TGIF: Has Libertarianism Passed Its Sell-By Date?

Ron DeSantis, who could be the next president of the United States, made his views frighteningly clear: "We understand that freedom is not just about the absence of restrictions.... I think we have to understand that the threats to freedom are not simply as a result of what happens in legislatures. Yes, you've got to win those fights. The left is trying to impose its agenda through a wide range of arteries in our society, including corporate America."

On another occasion he said, "Fighting for freedom is not easy because the threats to freedom are more complex and more widespread than in the past. The threats can come from entrenched bureaucrats in D.C., jet-setters in Davos, and corporations wielding public power."

Why do I call this frightening? Because DeSantis, although he started his political career as a limited-government advocate, has abandoned that position for an activist conservatism that is becoming more prominent. He has gone from budget hawk to culture warrior. (He has long been a war hawk, though lately he's voiced doubts about the U.S. proxy war against Russia.)

He is especially eager to use the power of the government, as he has shown in Florida, to fight woke cultural positions from public schools to private corporations like Disney. I raise this not because I think the champions of woke culture are right -- far from it -- but because DeSantis is perfectly willing to build up the government to face down forces that themselves have looked to government to impose their preferences on people. He's done it as governor of Florida (often ineffectively), and we have every reason to think he'd do it as president.

Whether he knows it or not, DeSantis is voicing an old and mistaken objection to the laissez-faire libertarian philosophy. It's an objection I'm hearing more frequently from right and left. It is that the philosophy of indivdiudal liberty and constrained government -- the original liberal project -- has become irrelevant. There's some dishonesty here because it implies that the critics once found that philosophy relevant. But never mind that.

Why isn't it relevant? Because, they say or imply, it does not address new threats to freedom. Here's why that's an old complaint: for decades people who opposed free markets but remained attached to other parts of classical liberalism (freedom of conscience and toleration) liked to say that Adam Smith made his case for the "system of natural liberty" back when the government was the only threat to the individual and the separation of economy and state was the only answer. But now things have changed, those critics continued, because the new threat is no longer the government but the corporations. Today's right has broadened the list of threats to include academia, the old mass media, the new digital-age media, and other institutions. (I've critiqued that old case before.)

What both forms of that objection miss is that the new threats are derived from the old one. It's "the dangerous derivative." Just as "corporate power" would be impossible without government power (see Adam Smith's view), so those other forms of power would be impossible -- or certainly much less formidable -- without government power. If you look closely, you can see this principle in horrifying action with the housing bust and financial fiasco of 2008. (See my "Wall Street Couldn't Have Done It Alone.")

What explains this principle of derivation? It is the government's exclusive "legitimated" power to initiate force: the assumed authority to give orders compelling people who have violated no rights to do some things and not do other things. Only individuals who hold certain positions in government use compulsion legally. Try collecting charitable donations by force from your neighbors or preventing them from drinking alcohol or using heroin. You'll soon see the police, which of course are personnel of the government.

In those circumstances the people with the power -- of taxation most prominently but hardly exclusively -- inevitably will use it to subsidize some members of society and impede others. For libertarians and classical liberals, this is the root of class conflict. (Marx's version was a distortion of the liberal insight.) This will happen in a representative democracy, where providing goodies is crucial to assembling voter blocs, but it also happens in autocracies, because autocrats cannot go it alone.

Without secondary access to government power, private crusaders would be unable to impose their preferences on society. Conservatives miss this point and do not see the government as fundamentally flawed. They see something they don't like and immediately look to the government to stop it. In the process, they enable their opponents to use power against them later.

Why can't the conservatives see that without such access, those who aspire to force their dubious preferences would have to resort to persuasion, which apparently is what they don't want to do? If the government could not finance education, social and hard science, and other influential stations in society -- money that always comes with strings -- the link between opinion shapers and power would be broken. Those institutions would change from state-succored monopolies or oligopolies to competitive enterprises that would have to prove their worth every day because people would be free to take their money elsewhere. The revolving door between those institutions and government agencies would be blocked, preventing the rotation of activists from nongovernment institutions to bureaucracies where they can shower benefits on their pet causes.

Taxation is merely one way that this perverse situation comes about. The power to regulate peaceful conduct is key. When the social networks complied with "suggestions" from government personnel about deleting or suppressing inconvenient posts, the network executives knew they were at the mercy of the regulatory state. Social networks were not the only sort of firm that thought it prudent to comply with government requests.

Since government power remains the exclusive source of private institutional power, the government still should be the target of those who champion liberty. It is just wrong to think, as DeSantis and others do, that we need to increase the government's power to protect liberty. Even seemingly innocuous measures, such as the legislative prohibition of wierd subjects in schools, will necessarily be vaguely written and precedent-setting for causes that conservatives oppose. (Decentralized control of schools, if we can't have a separation of school and state immediately, would be better.) We should never forget Robert Higgs's lesson about the "ratchet effect": government easily grows, but it is tough to shrink it.

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: Why Freedom Is the Goal

In online interviews and conversations I'm hearing intellectuals in the national conservative movement say that the liberal Enlightenment "project" has mostly failed because people need more in their lives than freedom. I've also heard this from a few people who have lately become disillusioned with leftism but yet are uneasy about libertarianism.

My first response is to wonder whom these critics of classical liberalism, or libertarianism, its modern-day form, have in mind. Which important and widely influential liberal political, economic, or, social thinker even implied that freedom is the only thing worth valuing? Let's name names, please. I can't think of one, but perhaps I'm overlooking someone.

Those conservatives will also insist that freedom without virtue is not just worthless but a clear and present danger. But again, which past and present of genuine liberal stalwarts would disagree? I've always understood liberalism to be distinct from libertinism. I see no grounds for confusing the two.

Classical liberalism, in its consequentialist, deontological, and eudaemonist forms, has been concerned with what makes for a proper society by some articulated standard or other, starting with the most fundamental unit of analysis, the individual. The literature is saturated with positive observations about society, the division of labor, association, and rich communities -- in a word, cooperation.

One way or another, all of that is related to values in addition to freedom; it all is related to virtue. Far from embodying an atomistic, licentious, to-hell-with-everyone-else (pseudo)individualism, libertarianism extols what I call Adamistic (Smith, that is) individualism, in which human beings "selfishly" flourish through mutually rewarding relationships of all kinds. I've also dubbed this "molecular individualism. Of course, some people will engage in vice and aggression (those aren't the same things), but as long as the state is unavailable for social engineering, free individuals using private property in association with others can peacefully protect themselves and their children from what they find abhorrent. Live and let live is the rule.

For liberals, freedom was never just an end in itself. Freedom means freedom from aggression, whatever the source, but at least implicit in the liberal vision -- and indispensable to truly understanding it -- is the freedom to produce material and nonmaterial values in a social context. We want freedom so we may live fully as human beings and enjoy fruitful lives among other people. Successful long-term participation in the market and society more widely encourages honesty, justice, and conscientiousness -- virtues by any reckoning. To understand the value of society is to understand the need for -- yes -- order, but it is specifically the bottom-up, emergent, spontaneous order that F. A. Hayek and other liberals have emphasized. (You find this in Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer, Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and countless others.)

The critics of liberalism are right of course when they say that freedom is not enough to properly address the social problems we observe today. But again, which libertarian ever said it was? The libertarian point is that freedom is the condition in which people have the best chance of dealing with problems. Liberalism doesn't promise a rose garden; it's not utopian. In fact, freedom is not the answer to any problem. Rather, it -- along with the resulting decentralization and competition -- is essential to the discovery process that enables people to deal with problems as best they can. Since no one is omniscient, that discovery process is indispensable both for the good life and the good society.

Freedom is not some magic ingredient that when sprinkled on a problem miraculously produces a solution. It's the political, legal, and social environment in which people can act to make their lives better. In the process of virtuously pursuing their rational self-interest, they make others better off too. No central coercive authority, conservative or progressive, can hope to deliver the equivalent, no matter what theory of virtue it seeks to impose. For one thing, they could never know enough.

Thus those who reject libertarianism as unequal to modern challenges show themselves to be boxing with a strawman. But worse, they deceptively pose as the guardians of virtue when they are not.

When conservatives say politics is downstream from culture, they mean that for freedom to be a good thing, people must first be virtuous. But that suggests the conservative program is to change things around and put culture downstream from politics. It's a justification for limits on freedom of speech, religion, commerce, association, etc., until the state's subjects have been prepared to live freely. But who is qualified to tutor the people or to say when the people are ready for freedom? How are their overlords to be chosen?

Liberals have long asked those questions, but not because they thought virtue is unimportant. It is because they knew how important virtue is. They also asked how people can be virtuous without being free to make choices.

Albert Jay Nock, the quirky libertarian writer of the 20th century, wrote about this in his 1924 essay "On Doing the Right Thing," Nock wanted to see human beings free precisely so that they "may become as good and decent, as elevated and noble, as they might be and really wish to be.” (See my essay "Nock Revisited.") He elaborated:

The point is that any enlargement [of state authority], good or bad, reduces the scope of individual responsibility, and thus retards and cripples the education which can be a product of nothing but the free exercise of moral judgment.... The profound instinct against being "done for our own good" ... is wholly sound. Men are aware of the need of this moral experience as a condition of growth, and they are aware, too, that anything tending to ease it off from them, even for their own good, is to be profoundly distrusted. The practical reason for freedom, then, is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fibre can be developed. [Emphasis added.]

That's the answer to the paternalists of all parties.

In contrast, conservatism wants the government to control the culture in the name of building virtuous people. How can they overlook the perils of this program? Once political officials assert control over culture, where does it stop? And how can they be sure that the people whose values they despise won't eventually grab hold of the muscular state they've fortified?

TGIF: National Conservatism's Ominous Economics

National conservatism is objectionable on many counts -- the name in itself tells you that -- but it does pay tribute to free enterprise. A closer look, however, may cause one to doubt its commitment.

The movement's official Statement of Principles includes Principle 6, which begins encouragingly, though predictably tradition-bound:

We believe that an economy based on private property and free enterprise is best suited to promoting the prosperity of the nation and accords with traditions of individual liberty that are central to the Anglo-American political tradition. We reject the socialist principle, which supposes that the economic activity of the nation can be conducted in accordance with a rational plan dictated by the state.

So far pretty good. When people are free to act peacefully, most will engage in the voluntary exchange of goods and services (including labor) to achieve better lives for themselves and their families. In the process they will acquire possessions the security of which is necessary to the pursuit of sustained, even lifelong projects of all kinds (and not only commercial) aimed at that betterment. In other words, free enterprise and free trade take place when we are left free to pursue our broad interests through peaceful social interaction and the division of labor. It's a bottom-up, emergent environment that requires no coaxing from the government. (Historically, nonstate customary law emerged along with production, the division of labor, and trade. It did not wait for wise rulers to create an appropriate legal environment.)

But then the Statement of Principles starts its trek downhill: "[T]he free market cannot be absolute."

This is ominous. First, it's far from clear what that means. It should be obvious that no enthusiast of the free market thinks society ought to consist entirely of money-making. Life is more than production and trade of material values. Everyone knows that.

The sentence suggests to me that, according to the national conservatives (natcons), people -- even when they restrict themselves to peaceful consensual activities  -- can't be completely free of the cold hand of the state. The very rationale of the Statement tells us this. After all, these are the principles of "national conservativism." It's a nationalist movement. Its essential element is protecting the nation-state through the government. The existence of individuals is not denied, but their interests (as they conceive them) are subordinate to something called national interest. Individuals do not exist for their own sake. Therefore, every consideration is to be passed through the national interest filter. At bottom, then, national conservatism is a collectivist project. We cannot forget that, much less hope for an affinity between natcons and libertarians.

The concern with national interest prompts the question: as conceived by whom and by what criteria? The answer presumably is: according to the criteria of those who are elected to and are able to remain in office. The many problems posed by the perverse effects of democratic politics have been well-documented in theory and history. They include the impotence of any one vote, rational ignorance, rational irrationalism, concentrated benefits/thinly spread costs, inflated political transaction costs, apparently benign incrementalism, campaign theatricality, elites' access to power, and limited accountability. So right from the start, the statement poses more questions than it answers. It does little to reassure people who place a priority on individual liberty. In short, it ignores public-choice economist James Buchanan's call for "politics without romance."

Politicians and bureaucrats, then, would be assigned the task of letting us know when we have, in their judgment, pursued market activities too much. Natcons declare themselves in favor of the rule of law, but remember: the content of the law is as important as due process. It's not enough to be free from decrees handed down on the fly. We also need freedom from duly enacted oppressive legislation, that is, rules that forbid or specify the terms of consensual conduct.

"Economic policy must serve the general welfare of the nation," the statement continues. Clearly, for national conservatives, it's not enough that policy-makers abstain from violating the individual's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because through freedom, tradition may fall by the wayside, and the natcons can't have that.

The best explainers of how markets work -- I'm thinking of the Austrian economists -- have shown that the general welfare is exactly what the pursuit of individual welfare in self-regulating markets accomplish. Adam Smith and his best predecessors understood this, even if they got some details wrong.

Let's never forget that strictly speaking, markets don't actually do anything. Only individual human beings act. When they act in a market setting, which is at once economic, legal, and cultural, it's as if people are led by Adam Smith's metaphorical "invisible hand" to do well for themselves by doing good for others. We must supply what others demand because bankruptcy awaits those who ignore others. Barred from government power and forbidden from using physical force and fraud directly, they will seek their own welfare by catering directly or indirectly to consumers. We may not always like what every consumer wants, but as long as no one can initiate force directly or through the state, we can secure ourselves, individually or in association with others, from undesirable influences.

Unsurprisingly, the natcons are dubious about globalism. That word means different things to different people, but the natcons don't like even what libertarians mean: the free movement of people, goods, and money across national lines without government impetus or impediment -- the division of labor writ large. Economists have long demonstrated that global welfare is best enhanced by that route. Significant, though incomplete moves in that direction over the last several decades have gone a long way toward wiping out absolute poverty and infant mortality.

The natcons, like the economic nationalists on the left, lament that "globalized markets allow hostile foreign powers to despoil America and other countries of their manufacturing capacity, weakening them economically and dividing them internally." This is the "hollowed-out America" claim. The problem with the claim is that American factories still produce an incredible volume of goods. What's changed is technology: many fewer people are needed to work in those factories because labor-saving computers and machines are far more productive than people working in jobs that not very long ago were condemned for their mind-numbing drudgery. Jobs that parents once hoped their children would never have to do are now looked to nostalgically by both the natcons and the Michel Moore left.

The Statement goes on:

Crony capitalism, the selective promotion of corporate profit-making by organs of state power, should be energetically exposed and opposed.

That sounds good, but the natcons will have to explain how their policies will avoid crony capitalism. Industrial policy, which is what the national conservatives really want, is an engraved invitation to well-connected business interests to the detriment of everyone else.

More could be said, but you get the idea. The Statement's embrace of free enterprise is hollow indeed. Government intervention, complete with tariffs, import quotas, immigration restrictions, a military-industrial-science complex, and subsidies -- all necessarily constituting de facto central planning -- would be rampant, as would be the lobbying frenzy for special consideration. It's no comfort to know that our rulers would be motivated by the national interest.