Excellent observation, though I still see great importance in which principles we defend. Easiest example for me is to be left alone to do as I please, as long as I do not cause harm to another's liberty. When some other protests that my liberty infringes on that other, how do we decide which principle takes precedence? How do we reconcile these?
True -- but unfortunately, when there's a gun to your head, "consideration" takes on a whole new meaning, and "legitimacy" might have little do do with it.
Ah legitimacy comes from the use of force, the support of respected community members, the agreement of the bureaucracy and the toleration of the governed who all justify the state's authority to use force.
What could be different is if state's and people rely more on the force of nonviolence instead of what we currently have. I need to finish Judith Butler's book on that.
In closing you call a man with a gun at your head sir and show him all your consideration so he will consider you highly.
You are so so right about ideas. That's why people talking with each other about their lives is so important. Not because the talking of the ideas is sufficient but it helps them figure out what they will actually do and discover effective possibilities they might not even have considered without sharing ideas.
He has a street fighter’s mentality, always taking someone on in his businesses. Anyway, agree totally w your crooked con description. He's multi-faceted.
My own view of the failure of libertarians to offer resistance to Trump is that they did not want to be marginalized -- which is the same reason that conservatives have also largely surrendered to Trump. Deep down, libertarians know that they lose most of their influence if they don't form alliances with conservatives. Sure, they will criticize Trump -- but not too much.
Well that is quite cowardly in a lot of ways. Like being in the bully's gang because you have more power that way. What are libertarians getting out of it anyway? Nothing that I can see. Trump just primaried Thomas Massie.
I think the problem for American libertarians is that the two party system forces all of us to choose one party or the other to serve as a vehicle for our aspirations and commitments even though most of those aspirations will never be realized and those core commitments get compromised. That is the nature of a functioning liberal democracy.
There was a time when both major parties had liberals, moderates and conservatives and libertarians. Today we have a party with a "conservative" and reactionary wing and the other party is more and more becoming one with a progressive and socialist wing. Moderates (and libertarians) are becoming more and more marginalized. Just try to talk about rational immigration, free trade and free markets to most folks in either party these days and then duck and cover.
In Europe Bernie, AOC and Company would be in a different party from Schumer and Jeffries and probably have more actual power to actually shape legislation than they do here.
We function by recognizing that everyone has a stake in the governing enterprise and when we struggle to get the most of what we want while at the same time trimming what we see as the worst excesses of the opposition. We don't function when we simply think we should cancel out the opposition. With the end of the Cold War consensus and the Speakership of Newt Gingrich and his scorched earth war on the Democrats the unraveling began and so here we are today.
Now we have "Green New Deals" and "One Big Beautiful Bills" and significant legislation can only be passed through reconciliation so as to avoid having to actually avoid dealing with the other party and getting exactly what "we" want. No compromise---it's our way or the highway. With that sort of mentality a Donald Trump was inevitable it's just the political right got there first. Democrats talk of a future when they are in power and they plan to run roughshod over the Republicans.
Our entire governing order has been turned into a system of recrimination, retribution and revenge no matter who is in charge.
Joe Biden tried to govern by traditional norms and see where that got him. If you aren't blood thirsty enough they really just don't want you.
Yup, this is why the remaining libertarians now seem like sane moderates - all the extremists and kooks became MAGA, leaving a smaller, but more sensible centrist libertarianism behind. My hope is that the abundance Democrats and libertarians can form some sort of coalition politics and influence the Democratic party. You are correct that forcing things into a Two Party dynamic empowers the extremes though.
I think your opening premise pegged the problem. Having devolved into a two-party constituency, I fear we have become what our founders most feared. An uneducatef, ill-informed populace succumbing to the worst aspiriring representatives.
I'm a libertarian, and I was pretty much in the same place as Dalmia on this. I saw immediately the threat that he posed. He was going to tear down the world trade order, he was going to reverse things that libertarians had fought for, painstakingly, for decades. And he has. It was much much worse than I predicted, even. I never expected him to start taking equity stakes in US business, the kinds of human rights violations that have already happened under his watch, with respect to immigration, are beyond anything I thought possible. I still consider myself a libertarian though, but a real one. Many so-called libertarians ripped off the mask and exposed themselves as closet authoritarians and racists. There is a core libertarianism focused on economics and human freedom. Perhaps it needs to be reinvented. But the core-message is perhaps if anything more clearly transmitted, without the baggage of all the closeted racists and hangers on whose only reason for clinging to the libertarian label is because they wanted to fondle their guns and oppress black and brown people.
Libertarians and their friends who spent months wearing camo in the hills with long guns practicing fire and movement have been talking about government overreach, the tree of liberty etc, etc, second amendment solutions. Since the 90s at least it's been mainstream for them to be warning about martial law and FEMA camps as concentration camps.
Well there's been soldiers in the cities which I believe was an issue that led to the war of independence. There's been masked secret police stopping people and asking for their papers like in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Rule by presidential fiat from a guy who sees himself as a king and a high court which allows it.
And the libertarians have been either quiet or explained it away by its all legal. Or if they were braggadocious enough to claim they're the only patriots they've been happy and supportive.
Before I read this the only Libertarian I've trusted was Radley Balko because he's been consistent. The Niskanean Center and a couple of other shops that closed down a long time ago were the only libertarians who seemed to be tackling the problems identified in this interview.
As an anarchist I agree with most of what's here. I'm not sure most Libertarians are seeing Trump and the Republican Party as a problem. I could be wrong. I would be happy if the Libertarians are on board with fighting authoritarianism but if they aren't that's cool too. Everyone gets to make their choices.
Yeah, I keep asking people what the Oathkeepers stance on all this is. LOL. How does the Oathkeeper feel about the Iran war, what about bombing boats in the Carribean? What about Trump going after Senators who remind troops about their duty to disobey illegal orders. Any comment?
It is worth noting that the Libertarian Party refused to nominate Trump as their candidate when he asked. I believe he got booed. So there are certainly some libertarians who have been consistent and principled. And Reason and Volokh conspiracy have been very critical of his trade and immigration actions (with one or two exceptions). I think for sure a lot of libertarians got stuck in the trap of feeling like they needed to stick with their "tribe" and believing the logic of the Two Party system - the social pressure to pick a side is intense.
I read about the Libertarian Party doing a lot to purge their party of Trump supporters. I can imagine someone being a Libertarian and liking Trump, people are weird, we just are, but I don't get a party member endorsing Trump over the Libertarian presidential candidate.
The Bulwark had a good article about the hard work the Libertarian Party is doing. A very long time ago I thought I might be libertarian but I'm not.
I do think a society needs libertarians and anarchists, most definitely anarchists.
Used to read The Volokh Conspiracy when I was reading Tyler Cowen. Since you mention them I might start reading Volokh again. Haven't looked at Reason since the mid 2000s. Their emphasis on free markets was not where I was at. I'm not sure what a free market is but I have a better idea what it isn't.
Once I read The Prize I couldn't believe in free markets. The oil industry really does rely on government policy everywhere and governments really considered controlling oil a matter of national sovereignty even if they don't have any oil reserves.
I really would like to be political friends with libertarians. Maybe that will happen.
Thinking of what you said about tribes some of that might be by temperament more than we realize.
The Bulwark article gave a good explanation about the problems third parties face. It would be good if there were more than two parties but we do politics with the system you have not the system we wish we had. Thanks for reading my long reply.
The Two Party System is entrenched because of the way we do elections. First-past-the-Post voting creates a spoiler effect. Also the electoral college is winner-take-all in most states. And if you combine those it amplifies the spoiler effect. This is how Clinton won on 43% of the vote in 1992 while Perot got zero electoral college votes, even though he had 19% of the popular vote.
We really need something like ranked choice voting, or a two round election system, like jungle primaries or something so that moderate candidates can even stand a chance.
I don't disagree with you at all. I also think this thing about a major party constantly thinking about how to purge people from the voter rolls and doing everything it can to prevent voting is pretty pretty bad. Then not having the politicians decide their districts would make more races competitive instead of having incumbent monopolies
Thanks for Marlene and Shikha for sharing your conversation. Libertarianism always seemed like it would have much more view point diversity.
I really liked what Marlene shared about how Libertarianism ended up where it has. My take is that with its focus on curtailing government power and focusing on free markets which have led to corporations that end up having having more power over individuals and can do things with much more freedom than governments under libertarianism when there's disagreement about freedoms it's going to come down to who has the most power and the law on their side. Free markets and corporations are created by the state so that version of libertarianism is going to end up wanting a more powerful state and with pervasive dictatorial power of corporations in our personal age work lives a pervasive government is going to happen.
From a naive, first pass, answer to how Libertarians ended up here; They got here by seeing free markets as the best measure of liberty because free speech, free movement are necessary for mutual agreement. They aren't enough.
If free markets lead to free societies it's more important to have government role curtailed to property rights and contract law. Then the biggest thing is making government powerful enough to maintain free markets and be constrained outside its use of force to maintain contracts.
Again this is a naive first pass at explaining that. I might be getting what Libertarians believe completely wrong. I think they ended up here from their priors which keep them from seeing the second and third order effects of priors.
American “libertarianism” has always been more Ayn Rand than Hayek. People read Rand and see her philosophy, rightly or wrongly, as a license for “great men” to do whatever the fuck they want to achieve “greatness” and all the “parasites” and “takers” need to either bow down or get out of the way. It’s not hard to see the germ of authoritarianism in any movement that sees a narcissist like Rand as central to their political philosophy.
Of course, one can overthink this. There are also a lot of so-called “libertarians” who are really just gun nuts and want their understanding of the 2nd amendment defended at all cost.
Hayek himself was infatuated with a "great" and "strong" man. He aided and defended the authoritarian regime of Pinochet in Chile.
If you look at Rockwell, Rothbard or Hoppe it is easy to see how the alliance between right-wing extremists and libertarians formed. It is not by accident.
Rand fits neatly into this, as her body of work is idolatry of the "great" industrialist or "genius" entrepreneur Ubermensch that is the victim of "leecherous" and "parasitic" Untermenschen. Her cult-like "philosophy" of Objectivism is a nietzschean cauldron for powerhungry, might makes right nihilists.
Shikha has been prescient in her comparison of Trump to Modi and the illiberalism and demagoguery of both of them. She has been loud and outspoken, unlike many immigrants from India who have happily joined the circus. However, I think in this battle for democracy and liberalism in the USA, there is another analogy with India that I am deeply worried about. India since its economic liberalization in the nineties (a good thing), has yielded undue influence and control to its oligarchs like the Ambanis and the Adanis with their ability, through money and access to power to manipulate the Government into favoring their interests over the common good. I see the owners of massive digital platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and their owners Zuckerberg, Musk and Brin increasingly do the same to the US Government. (I would encourage everyone who thinks this is hyperbole to read Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams). And we have not even added the soon to be AI Titans to this list. I think anyone who is worried about liberalism and democracy better also acknowledge and have a response to the hijack of the Government towards the advancement of the interests of these platforms/corporatgions at the cost of the common good.
They toy with us, playing both ends against the middle! As we pick each other to pieces over "pronouns" and "privilege," the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.
After all, who funds the NGOs and foundations that bankroll NPR?
AI will further flummox any opposition, and keep us spinning our wheels!
"We need a better and even more generous safety net that diminishes economic precarity. That is not inconsistent with capitalism. In fact, the economic growth that capitalism generates makes a properly funded safety net sustainable. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to have a safety net that is targeted toward those who need it and does not create moral hazards, on the one hand, and is insulated from politicians who want to expand it to buy the votes of specific constituencies, on the other."
Yes, it is inconsistent with capitalism. And the failure to grasp this is the cause of our continual progression away from freedom and free-markets. Capitalism is not some golden goose that lays eggs for politicians to distribute, capitalism is a system that protects the freedom of individuals to produce and trade with others and keep the fruits of their labor. This rests on a principle of property rights.
A government "safety net" is a euphemism for using government force to take from some people and give to others. This establishes the "principle" that need is a moral claim on the lives and property of others. This is the opposite of freedom. This is "from each according to ability, to each according to need," which is the basis of socialism, not capitalism.
Once a evil principle is established in a culture and is not challenged, it only grows and grows, because that how principles work. What we need to to defend the correct moral principles, the principle of individual rights, which means that the needs of others, whether a minority or majority is not a claim on the lives and property of others. If people truly understood and defended this, we would have an abundance of freedom.
@Jim, you decry "the 'principle' that need is a moral claim on the lives and property of others," claiming that "This is the opposite of freedom."
If there is an unmet need, and someone (or some corporate entity) has the resources to fill it but refuses to do so, that's an ABUSE of freedom. In other words, It's not freedom at all; it's the exercise of power -- the antithesis of freedom, whether the locus of that power is concentrated in Property or the State.
One person's need is not a moral claim on the lives of others. Individuals do not exist to fulfill other people's needs. Individuals exist to pursue their own lives and happiness. And government's job is to protect that ability. This is the meaning of the Declaration of Independence.
There's a fundamental difference between the power to produce and the power to kill, between voluntary trade and robbery, between a dollar and a gun. If I bake a loaf of bread and offer it for trade, this is a voluntary transaction, which is the essence of freedom. If a thug with a gun comes and take the bread I produced by force, that's the opposite of freedom. If the government uses its police and guns to take the bread I produced this is likewise an attack on freedom. Freedom means free from physical coercion.
If you've baked a loaf of bread (with plenty to spare), and someone who's starving comes to your door, you can be a jerk and refuse to give him any -- because you "need" the profits from selling your bread to buy up the rest of the block and expand your bakery -- a process that can go on ad infinitum.
And if you call for a thug with a gun (i.e., a cop) to chase him away, that's force.
Ironically, I've argued the opposite side of this against leftists who insist that the interests of the collective (in the name of "empathy") override those of the individual. My response to them is that empathy is an individual attribute (not a collective abstraction), shared among other individuals.
I suppose it comes down to what one means by a "moral claim." With further irony, you (like the collectivist) are valorizing "ownership" or "property" (over lived reality) as the absolute core or fulcrum of the Self -- but (like the collectivist) you fail to recognize that this, in itself, is implicitly totalitarian.
I'll go with Shikha's more nuanced, situational perspective!
Shikha's nuanced, situational perspective is what is leading us toward more and more collectivism and illiberalism. The reason is that there's a basic moral principle at stake: either individuals have a right to the products of the labor or they don't. This is a basic moral divide.
Once you say that the bread I bake can be taken from me in the name of someone else's need (and denigrate my needs and desires to expand my business, as unimportant -- unimportant to whom?), you have handed the collectivists and totalitarians the moral high-ground. Because this sanctions the principle that the individual can be sacrificed to some "need." Once this is established, it's just an matter of which "need," which collective, which dictator, which nation, which cause, etc. individuals are to be sacrificed.
The issue is not whether one helps someone in need, it's whether their help, if it's forthcoming, is viewed as act of generosity or a moral duty.
Certainly we should valorize ownership and property. These are not at odds with a "lived reality" they are essential to it. If an individual does not have the right keep and dispose of their material earnings, they are a slave, not a free person. Throughout history, all the societies that did not valorize ownership and property resulted in mass starvation and death.
The reason you are not a slave is NOT (as some libertarians like to say) because you "own" your body; it's because your existence is inseparable from your body. You're assuming that there's a mind/body duality (wherein the relationship between the mind (or innermost Self) and body is one of “Ownership": in effect, "I own, therefore I am."
To say the least, that's a debatable proposition; arguably, it (both the mind/body duality — and among values, the primacy of Ownership) even goes against most of the world's major spiritual traditions.
My point, however, is not to debate these matters. It's to point out that (debatable as your view mlght be), you'd empower the State (with an absolute monopoly of force) to enforce your (and ONLY your) belief -- in effect, establishing it as the State religion.
That's no better than the collectivist who (in their parallel universe) grants the State (or some other entity) absolute power to enforce some notion of "the Common Good."
As a liberal, I recognize the sovereignty (or sanctity) of the individual; our quarrel is over what (or who) the individual IS.
You're entitled to your belief -- and to maintain (and certainly to express) that belief, as libertarians like to say, "without force or fraud" -- but in any interaction, how you manifest or exercise that belief is negotiable -- not subject to absolute force. The legitimate power of the State is limited to facilitating those negotiations (among individuals, without favor) — allowing them to go on unimpeded, insuring that they’re conducted in good faith (i.e., without force or fraud [or any hidden agendas!]) — and to enforce their outcome.
Ownership (or “Property”) might certainly be a strong consideration, but more may be at stake than that. Failure to recognize this is, indeed (like the collectivist’s failure to recognize countervailing values), totalitarian.
"It's to point out that (debatable as your view mlght be), you'd empower the State (with an absolute monopoly of force) to enforce your (and ONLY your) belief -- in effect, establishing it as the State religion.
That's no better than the collectivist who (in their parallel universe) grants the State (or some other entity) absolute power to enforce some notion of "the Common Good."
I agree, that would be no better. But don't confuse me with religious conservatives who want to impose their morality on others. I'm arguing for freedom across the board, mind and body. As you say there is no mind/body duality. Individuals are a unity of mind and body, which means that freedom requires freedom in the material realm (property) as well as the spiritual realm (ideas).
I think it's worth noting that the radical right-wing extremists come in the cover of libertarianism. They are wearing the skins of libertarians, as did the radical left-wing extremists wore the skins of liberals.
But both, the libertarians and the right-wing extremists want to destroy the modern state. They are moral and legal nihilists.
We have to become way better at detecting these threats. Remember, the fascist revolutionaries came in the skins of conservatives and socialists (Yes, you read that right). In power they eliminated both conservatives and socialists alike.
It will be the same with these neo-fascists. Once they have the power purging is inevitable.
Isn't it enlightenment values that conservatives, liberals, democratic socialists and libertarians have in common? Respect for human life, human thinking and human intentions. Isn't this what unites us and distinguishes us from authoritarians? I think that Thomas Jefferson at least thought of America as and enlightenment project.
In fact, don't our current authoritarians undermine every single aspect of the enlightenment? If America is an enlightenment project, aren't they "anti-Americans"?
Here's the thing: The modern "conservative" movement explicitly rejects enlightenment values. MAGA is an authoritarian movement, through and through. Any conservatives who hold liberalism in high esteem are long gone in today's political landscape.
I agree about MAGA. It's a little bit odd, isn't it? I'm trying to answer the question of the article about what unites us against the fascists. On the one hand, it's exactly the Enlightenment. But this is rarely articulated, and there are no enlightenment rallies....but in another sense, every 4'th of July celebration is an enlightenment rally; it's just not presented that way.
That's an interesting point, but I think it's a bit over-simplifying to emphasize the impact of the enlightenment on the US and July 4th. While it was of course a big part of our founding, those enlightenment values only went so far. The US has always had an authoritarian streak in many aspects, so long as it was being used against "undesirable" people. (The ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples, slavery, WWII Japanese internment camps, etc.)
That's part of what lends so much credence to the Christian Nationalist movement - because they, too, are historically also a big part of this country's origin story. On the 4th of July, people tend to be moreso interested in partaking in patriotism or nationalism rather than having any true appreciation for the ideas that came out of the enlightenment... I'd argue that the focus on "religious freedom" for zealots probably played a role here, but that's a different rabbit hole...
If we truly could be united against authoritarians with a common reverence of the enlightenment, I think we would not be in the position we are in today. I fear that too many Americans, fundamentally, do not care enough to respect those values in the first place.
I suspect that Americans actually could be united against authoritarians and Christian Nationalists via patriotism and enlightenment values if it's done right. The enlightenment can almost be summarized as a rejection of unjustified authority, either from a church or a tyrant, and that has deep visceral appeal. Especially for libertarian. What could be more American than that?
Agreed -- but that argument only goes so far before "Enlightenment values" become a pretext for their own flavor of authoritrianism -- as long as the authorities are "experts," regardless of what those subjected to their authority might think.
“Liberalism” is such a difficult and confusing term."
It just means rights-protecting government. It's the founding idea of the US. This political concept built the modern world.
I think the real issue is that political professionals find this difficult and confusing and are comfortable to openly admit this.
"...create a broad coalition with people from the left and right to fight authoritarianism."
That's like saying we need to form a broad coalition with authoritarians to fight authoritarianism.
I think the first step needs to be determining what an alternative to authoritarianism looks like. If you're struggling with terms like "liberalism" then you're off to a bad start.
We don't need any coalitions. We need people who understand the subject of politics.
"hyper-individualists and anarcho-corporatists who want a quasi-monarchy."
If they're "hyper-individualists" then they can't be anarchists and monarchists, can they?
Just like a square can't be a circle, right?
Definitions are important.
"To fight this, liberals need to set aside their old policy disagreements, whether on tax cuts or climate and energy policy."
But climate and energy policies are authoritarian. These aren't "policy disagreements." Fighting climate policy *is* fighting authoritarianism. It's just as crucial as fighting MAGA.
And so on.
I don't want to be unconstructive, but listening to this, it just sounds like you guys have a lot of very fundamental things that you need to figure out before you rush ahead with building coalitions, etc.
I agree with the postliberals like Deneen on only one point: that the values-free state is a myth, especially with regards to the United States. From the very beginning —who got to own land, who could or couldn't vote, and who was or wasn't property — these weren't the product of a values-neutral government spitting out justice. They were value judgments made by a bunch of white guys who decided that them profiting the most off the system they built was proof that it was behaving rationally. I'll say this much for the postliberals, they believe in something. It's a bunch of bigoted, misogynist, racist bullshit, but they believe it, and they govern in accordance with those beliefs. They've shown us that you can govern on your values and still win, it's simply a matter of which values you govern on.
Oh, absolutely. But I'm working from a framework that the Idiocracy and corruption are the means, not the ends. They have ends they want to achieve and are willing to do whatever they feel they must to achieve them. Just look at the overturning of Roe. They broke a bunch of rules along the way, and Democrats got mad at the rule breaking, but didn't stop to question the intent behind it, or if they knew the intent, they chose not to call it out. They wanted to overturn a woman's right to choose, and were willing to do whatever it took to get that.
I could wax philosophical about how the modern right has basically embraced "The Ends Justifies The Means" as a moral philosophy, as their guiding star. Whereas the Left is still trying to answer questions of identity and of values and which ones should have primacy over the others. Still hemming and hawing about *how* to go about things, at the expense of *what* things they should go about. Since at least the 70's Republicans and conservatives in general always approach questions of policy using the language of belief. What do they believe in?
What's missing from this analysis reflects its failure to recognize how concentrations of power arise from concentrations of wealth -- in turn (as per Schumpeter), leading to the rise of managerial bureaucracies as those concentrations mature -- and subsequently ossify into a welter of foundations and NGOs.
"The rule of law" offers no release from this bind when it amounts to the rule of lawyers -- and those (individuals and organizations) that can afford to hire them. Information -- and ultimately, consciousness itself -- becomes subject to the vagaries of manipulation based on property rights -- ameliorated only (falsely) by the self-anointed referees of the Oppression Olympics, entrenched in the bureaucracies (aka "The Groups," touting "Social Justice") already referenced above.
And so we pick each other to pieces over "pronouns" and "privilege," while the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.
(I get this diagnosis from the "KKK" -- Kerouac, Kesey, and Kafka.)
I'm not dismissing the alarm here over the predations of Trump! It's just that the problem may be deeper than we might like to think. Indeed, it may be cyclical and unavoidable -- the loss of "asabiya," as per Ibn Khaldun. Disruptive tyranny arises in reaction to a stagnant bureaucracy overlaid on an entropic substrate of cultural disintegration.
As a species, we're approaching an evolutionary bottleneck -- the end of a cycle that began with the advent of externalized memory (initially as written communication, the historical record) -- as, with all of it now instantaneous, we can no longer devise institutions to "play the float." (As we've developed what we know as "Civilization," that's been our evolutionary niche.)
Indeed, we may be on the verge of losing our perch as the planet's apex predator.
The event is in the hand of God.
(See also, "The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society," by Norbert Wiener; the poem "As I Walked Out One Evening," by W.H. Auden; and [if you can wake him from his slumber] the ghost of Isaiah Berlin) ;-)
The deepest political question is not which principles we defend, but whether we still remember why we created them.
Excellent observation, though I still see great importance in which principles we defend. Easiest example for me is to be left alone to do as I please, as long as I do not cause harm to another's liberty. When some other protests that my liberty infringes on that other, how do we decide which principle takes precedence? How do we reconcile these?
Perhaps the difficulty begins when two people sincerely believe they are defending the same freedom.
Then it just comes down to who has more power. Same as it ever was.
Power decides many outcomes. But ideas decide what people consider legitimate power.
True -- but unfortunately, when there's a gun to your head, "consideration" takes on a whole new meaning, and "legitimacy" might have little do do with it.
Ah legitimacy comes from the use of force, the support of respected community members, the agreement of the bureaucracy and the toleration of the governed who all justify the state's authority to use force.
What could be different is if state's and people rely more on the force of nonviolence instead of what we currently have. I need to finish Judith Butler's book on that.
In closing you call a man with a gun at your head sir and show him all your consideration so he will consider you highly.
In Judith Butler's book, you call a man with a gun at your head whatever he wants to be called. It might not even be a man. ;-)
You are so so right about ideas. That's why people talking with each other about their lives is so important. Not because the talking of the ideas is sufficient but it helps them figure out what they will actually do and discover effective possibilities they might not even have considered without sharing ideas.
"He [Trump] didn’t even bother to couch his agenda in some high-minded language."
I'd argue he's just incapable of high-minded thinking. PERIOD. He's a street-fighter. Look at how he ran his business.
Not a street-fighter. A crooked con man.
He has a street fighter’s mentality, always taking someone on in his businesses. Anyway, agree totally w your crooked con description. He's multi-faceted.
My own view of the failure of libertarians to offer resistance to Trump is that they did not want to be marginalized -- which is the same reason that conservatives have also largely surrendered to Trump. Deep down, libertarians know that they lose most of their influence if they don't form alliances with conservatives. Sure, they will criticize Trump -- but not too much.
Never understood the perception that their previous conservative (anti-communist) affinity led to support of right-wing authoritarianism.
Well that is quite cowardly in a lot of ways. Like being in the bully's gang because you have more power that way. What are libertarians getting out of it anyway? Nothing that I can see. Trump just primaried Thomas Massie.
I think the problem for American libertarians is that the two party system forces all of us to choose one party or the other to serve as a vehicle for our aspirations and commitments even though most of those aspirations will never be realized and those core commitments get compromised. That is the nature of a functioning liberal democracy.
There was a time when both major parties had liberals, moderates and conservatives and libertarians. Today we have a party with a "conservative" and reactionary wing and the other party is more and more becoming one with a progressive and socialist wing. Moderates (and libertarians) are becoming more and more marginalized. Just try to talk about rational immigration, free trade and free markets to most folks in either party these days and then duck and cover.
In Europe Bernie, AOC and Company would be in a different party from Schumer and Jeffries and probably have more actual power to actually shape legislation than they do here.
We function by recognizing that everyone has a stake in the governing enterprise and when we struggle to get the most of what we want while at the same time trimming what we see as the worst excesses of the opposition. We don't function when we simply think we should cancel out the opposition. With the end of the Cold War consensus and the Speakership of Newt Gingrich and his scorched earth war on the Democrats the unraveling began and so here we are today.
Now we have "Green New Deals" and "One Big Beautiful Bills" and significant legislation can only be passed through reconciliation so as to avoid having to actually avoid dealing with the other party and getting exactly what "we" want. No compromise---it's our way or the highway. With that sort of mentality a Donald Trump was inevitable it's just the political right got there first. Democrats talk of a future when they are in power and they plan to run roughshod over the Republicans.
Our entire governing order has been turned into a system of recrimination, retribution and revenge no matter who is in charge.
Joe Biden tried to govern by traditional norms and see where that got him. If you aren't blood thirsty enough they really just don't want you.
Yup, this is why the remaining libertarians now seem like sane moderates - all the extremists and kooks became MAGA, leaving a smaller, but more sensible centrist libertarianism behind. My hope is that the abundance Democrats and libertarians can form some sort of coalition politics and influence the Democratic party. You are correct that forcing things into a Two Party dynamic empowers the extremes though.
I think your opening premise pegged the problem. Having devolved into a two-party constituency, I fear we have become what our founders most feared. An uneducatef, ill-informed populace succumbing to the worst aspiriring representatives.
I'm a libertarian, and I was pretty much in the same place as Dalmia on this. I saw immediately the threat that he posed. He was going to tear down the world trade order, he was going to reverse things that libertarians had fought for, painstakingly, for decades. And he has. It was much much worse than I predicted, even. I never expected him to start taking equity stakes in US business, the kinds of human rights violations that have already happened under his watch, with respect to immigration, are beyond anything I thought possible. I still consider myself a libertarian though, but a real one. Many so-called libertarians ripped off the mask and exposed themselves as closet authoritarians and racists. There is a core libertarianism focused on economics and human freedom. Perhaps it needs to be reinvented. But the core-message is perhaps if anything more clearly transmitted, without the baggage of all the closeted racists and hangers on whose only reason for clinging to the libertarian label is because they wanted to fondle their guns and oppress black and brown people.
Libertarians and their friends who spent months wearing camo in the hills with long guns practicing fire and movement have been talking about government overreach, the tree of liberty etc, etc, second amendment solutions. Since the 90s at least it's been mainstream for them to be warning about martial law and FEMA camps as concentration camps.
Well there's been soldiers in the cities which I believe was an issue that led to the war of independence. There's been masked secret police stopping people and asking for their papers like in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Rule by presidential fiat from a guy who sees himself as a king and a high court which allows it.
And the libertarians have been either quiet or explained it away by its all legal. Or if they were braggadocious enough to claim they're the only patriots they've been happy and supportive.
Before I read this the only Libertarian I've trusted was Radley Balko because he's been consistent. The Niskanean Center and a couple of other shops that closed down a long time ago were the only libertarians who seemed to be tackling the problems identified in this interview.
As an anarchist I agree with most of what's here. I'm not sure most Libertarians are seeing Trump and the Republican Party as a problem. I could be wrong. I would be happy if the Libertarians are on board with fighting authoritarianism but if they aren't that's cool too. Everyone gets to make their choices.
Thanks
Yeah, I keep asking people what the Oathkeepers stance on all this is. LOL. How does the Oathkeeper feel about the Iran war, what about bombing boats in the Carribean? What about Trump going after Senators who remind troops about their duty to disobey illegal orders. Any comment?
It is worth noting that the Libertarian Party refused to nominate Trump as their candidate when he asked. I believe he got booed. So there are certainly some libertarians who have been consistent and principled. And Reason and Volokh conspiracy have been very critical of his trade and immigration actions (with one or two exceptions). I think for sure a lot of libertarians got stuck in the trap of feeling like they needed to stick with their "tribe" and believing the logic of the Two Party system - the social pressure to pick a side is intense.
I read about the Libertarian Party doing a lot to purge their party of Trump supporters. I can imagine someone being a Libertarian and liking Trump, people are weird, we just are, but I don't get a party member endorsing Trump over the Libertarian presidential candidate.
The Bulwark had a good article about the hard work the Libertarian Party is doing. A very long time ago I thought I might be libertarian but I'm not.
I do think a society needs libertarians and anarchists, most definitely anarchists.
Used to read The Volokh Conspiracy when I was reading Tyler Cowen. Since you mention them I might start reading Volokh again. Haven't looked at Reason since the mid 2000s. Their emphasis on free markets was not where I was at. I'm not sure what a free market is but I have a better idea what it isn't.
Once I read The Prize I couldn't believe in free markets. The oil industry really does rely on government policy everywhere and governments really considered controlling oil a matter of national sovereignty even if they don't have any oil reserves.
I really would like to be political friends with libertarians. Maybe that will happen.
Thinking of what you said about tribes some of that might be by temperament more than we realize.
The Bulwark article gave a good explanation about the problems third parties face. It would be good if there were more than two parties but we do politics with the system you have not the system we wish we had. Thanks for reading my long reply.
The Two Party System is entrenched because of the way we do elections. First-past-the-Post voting creates a spoiler effect. Also the electoral college is winner-take-all in most states. And if you combine those it amplifies the spoiler effect. This is how Clinton won on 43% of the vote in 1992 while Perot got zero electoral college votes, even though he had 19% of the popular vote.
We really need something like ranked choice voting, or a two round election system, like jungle primaries or something so that moderate candidates can even stand a chance.
If you ever get a chance to read Producing Politics you might find it enlightening
I don't disagree with you at all. I also think this thing about a major party constantly thinking about how to purge people from the voter rolls and doing everything it can to prevent voting is pretty pretty bad. Then not having the politicians decide their districts would make more races competitive instead of having incumbent monopolies
Thanks for Marlene and Shikha for sharing your conversation. Libertarianism always seemed like it would have much more view point diversity.
I really liked what Marlene shared about how Libertarianism ended up where it has. My take is that with its focus on curtailing government power and focusing on free markets which have led to corporations that end up having having more power over individuals and can do things with much more freedom than governments under libertarianism when there's disagreement about freedoms it's going to come down to who has the most power and the law on their side. Free markets and corporations are created by the state so that version of libertarianism is going to end up wanting a more powerful state and with pervasive dictatorial power of corporations in our personal age work lives a pervasive government is going to happen.
From a naive, first pass, answer to how Libertarians ended up here; They got here by seeing free markets as the best measure of liberty because free speech, free movement are necessary for mutual agreement. They aren't enough.
If free markets lead to free societies it's more important to have government role curtailed to property rights and contract law. Then the biggest thing is making government powerful enough to maintain free markets and be constrained outside its use of force to maintain contracts.
Again this is a naive first pass at explaining that. I might be getting what Libertarians believe completely wrong. I think they ended up here from their priors which keep them from seeing the second and third order effects of priors.
American “libertarianism” has always been more Ayn Rand than Hayek. People read Rand and see her philosophy, rightly or wrongly, as a license for “great men” to do whatever the fuck they want to achieve “greatness” and all the “parasites” and “takers” need to either bow down or get out of the way. It’s not hard to see the germ of authoritarianism in any movement that sees a narcissist like Rand as central to their political philosophy.
Of course, one can overthink this. There are also a lot of so-called “libertarians” who are really just gun nuts and want their understanding of the 2nd amendment defended at all cost.
Hayek himself was infatuated with a "great" and "strong" man. He aided and defended the authoritarian regime of Pinochet in Chile.
If you look at Rockwell, Rothbard or Hoppe it is easy to see how the alliance between right-wing extremists and libertarians formed. It is not by accident.
Rand fits neatly into this, as her body of work is idolatry of the "great" industrialist or "genius" entrepreneur Ubermensch that is the victim of "leecherous" and "parasitic" Untermenschen. Her cult-like "philosophy" of Objectivism is a nietzschean cauldron for powerhungry, might makes right nihilists.
Shikha has been prescient in her comparison of Trump to Modi and the illiberalism and demagoguery of both of them. She has been loud and outspoken, unlike many immigrants from India who have happily joined the circus. However, I think in this battle for democracy and liberalism in the USA, there is another analogy with India that I am deeply worried about. India since its economic liberalization in the nineties (a good thing), has yielded undue influence and control to its oligarchs like the Ambanis and the Adanis with their ability, through money and access to power to manipulate the Government into favoring their interests over the common good. I see the owners of massive digital platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Google and their owners Zuckerberg, Musk and Brin increasingly do the same to the US Government. (I would encourage everyone who thinks this is hyperbole to read Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams). And we have not even added the soon to be AI Titans to this list. I think anyone who is worried about liberalism and democracy better also acknowledge and have a response to the hijack of the Government towards the advancement of the interests of these platforms/corporatgions at the cost of the common good.
They toy with us, playing both ends against the middle! As we pick each other to pieces over "pronouns" and "privilege," the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.
After all, who funds the NGOs and foundations that bankroll NPR?
AI will further flummox any opposition, and keep us spinning our wheels!
I understand: not having health insurance and being ruined by a broken leg—that is true freedom
"We need a better and even more generous safety net that diminishes economic precarity. That is not inconsistent with capitalism. In fact, the economic growth that capitalism generates makes a properly funded safety net sustainable. The problem is that it is extremely difficult to have a safety net that is targeted toward those who need it and does not create moral hazards, on the one hand, and is insulated from politicians who want to expand it to buy the votes of specific constituencies, on the other."
Yes, it is inconsistent with capitalism. And the failure to grasp this is the cause of our continual progression away from freedom and free-markets. Capitalism is not some golden goose that lays eggs for politicians to distribute, capitalism is a system that protects the freedom of individuals to produce and trade with others and keep the fruits of their labor. This rests on a principle of property rights.
A government "safety net" is a euphemism for using government force to take from some people and give to others. This establishes the "principle" that need is a moral claim on the lives and property of others. This is the opposite of freedom. This is "from each according to ability, to each according to need," which is the basis of socialism, not capitalism.
Once a evil principle is established in a culture and is not challenged, it only grows and grows, because that how principles work. What we need to to defend the correct moral principles, the principle of individual rights, which means that the needs of others, whether a minority or majority is not a claim on the lives and property of others. If people truly understood and defended this, we would have an abundance of freedom.
This is well said.
The overall position that these "liberals" are advocating boils down to: a form of authoritarianism that is supposedly consistent with freedom.
@Jim, you decry "the 'principle' that need is a moral claim on the lives and property of others," claiming that "This is the opposite of freedom."
If there is an unmet need, and someone (or some corporate entity) has the resources to fill it but refuses to do so, that's an ABUSE of freedom. In other words, It's not freedom at all; it's the exercise of power -- the antithesis of freedom, whether the locus of that power is concentrated in Property or the State.
One person's need is not a moral claim on the lives of others. Individuals do not exist to fulfill other people's needs. Individuals exist to pursue their own lives and happiness. And government's job is to protect that ability. This is the meaning of the Declaration of Independence.
There's a fundamental difference between the power to produce and the power to kill, between voluntary trade and robbery, between a dollar and a gun. If I bake a loaf of bread and offer it for trade, this is a voluntary transaction, which is the essence of freedom. If a thug with a gun comes and take the bread I produced by force, that's the opposite of freedom. If the government uses its police and guns to take the bread I produced this is likewise an attack on freedom. Freedom means free from physical coercion.
If you've baked a loaf of bread (with plenty to spare), and someone who's starving comes to your door, you can be a jerk and refuse to give him any -- because you "need" the profits from selling your bread to buy up the rest of the block and expand your bakery -- a process that can go on ad infinitum.
And if you call for a thug with a gun (i.e., a cop) to chase him away, that's force.
Ironically, I've argued the opposite side of this against leftists who insist that the interests of the collective (in the name of "empathy") override those of the individual. My response to them is that empathy is an individual attribute (not a collective abstraction), shared among other individuals.
I suppose it comes down to what one means by a "moral claim." With further irony, you (like the collectivist) are valorizing "ownership" or "property" (over lived reality) as the absolute core or fulcrum of the Self -- but (like the collectivist) you fail to recognize that this, in itself, is implicitly totalitarian.
I'll go with Shikha's more nuanced, situational perspective!
Shikha's nuanced, situational perspective is what is leading us toward more and more collectivism and illiberalism. The reason is that there's a basic moral principle at stake: either individuals have a right to the products of the labor or they don't. This is a basic moral divide.
Once you say that the bread I bake can be taken from me in the name of someone else's need (and denigrate my needs and desires to expand my business, as unimportant -- unimportant to whom?), you have handed the collectivists and totalitarians the moral high-ground. Because this sanctions the principle that the individual can be sacrificed to some "need." Once this is established, it's just an matter of which "need," which collective, which dictator, which nation, which cause, etc. individuals are to be sacrificed.
The issue is not whether one helps someone in need, it's whether their help, if it's forthcoming, is viewed as act of generosity or a moral duty.
Certainly we should valorize ownership and property. These are not at odds with a "lived reality" they are essential to it. If an individual does not have the right keep and dispose of their material earnings, they are a slave, not a free person. Throughout history, all the societies that did not valorize ownership and property resulted in mass starvation and death.
We have a deep philosophical difference here.
The reason you are not a slave is NOT (as some libertarians like to say) because you "own" your body; it's because your existence is inseparable from your body. You're assuming that there's a mind/body duality (wherein the relationship between the mind (or innermost Self) and body is one of “Ownership": in effect, "I own, therefore I am."
To say the least, that's a debatable proposition; arguably, it (both the mind/body duality — and among values, the primacy of Ownership) even goes against most of the world's major spiritual traditions.
My point, however, is not to debate these matters. It's to point out that (debatable as your view mlght be), you'd empower the State (with an absolute monopoly of force) to enforce your (and ONLY your) belief -- in effect, establishing it as the State religion.
That's no better than the collectivist who (in their parallel universe) grants the State (or some other entity) absolute power to enforce some notion of "the Common Good."
As a liberal, I recognize the sovereignty (or sanctity) of the individual; our quarrel is over what (or who) the individual IS.
You're entitled to your belief -- and to maintain (and certainly to express) that belief, as libertarians like to say, "without force or fraud" -- but in any interaction, how you manifest or exercise that belief is negotiable -- not subject to absolute force. The legitimate power of the State is limited to facilitating those negotiations (among individuals, without favor) — allowing them to go on unimpeded, insuring that they’re conducted in good faith (i.e., without force or fraud [or any hidden agendas!]) — and to enforce their outcome.
Ownership (or “Property”) might certainly be a strong consideration, but more may be at stake than that. Failure to recognize this is, indeed (like the collectivist’s failure to recognize countervailing values), totalitarian.
"It's to point out that (debatable as your view mlght be), you'd empower the State (with an absolute monopoly of force) to enforce your (and ONLY your) belief -- in effect, establishing it as the State religion.
That's no better than the collectivist who (in their parallel universe) grants the State (or some other entity) absolute power to enforce some notion of "the Common Good."
I agree, that would be no better. But don't confuse me with religious conservatives who want to impose their morality on others. I'm arguing for freedom across the board, mind and body. As you say there is no mind/body duality. Individuals are a unity of mind and body, which means that freedom requires freedom in the material realm (property) as well as the spiritual realm (ideas).
There are libertarians and there are liberTANians (traditionalists, authoritarians, nationalists)
I think it's worth noting that the radical right-wing extremists come in the cover of libertarianism. They are wearing the skins of libertarians, as did the radical left-wing extremists wore the skins of liberals.
But both, the libertarians and the right-wing extremists want to destroy the modern state. They are moral and legal nihilists.
We have to become way better at detecting these threats. Remember, the fascist revolutionaries came in the skins of conservatives and socialists (Yes, you read that right). In power they eliminated both conservatives and socialists alike.
It will be the same with these neo-fascists. Once they have the power purging is inevitable.
Isn't it enlightenment values that conservatives, liberals, democratic socialists and libertarians have in common? Respect for human life, human thinking and human intentions. Isn't this what unites us and distinguishes us from authoritarians? I think that Thomas Jefferson at least thought of America as and enlightenment project.
In fact, don't our current authoritarians undermine every single aspect of the enlightenment? If America is an enlightenment project, aren't they "anti-Americans"?
Here's the thing: The modern "conservative" movement explicitly rejects enlightenment values. MAGA is an authoritarian movement, through and through. Any conservatives who hold liberalism in high esteem are long gone in today's political landscape.
I agree about MAGA. It's a little bit odd, isn't it? I'm trying to answer the question of the article about what unites us against the fascists. On the one hand, it's exactly the Enlightenment. But this is rarely articulated, and there are no enlightenment rallies....but in another sense, every 4'th of July celebration is an enlightenment rally; it's just not presented that way.
That's an interesting point, but I think it's a bit over-simplifying to emphasize the impact of the enlightenment on the US and July 4th. While it was of course a big part of our founding, those enlightenment values only went so far. The US has always had an authoritarian streak in many aspects, so long as it was being used against "undesirable" people. (The ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples, slavery, WWII Japanese internment camps, etc.)
That's part of what lends so much credence to the Christian Nationalist movement - because they, too, are historically also a big part of this country's origin story. On the 4th of July, people tend to be moreso interested in partaking in patriotism or nationalism rather than having any true appreciation for the ideas that came out of the enlightenment... I'd argue that the focus on "religious freedom" for zealots probably played a role here, but that's a different rabbit hole...
If we truly could be united against authoritarians with a common reverence of the enlightenment, I think we would not be in the position we are in today. I fear that too many Americans, fundamentally, do not care enough to respect those values in the first place.
I suspect that Americans actually could be united against authoritarians and Christian Nationalists via patriotism and enlightenment values if it's done right. The enlightenment can almost be summarized as a rejection of unjustified authority, either from a church or a tyrant, and that has deep visceral appeal. Especially for libertarian. What could be more American than that?
Agreed -- but that argument only goes so far before "Enlightenment values" become a pretext for their own flavor of authoritrianism -- as long as the authorities are "experts," regardless of what those subjected to their authority might think.
“Liberalism” is such a difficult and confusing term."
It just means rights-protecting government. It's the founding idea of the US. This political concept built the modern world.
I think the real issue is that political professionals find this difficult and confusing and are comfortable to openly admit this.
"...create a broad coalition with people from the left and right to fight authoritarianism."
That's like saying we need to form a broad coalition with authoritarians to fight authoritarianism.
I think the first step needs to be determining what an alternative to authoritarianism looks like. If you're struggling with terms like "liberalism" then you're off to a bad start.
We don't need any coalitions. We need people who understand the subject of politics.
"hyper-individualists and anarcho-corporatists who want a quasi-monarchy."
If they're "hyper-individualists" then they can't be anarchists and monarchists, can they?
Just like a square can't be a circle, right?
Definitions are important.
"To fight this, liberals need to set aside their old policy disagreements, whether on tax cuts or climate and energy policy."
But climate and energy policies are authoritarian. These aren't "policy disagreements." Fighting climate policy *is* fighting authoritarianism. It's just as crucial as fighting MAGA.
And so on.
I don't want to be unconstructive, but listening to this, it just sounds like you guys have a lot of very fundamental things that you need to figure out before you rush ahead with building coalitions, etc.
I agree with the postliberals like Deneen on only one point: that the values-free state is a myth, especially with regards to the United States. From the very beginning —who got to own land, who could or couldn't vote, and who was or wasn't property — these weren't the product of a values-neutral government spitting out justice. They were value judgments made by a bunch of white guys who decided that them profiting the most off the system they built was proof that it was behaving rationally. I'll say this much for the postliberals, they believe in something. It's a bunch of bigoted, misogynist, racist bullshit, but they believe it, and they govern in accordance with those beliefs. They've shown us that you can govern on your values and still win, it's simply a matter of which values you govern on.
Sorry to nitpick, but what we're seeing isn't governance. It's idiocracy and corruption.
Oh, absolutely. But I'm working from a framework that the Idiocracy and corruption are the means, not the ends. They have ends they want to achieve and are willing to do whatever they feel they must to achieve them. Just look at the overturning of Roe. They broke a bunch of rules along the way, and Democrats got mad at the rule breaking, but didn't stop to question the intent behind it, or if they knew the intent, they chose not to call it out. They wanted to overturn a woman's right to choose, and were willing to do whatever it took to get that.
Got it.
I could wax philosophical about how the modern right has basically embraced "The Ends Justifies The Means" as a moral philosophy, as their guiding star. Whereas the Left is still trying to answer questions of identity and of values and which ones should have primacy over the others. Still hemming and hawing about *how* to go about things, at the expense of *what* things they should go about. Since at least the 70's Republicans and conservatives in general always approach questions of policy using the language of belief. What do they believe in?
Dear Shikha,
What's missing from this analysis reflects its failure to recognize how concentrations of power arise from concentrations of wealth -- in turn (as per Schumpeter), leading to the rise of managerial bureaucracies as those concentrations mature -- and subsequently ossify into a welter of foundations and NGOs.
"The rule of law" offers no release from this bind when it amounts to the rule of lawyers -- and those (individuals and organizations) that can afford to hire them. Information -- and ultimately, consciousness itself -- becomes subject to the vagaries of manipulation based on property rights -- ameliorated only (falsely) by the self-anointed referees of the Oppression Olympics, entrenched in the bureaucracies (aka "The Groups," touting "Social Justice") already referenced above.
And so we pick each other to pieces over "pronouns" and "privilege," while the oligarchs keep laughing all the way to the bank.
(I get this diagnosis from the "KKK" -- Kerouac, Kesey, and Kafka.)
I'm not dismissing the alarm here over the predations of Trump! It's just that the problem may be deeper than we might like to think. Indeed, it may be cyclical and unavoidable -- the loss of "asabiya," as per Ibn Khaldun. Disruptive tyranny arises in reaction to a stagnant bureaucracy overlaid on an entropic substrate of cultural disintegration.
As a species, we're approaching an evolutionary bottleneck -- the end of a cycle that began with the advent of externalized memory (initially as written communication, the historical record) -- as, with all of it now instantaneous, we can no longer devise institutions to "play the float." (As we've developed what we know as "Civilization," that's been our evolutionary niche.)
Indeed, we may be on the verge of losing our perch as the planet's apex predator.
The event is in the hand of God.
(See also, "The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics and Society," by Norbert Wiener; the poem "As I Walked Out One Evening," by W.H. Auden; and [if you can wake him from his slumber] the ghost of Isaiah Berlin) ;-)