What a Centrist Libertarian Program Looks Like in Practice

I think it could be more popular than right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism

In recent years, I've come to identify as both a centrist and a libertarian. I've explained numerous times elsewhere why I identify with these labels. But still, some people seem to think it's a contradiction. And it really shouldn't be. I mean, if someone told you that they identified as being on the right and a libertarian, that would make sense to most people. Alternatively, if someone told you that they identified as a leftist and a libertarian, that would still make sense at least to people who are familiar with political philosophy. In other words, right-libertarianism is not only real but also the default mode of libertarianism in the English-speaking West, and left-libertarianism is at least a very real thing that is well understood by many politically engaged people. On the other hand, most people still seem to be unable to imagine what a centrist libertarianism looks like.

To explain centrist libertarianism, I think we should start with left-libertarianism vs right-libertarianism. The differences between left-libertarians and right-libertarians ultimately lie in what they believe to be the biggest barriers to freedom. Traditionally, right-libertarians believe that the government is the biggest barrier to freedom, and left-libertarians believe that capitalism is the biggest barrier to freedom. In recent times, cultural views have also entered the conversation. Here, right-libertarians tend to believe that the 'woke' establishment and its institutions are the most important enemy of freedom, while left-libertarians tend to see the same with religion and traditional values. The clarity of who the 'enemy' is means that both left-libertarians and right-libertarians tend to have quite extreme, and therefore 'immediatist', policy positions, and they believe that if they were allowed to get their way, liberty would be realized almost overnight.

Centrist libertarians are different from both left-libertarians and right-libertarians in that, while we aim for the maximization of freedom like all other libertarians, we understand that the conditions that favor or disfavor freedom are multifactorial. We don't believe that the left or the right exclusively has the answers to what makes a society free. Rather, we empirically observe what conditions are conducive to freedom in practice, and what conditions are harmful to freedom in practice. The set of 'conditions for freedom' that we care about are much larger than the simplistic views of both left-libertarians and right-libertarians. For example, polarization, echo chambers, loss of respect for science and objective truth, and an over-commitment to abstract philosophy are all harmful for freedom. Both left-libertarians and right-libertarians fail to see all this, because they are too obsessed with their own ideology. Centrist libertarianism, in contrast, is much more empirical and practical.

This also means that a centrist libertarianism is necessarily a gradualist libertarianism. When you believe that freedom is multifactorial, and that there is no simple fix that would magically take us to freedom utopia, you understand that the road to more freedom lies in trial and error, give and take, and in both promoting new forms of freedom, as well as safeguarding existing forms of freedom. Like other centrists, we understand that making good, sustainable policy lies in balance and compromise, and aiming for overnight perfection is just a recipe for disaster. This is in contrast to both left-libertarians and right-libertarians, who mostly agree with the broader left and the broader right respectively as to who is the 'enemy', and find almost no room for agreement with the other side. This is what leads to many right-libertarians embracing policy positions very similar to that of the Republican Freedom Caucus, and many left-libertarians embracing wokeness to some extent, even though that ideology is clearly anti-free speech and individual liberty. Of course, we centrists know that both the hard-left and the hard-right are actually not that good for freedom in practice. As centrists, we are able to see the pitfalls inherent in both left-wing and right-wing politics, and their anti-freedom implications.

Centrist libertarianism also differs from pure 'centrism' in an important way. Unlike centrists who are not libertarians, we still insist on prioritizing our general goal of promoting freedom when it comes to what we are willing to support, and the kind of compromises that we are willing to make. For example, a centrist libertarian will not agree to a platform that results in clearly less freedom than the status quo, no matter what benefits its supporters claim it will bring. Also, in hammering out compromises, we will always bring the case for freedom to the table, and argue that a policy of agreeing to disagree and respecting each other's freedom will often be the best form of compromise. Finally, our commitment to freedom means that we will not fall for 'populist' policy platforms that combine social and economic authoritarianism, even if they do superficially combine policies from the left and the right. We want to take the best parts from both sides, not the worst parts.

Creating a False Consensus | Influencers vs. Truth

Beware when 'everyone' moves in lockstep.

Welcome to Influencers vs. Truth, a new series where I examine the strategies often used by political influencers to recruit viewers to their point of view. I think this is needed for three reasons: firstly, online influencers have a range of new strategies that they have been using to convince people of their positions, and these have been much more effective than the old strategies used by TV talking heads and talk radio personalities. Secondly, recent revelations have shined a light on the fact that many online influencers are likely being paid gigantic sums of money to push certain talking points. Finally, the combination of these things has meant that more and more people have been converted to extremist or otherwise unsound positions on a wide range of issues, as a result of the work of influencers aligned with the far-left or the far-right. I'm concerned that this could be a major contributor to the political polarization we are seeing, and the fact that we don't seem to be living in the same universe of objective facts anymore.

In this first installment, I'm going to talk about how influencers create a false sense of consensus, and the dangerous effects this could have. I've been paying attention to the world of online political influencers for about seven years now, and I've seen this in action many, many times. It was during the pandemic, when we were all stuck at home watching too many YouTube videos, that I first became consciously aware of this. I noticed that a certain subset of right-aligned influencers kept taking the same stances on a wide range of topics, including topics regarding the pandemic, as well as regarding things like BLM and the 2020 US Elections. Their lockstep agreement struck me as unusual, even for a group of people aligned with the Republican Party, because there was actually a much wider range of views within the Republican Party itself on these issues in the real world. For example, back in around April 2020, many Republican elected officials held the view that they should focus on sorting out the pandemic first, then campaign hard in the summer, because they expected the pandemic to go away by August back then, but none of the influencers seemed to have any sympathy for this view. Republicans were also split on whether Trump should take up one or more culture war campaigns, but all the influencers were fully in on the culture wars, with no exceptions. It became clear to me that all these influencers were only representing the views of one part of the Republican Party, not even the whole Republican Party, but they were trying to portray these views as the widespread consensus of people who had 'common sense', ignoring all the very real and very valid disagreements that were actually happening in reality.

Once I became aware that these influencers were trying to pretend that the views of one faction of one party were the consensus view, I noticed even more unusual things happening. Like how these influencers would all promote certain books at around the same time, generating a sense of buzz, when such buzz was clearly missing in the real world. I mean, most of the time I couldn't even find the promoted book at my local bookstore. Or how, in early 2021, they all jumped up and down when Dr. Seuss Enterprises decided to stop publishing six titles deemed to have racist content, even though there was almost no real world interest in this piece of obscure news. I mean, it's a stretch even calling it 'cancel culture', because it's not like somebody actually had their career ruined, or was threatened into silence and submission in any way. It was just that six of the less popular Seuss books, out of a catalog of more than sixty, would not be printed anymore. The rest of the world couldn't care less. But the influencers kept trying to manufacture outrage for about a week.

This weird lockstep behavior was happening on more fundamental issues too. For example, by late 2021, they had all turned against the 'classical liberalism' they were championing just one or two years ago, and were singing praises of the new illiberal 'National Conservatism' movement. Somehow, all of them believed, just like myself, that it was important to uphold classical liberal values against wokeness in 2019, and what the West needed was more free speech. However, all of them had a change of heart by 2021, and now saw liberalism itself as responsible for wokeness, and what the West needed was to give up on classical liberalism itself! In a roundabout way, they had all managed to become enemies of the version of themselves from just two years ago!

The first question that came to my mind was, why weren't these people challenged for their nonsense? The answer was clear: they mostly only collaborated with those who moved in lockstep with them. In other words, they were making strange behavior and awkward moves look more natural by doing it together, and holding conversations where they justified each others' talking points. What they were doing was manufacturing a false consensus. In the real world, people were not giving up on classical liberalism en masse during 2021. But somehow, in right-wing influencer world, it seemed like a real shift was really happening, and 'everyone' was getting behind it. The fact that the arguments for classical liberal values that were valid in 2019 would still be valid two years later was ignored by 'everyone', and voices from the outside that could carry this point of view were of course excluded from the show. Later on, it would turn out that all this was a prelude to the launch of a new brand of big government, illiberal culture war politics, with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis's infamous War on Disney as the first big move. The aforementioned influencers would all go on to become DeSantis fans, justifying his every move, even as they seriously infringed upon the value of free speech.

I believe what we saw here was an example of a group of influencers manufacturing the appearance of a consensus, to justify a controversial political program. The goal here was to loosen the viewer's previous commitment to classical liberal values, so that they would not get in the way of the new political program. I think this is very Orwellian indeed.

The Reationary Rabbit Hole of Competitive Outrage | The Fault in the Right

It's very bad news indeed for the future of freedom in the West

Welcome back to The Fault in the Right. Today, I'm going to talk about an increasingly worrying phenomenon: the rise of competitive outrage on the right. This is perhaps one of the things most characteristic of how the populist New Right is different from old-school conservative politics. Think of it as the mirror image of the 'oppression olympics'. Instead of competing to be the most oppressed, however, it seems like many in the populist right like to compete to be the most outraged. We are seeing this phenomenon more and more often in both political influencers and actual politicians making policies. And this has some worrying consequences.

Firstly, competitive outrage always results in whipping up people's emotions, and bringing out the worst in people. It leads to irrationality, tribalism, and even open bigotry and hate towards certain groups. And because you win the game by acting more outraged than other people on your side, and promising ever harsher actions against perceived enemies, there is no circuit breaker here. Nobody can call out others on their own side for going too far, because they would be perceived as 'weak', and also lose the game of competitive outrage by definition. Hence, things can only get angrier, more irrational, more detached from reality, and more outrageous as time goes on.

Many might think that competitive outrage is only something that happens online, among political influencers and users of social media. However, it is clear that this is not the case. Populist right politicians' talking points about immigrants, LGBT people, and 'liberal elites' have been getting darker and more divisive in the past few years. And it has also affected policy making, with ever increasing numbers of anti-LGBT bills being filed every year across America and the West for example. The truth here is, populist right-aligned politicians have to keep filing these bills, even though they are unnecessary because they all look similar to each other, because they have to show that they are outraged, and will respond in a 'strong' way. If they don't do this, they could get primaried and lose their career. Over time, the content of those bills have also gotten more and more outrageous. There is clearly no room for rational thinking, compassion or compromise, even in policy making, when everything is driven by competitive outrage.

The ultimate effect of competitive outrage is likely going to be the total triumph of reactionism in right-of-center politics, and the complete death of organicist conservatism. This is because competitive outrage always ends up favoring the most reactionary points of view, and is always incompatible with the rationality, compromise and moderation required to maintain a viable organicist conservative position. Given that, as I previously analyzed, organicism is important for the maintenance of freedom, while reactionism is fundamentally incompatible with individual liberty, the triumph of reactionism over organicism on the right is going to have very adverse impacts on freedom. Therefore, I believe that, for the sake of defending freedom, we need to take a very firm stance against competitive outrage. Not only should we make sure we are not playing that game ourselves, I think we actually need to call it out whenever we see it, to prevent it from being normalized any further. And we need to keep raising awareness, to make more people aware that this is something that is happening, and is going to have a deleterious effect on freedom if it continues unchecked.

Three Things That Can Reunite Libertarians | Moral Libertarian Talk

Freedom, Peace and Honesty is our Common Ground

Today, I'm going to talk about how we can reunite different types of libertarians across the political spectrum again. Given that the usual attitude of libertarians is that 'only my version of libertarianism is real libertarianism', and that as the saying goes, if you have a room of libertarians there would be as many versions of libertarianism as there are people in the room, how can we hope to get different kinds of libertarians to come together at all? I believe the answer lies in finding, and emphasizing, our common ground. I can think of three areas where the vast majority of libertarians, if not all libertarians, can passionately agree on.

The first thing that can unite all libertarians is a fundamental belief in the importance of freedom. While this might just be stating the obvious, the rising level of authoritarianism in both the left and the right has made the libertarians on both sides increasingly uncomfortable, which could be a catalyst for the formation of a new cross-political spectrum alliance for freedom. If left-libertarians and right-libertarians can come together for the sake of defending freedom, we might even see a real fundamental re-ordering of Western politics along libertarian-authoritarian lines in the future.

The second thing that can unite libertarians is a commitment to peace. Historically, libertarianism has often gained support for taking a principled stance on unnecessary and unjustified wars. I first became sympathetic to libertarian ideas during the 2003 Iraq War, for example. While left-libertarians and right-libertarians disagree on economic issues, they generally agree on non-violence, peace, and opposing unjust wars. What we need to remember is that, if left-libertarians and right-libertarians choose to work with the authoritarians on their own side rather than choose to work with each other, there will never be any hope for world peace. What we also need to remember is that a hopeful commitment to world peace is becoming rarer among other ideologies, which means libertarians are becoming increasingly isolated on this. Neoliberals and neoconservatives generally don't believe that world peace is possible, nor do the National Conservatives of the New Right, if you examine the roots of their ideology. They all seem to think that the forever wars are inevitable, even if for different reasons. Which means libertarians probably have to go it alone to keep the hope of peace alive. This alone, I think, could be enough motivation for at least some left-libertarians and right-libertarians to work together, at least some of the time.

Last but certainly not least, an often overlooked thing that all kinds of libertarians share is a need for honesty. This honesty is actually what makes it difficult for libertarians to form coalitions of convenience in the first place. However, the fact that both the left and the right have become very tribalist, very focused on winning and 'owning' the other side, and have resorted to dishonest tactics and hypocritical positioning to achieve what they want, has gotten libertarians on both sides more and more concerned. This, I think, could be something that could make libertarians of all stripes come together, and realize our fundamental similarities, despite our disagreements. In libertarianism, you will never find the manipulative philosophical sophistry of postmodernism, or the win at all costs mentality of the New Right. True libertarians never 'hide their power level', to borrow an increasingly popular saying. While left-libertarians and right-libertarians could disagree vehemently with each other, at least you can expect that all parties will remain honest and straightforward.