding producers for serving people's needs. Adam Smith described the process in The Wealth of Nations, and later economists, especially those of the Austrian school, elaborated the description. As they have pointed out, competition is not antithetical to cooperation but is concomitant. Competition is what emerges when we are free to decide who we wish to cooperate with. In other words, one cannot be pro-choice in all areas of life without being pro-competition. That doesn't mean the market is everything in a free society, but it is something rather important.

Finally, we should say something about pollution, the emission of dangerous substances into the air and water. Authentic liberalism understood it as a trespass and therefore a violation of individual rights. The "polluter pays" principle is a liberal principle that pays tribute to private property. However, liberalism is ever-mindful of the abuse and corrupting influence of power. A government bureau that is tasked with enforcing property rights against bonafide polluters may easily inflate its mission in ways that impose great costs with little or no benefits. Bureaucrats may define a nonpollutant, say, carbon dioxide (which is plant food) as a pollutant and in the process harm the world's most vulnerable people by restricting or forbidding emissions. The challenge for any state and nonstate form of governance is to stick to real rights violations and to let technological and organizational innovators find the solutions in cases of real danger. That requires increases in wealth, not drags on its growth.

It is also important to realize that, as in so many other matters, the market contains internal systems to generate ways of handling pollution. Entrepreneurs can earn profits by doing just that. Pollution represents a waste of scarce resources: one firm's trash is another firm's cash. As Pierre Desrochers's has shown (here and here, for example), the history of market-oriented societies is filled with such cases.

TGIF: Disagreement without Conflict

Chandran Kukathas

I'll admit it: I'm a natural-rights guy. I think you can get to individual rights, including the right to property, from within the ancient Greek eudaimonist (virtue ethics) and Spinozist tradition.

But here's a separate point: rights-talk may not be the best way to bring unconvinced people over to the libertarian view of the good society. Heresy? I hope not.

This video interview with Chandran Kukathas, author of The Libertarian Archipelago, got me thinking about this subject. Kukathas (whom I've written about here and here) starts with what ought to be obvious to everyone: people disagree about all kinds of things. As he writes in his book:

In a world of moral and cultural diversity one of the subjects over which there is dispute, and even conflict, is the subject of justice. Different peoples, or groups, or communities, have different views or conceptions of justice. In these circumstances the question is: how can people live together freely when there is this sort of moral diversity?"

Even when they agree on ends, they often disagree about the means to those ends. Disagreement is here, has always been here, and ain't going anywhere.

So what, you ask? What does that have to do with winning adherents to the libertarian view of the good society? It has a lot to do with it. Much modern libertarian thinking has been shaped by theorists who at least implied that the way to a free society is to get widespread if not universal agreement about rights and hence justice -- in other words, assent to a libertarian law code deduced from the nonaggression principle. (Some even think the agreement must extend to other philosophical matters like metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics.) As a libertarian I came up  (long ago) in that tradition. But now I wonder about its strategic, but not its truth, value.

If disagreement is and will be ubiquitous, how in hell can we hope for widespread agreement on a detailed code of law or rights theory? We can't hope for that, and we should stop acting as though we can because it looks to be a time-waster. It's been tried, so we must learn there are no magic words to do the trick.

Does that leave us in despair? Have we no hope for liberty? Maybe not. Chandran Kukathas gives us reason to hope.

Since broad disagreement is not going away, the most we can work for is an environment characterized as disagreement without conflict. I'm not a utopian. Conflict isn't going anywhere either, but it can be minimized through liberal institutions based on freedom of association within the current national territories, the "live and let live" principle, which would not require territory-wide agreement to a detailed doctrine. In other words, if we can't get universal agreement to a code of justice, how about to the principle of "mutual toleration"?

In this age of extreme and acrimonious polarization, doesn't that sound like a strategic approach worth pursuing? If no monopoly state is available, Group A won't have to live in fear that Group B will seize it and impose its preferences, and thus Group A won't have to seize the state apparatus first in self-defense.

Some may object to putting rights-talk on the shelf in favor of something less "pure." They may insist that in America, home of the Declaration of Independence with its stirring lines about inalienable rights that predate government, rights talk resonates as it does nowhere else.

That was my first thought. But then I remembered how the list of things that Americans are said to have a right to has grown exponentially over the decades. No one has been able to find the right incantation to stop, much less, reverse that growth. Believe me, many people have tried. And once you give flight to even legitimate rights-talk, you have no control over where it goes and what form it takes. Once "counterfeit rights" gain currency, we enter the realm of rights-balancing. And guess who's in charge of that.

So, Kukathas writes in The Liberal Archipelago, "The primary question of politics is not about justice or rights but about power, who may have it, and what may be done with it. Views about rights or about justice may have a significant bearing on any answer to this question, but this remains the important question."

As a consequence, Kukathas continues, "The principles of a free society describe not a hierarchy of superior and subordinate authorities but an archipelago of competing and overlapping jurisdictions." (Emphasis added. That is an extremely important adjective because it indicates that the authorities do not have monopolies even within "their" territories, suggesting a polycentric approach to law and governance.)

Kukathas clearly does not buy James Madison's famous line in Federalist 51: "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Thus those who value liberty must cultivate a distrust of power of all kinds. Kukathas says in the interview that the government is always a they that "co-opts us on a regular basis," and never a we. "In a free society ... only the freedom to associate is fundamental." The freedom of exit of course is the corollary.

As you might expect, Kukathas challenges the conventional view of what even constitutes the good society. He is "skeptical" about the need for "social unity," suggesting it

is not nearly as important as has been intimated. On the contrary, the good society is not something confined by the boundaries needed to make it one. Political authority is necessary in any good society; but political authority should be understood as something which has a place in the good society, rather than as something which circumscribes it.

In opposition to the body-politic metaphor, Kukathas offers a metaphor "of society as an archipelago of different communities operating in a sea of mutual toleration.... [T]he liberal archipelago is a society of societies which is neither the creation nor the object of control of any single authority, though it is a form of order in which authorities function under laws which are themselves beyond the reach of any singular power."

Importantly, he adds, "Implicit in this is a rejection of nationalism, and of the idea that we should start with the assumption that the nation-state is the 'society' which is properly the object of concern when we ask what is a free society."

Summing up in the interview, Kukathas says,

Having asked how can a diversity of peoples live together freely given their differences, [my theory] asserts that the answer lies in the way authority is allocated. More particularly, it argues that in a free society -- which is to say, a liberal society -- there will be a multiplicity of authorities, each independent of the others, and sustained by the acquiescence of its subjects. A liberal society is marked by respect for the independence of other authorities, and a reluctance to intervene in their affairs.

That reluctance would be reinforced by the fact that people who might like to control other people's peaceful conduct would have to pay out of pocket for the pleasure. They would not be able to socialize the cost by imposing it on a large number of otherwise indifferent taxpayers. The more something costs, the less people tend to buy. Call it libertarianism by default.

That seems like a vision that could win wide assent.

TGIF -- The Goal Is Freedom -- appears on Fridays.

Free Speech -- What Is it Good for? Absolutely Nothing?

It is worth emphasizing that Enlightenment liberals have placed at the very top of their list of desiderata an institution explicitly intended to detect and correct their errors: namely, the free marketplace of ideas. By opposing free speech, the enemies of liberalism reveal that they can't even imagine ever needing correction, and they act accordingly, preferring smears to rebuttals.

TGIF: National or Enlightenment Liberal Identity?

I find much to admire about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Dutch-American scholar, author, and one-time politician who has drawn international attention to the violence against women and girls not only in Muslim-majority countries but also in the West at the hands of Muslim immigrants. Hirsi Ali escaped from a marriage arrangement and then became a pariah among Muslims, including her own family, and even the target of a murder conspiracy because of her public statements and writings, her break with Islam, and her collaboration with director Theo van Gough on the film Submission. As a result of the film, Van Gough was murdered in 2004.

Hirsi Ali is obviously intelligent, courageous, and nuanced. But of course that doesn't mean she doesn't get some important things wrong.

For example, while Hirsi Ali disagrees with how the U.S. government responded to what she regards as the "civilizational conflict" between the Islamic world and the West, she believes that the United States must engage in that conflict so as to "emerge out of it triumphantly."

In my view, she interprets a geopolitical conflict, which is the result of a century of Western imperialism, as a civilizational conflict. Yes, Muslim fanatics (often with the help of not-terribly-devout recruits, incidentally) have committed atrocities against innocent people, including other Muslims, and we should say so without hesitation or euphemism. But that doesn't mean we should overlook the crimes committed against innocent people in the Middle East by the U.S. government and its allies, including Israel. One thing that follows from this fact is that U.S. military intervention in Muslim-majority countries, which invariably kills innocents, is likely to drive people to more not less extreme forms of Islam. Hirsi Ali urges Muslims to undertake a reformation, but military force is a poor way to bring this about.

For the record, as a member of the Dutch parliament, Hirsi Ali voted to support the U.S.-led coalition in the war in Iraq, which she now apparently thinks was a mistake. She also says, "I think you just can't drone bad ideas out of people's heads," although she doesn't exclude drones as a means of persuasion. I urge readers to watch her Freedomfest discussion with Scott Horton and Abigail Hall Blanco of the "war on terror" in which Hirsi Ali's views on the nature of the conflict with Islam and the ability of the United States to engage morally and competently in a "war on terror" are subjected to a withering critique.

Let's move on to a related matter. In an interview on the Triggernometry program and podcast, Hirsi Ali wondered why immigrants raised in an Islamic culture, which she regards as inherently violent, would want to assimilate in a Western country that does not proudly embrace its own unique national identity. She makes a fair point when she says that the West has faltered not by acknowledging past sins such as slavery and imperialism, but by pretending that their past contains nothing but sins. The history of the West has much to admire thanks to enlightenment liberalism. Claiming otherwise seems little more than a fashionable and even nihilistic pose. Aggressive historical ignorance is never flattering.

But Hirsi Ali undercuts her point when she seems to claim that the people of Western countries ought to wear their unique national identities on their sleeves. Considering her embrace of enlightenment liberalism and its signature values -- reason, toleration, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, private property, freedom of enterprise, privacy, etc. -- I would have thought that she'd be calling on the Western countries to stress their transcendent liberalism, not their unique local differences. I don't for a moment suggest that the unique features are unimportant, but only that for the purposes of acculturating immigrants from illiberal countries, they aren't the most important features.

National identity strikes me as identity politics writ large, grand blood-and-soil tribalism. But she doesn't see it that way. And while I favor decentralization, secession, and people's efforts to free themselves from distant and unaccountable rulers (such as Brexit), we ought to acknowledge that nationalism has a pretty poor record. (Hirsi Ali concedes this in the case of Germany.) A staunch nationalist is not likely to favor secession because the nation-state is taken at the sacred irreducible political unit. I'd guess that Hirsi Ai is a fan of Abraham Lincoln not only because he disapproved of slavery but also because he went to war, first and foremost, to prevent disunion.

While cosmopolitan enlightenment liberalism may be reconciliable conceptually with a benign, pacifistic version of nationalism (as Ludwig von Mises thought), whether it is likely in practice in our time is another matter entirely. These days nationalism -- Buy American! Protect American jobs! -- spawns trade protectionism, obsession with borders, and other measures that create friction between countries and risk the outbreak of war.

Enlightenment liberalism is appropriate to people everywhere because they are all human beings (even if incidental local customs vary from place to place). That, then, is what we in the West ought to be offering to -- but not imposing on -- non-Westerners. Meanwhile, we must undertake the reforms necessary to get the politicians to leave us alone. As for newcomers to the West, respect everyone's rights and get on with your lives.

Spinoza's Excommunication

Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677)

On this day in 1656, 23-year-old Baruch Spinoza (Espinoza) was excommunicated from the Jewish community of Amsterdam, then the most liberal city in the world. Spinoza had not yet published any of the works that would make him known worldwide as brilliant philosopher, as well as the first to advocate separation of religion and state, freedom of conscience, and political freedom generally. He was one of the fathers of the Enlightenment and perhaps the first classical liberal.

Here is the decree, or cherem, ordering him expelled from his congregation. It was unprecedented in its severity, but note that no specific grounds are given for this treatment. Spinoza did not object to his expulsion. He Latinized his name to Benedict and went about his life as a talented lens grinder and philosopher of reason and libealism, his best-known works being A Theologico-Political Treatise and Ethics.

The Lords of the ma'amad, having long known of the evil opinions and acts of Baruch de Espinoza, have endeavoured by various means and promises, to turn him from his evil ways. But having failed to make him mend his wicked ways, and, on the contrary, daily receiving more and more serious information about the abominable heresies which he practised and taught and about his monstrous deeds, and having for this numerous trustworthy witnesses who have deposed and borne witness to this effect in the presence of the said Espinoza, they became convinced of the truth of the matter; and after all of this has been investigated in the presence of the honourable chachamin [sages], they have decided, with their consent, that the said Espinoza should be excommunicated and expelled from the people of Israel. By the decree of the angels, and by the command of the holy men, we excommunicate, expel, curse and damn Baruch de Espinoza, with the consent of God, Blessed be He, and with the consent of all the Holy Congregation, in front of these holy Scrolls with the six-hundred-and-thirteen precepts which are written therein, with the excommunication with which Joshua banned Jericho, with the curse with which Elisha cursed the boys and with all the curses which are written in the Book of the Law. Cursed be he by day and cursed be he by night; cursed be he when he lies down, and cursed be he when he rises up; cursed be he when he goes out, and cursed be he when he comes in. The Lord will not spare him; the anger and wrath of the Lord will rage against this man, and bring upon him all the curses which are written in this book, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven, and the Lord will separate him to his injury from all the tribes of Israel with all the curses of the covenant, which are written in the Book of the Law. But you who cleave unto the Lord God are all alive this day. We order that no one should communicate with him orally or in writing, or show him any favour, or stay with him under the same roof, or within four ells of him, or read anything composed or written by him.

TGIF: Spinoza – A Man for Our Troubled Times

In these interesting times, we all need someone to admire. I have found such a one in Benedict de Spinoza (1632-1677), the 17th-century rationalist liberal philosopher who advocated freedom of thought and expression, toleration, and simple kindness.

Read TGIF at The Libertarian Institute.

TGIF (The Goal Is Freedom) appears on Fridays. Sheldon Richman, author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited, keeps the blog Free Association and is executive editor of The Libertarian Institute. He is also a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com.

Become a Free Association patron today!

TGIF: The Liberal Spirit and Its Opposite, Alt-Rightism

How ridiculous it is for Matt Lewis of The Daily Beast to write, “It seems observably true that libertarianism is disproportionately a gateway drug to the alt-right.”

To say the libertarian movement is a “gateway drug” is to say more than that some prominent members of the alt-right once called themselves libertarians. It’s also to say that alt-rightism provides a purer form of what those members had found in libertarianism (aka original liberalism, or simply liberalism).

Read TGIF at The Libertarian Institute.

TGIF (The Goal Is Freedom) appears on Fridays. Sheldon Richman, author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited, keeps the blog Free Association and is executive editor of The Libertarian Institute. He is also a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com. Become a Free Association patron today!

Brexit: Which Kind of Dependence Now?

Is Brexit a move toward British independence? Some Leave and Remain partisans may believe so, differing only over whether that's good or bad.

But, as usual, things are more complicated. We should hope that, in one respect, Britain's exit from the EU will create a kind of dependence that did not exist while it was still a member of the union. (But see Jacob T. Levy's well-argued opposition, as well as J.D. Tucille's rebuttal of the xenophobia explanation and Matt Ridley's defense of Leave.)

TGIF: Does Freedom Require Empire?

In a startling article, Daniel McCarthy, the admirable editor of The American Conservative magazine (TAC), writes, “Successive British and American empires created and upheld the world order in which [classical] liberalism could flourish.” In other words, as he writes in “Why Liberalism Means Empire,” “Liberalism and empire reinforced one another in manifold ways.” Therefore, if we want an enduring liberal democratic society, we must acknowledge the necessity of a U.S.-enforced global empire.

Read all of TGIF here.

TGIF: The Greatness of Peace Activist John Bright

John Bright is one of the great heroes of liberalism for his devotion to free markets and peace. His speeches on peace and nonintervention make good reading for the Memorial Day weekend. Here is a sample.

TGIF: Market, State & Autonomy

TGIF: Not All Choices Are Equal

Opponents of the freedom philosophy never run out of insipid rebuttals.

Read TGIF: Not All Choices Are Equal here.