One of the reasons why libertarianism isn't doing so well right now is because the application of the non-aggression principle (NAP) in real life isn't always straightforward. Don't get me wrong, I think the NAP is still valuable and important. But it appears that we really can't build a whole politics on that alone. Therefore, I suggest some other arguments that can be used to support a freedom-orientated politics:
1. The Truth Argument
This one is simple. People should be free to discover the truth, via debate and experimentation, free from undue influence or coercion. This is the only way we will get to know the objective truth better. Any prohibition on this process would necessarily distort the functioning of the marketplace of ideas, and hence our understanding of the truth. This alone should be enough to justify the case for maximizing freedom.
2. The Compassion Argument
Top-down rigid policy prescriptions often have unintended consequences, that actually harm people in real life. In Western two-party system states, the government tends to be biased towards one tribe in society or another, making this problem worse. On the other hand, when you give people freedom, they tend to know what to do with their lives most of the time, and they tend to know how to solve their own problems better than the government does. This is why it is almost always the objectively compassionate thing to do to give people more freedom.
3. The Extended Religious Freedom Argument
This is a more philosophical argument, and is closely aligned with the Moral Libertarian philosophy of 'equal moral agency'. Basically, freedom of religion traditionally requires the right to identify one's religious beliefs, to espouse one's religious beliefs, and to practice one's religious beliefs to the extent that other people's rights are not adversely affected. The reason why such a premium was placed on religious beliefs was because this idea came during a time when almost everyone was deeply religious, and the Western world was torn apart by sectarian religious conflicts. In this day and age, where not everyone is deeply religious, there is no reason to just prioritize religious beliefs. Moreover, while not everyone's beliefs are rooted in religion these days, the West remains a culture of competing beliefs, and if we don't extend the application of freedom of religion to non-religious beliefs, the historical problem of sectarian conflicts based on conflicting worldviews would likely recur.
Therefore, I believe we should extend the religious freedom guarantee to all sincerely held philosophical beliefs, i.e. there should be a right for everyone to identify one's philosophical and moral beliefs, to espouse one's philosophical and moral beliefs, and to practice one's philosophical and moral beliefs to the extent that other people's rights are not adversely affected. If anything, I think this is the only way that we can maintain the peace in Western countries for the foreseeable future.
Doing sociology and philosophy in real time by looking at developments in contemporary Western politics and culture. My mission is to stop the authoritarian 'populist' right and the cultural-systemist left from destroying the West.
Labels
Three New Arguments to Support a Libertarian Politics | Moral Libertarian Talk
Battle for the Soul of Libertarianism | Moral Libertarian Talk
Why we can't cede the libertarian movement to authoritarian pretenders
Today, I want to talk about why it is important that we, the people who actually believe in freedom, win the battle for the soul of libertarianism. After all, I've said repeatedly that labels don't matter all that much, that political philosophy is not the way to build a coalition to fight against extremism, that most ordinary middle class people probably don't care about political philosophy, and so on. Yet, I still believe that it is very important that true believers in freedom win the battle for the soul of libertarianism over so-called paleo-libertarians who pander to paleoconservatives, to the extent of sacrificing both civil liberties and free trade, 'beltway libertarians' who have no problem with neoconservative interventionism, neoreaction-adjacent pseudo-libertarian authoritarians who discredit us all, as well as AnCap-adjacent extremists.
The reason why we must win the battle for the soul of libertarianism is because it is simply the battle to define what freedom means, at least in the Western political context. Libertarianism is the only movement in the Western political landscape that consistently says it is for freedom first and foremost, and consistently speaks the language of freedom. If we cede the libertarian movement to people who don't actually put freedom first, or believe in freedom in a truly universal way, or else use libertarianism to justify their extreme agendas that have nothing to do with practical personal freedom, we will lose the language of freedom to people who don't actually believe in freedom, and will use it to justify its opposite. This will be a real tragedy, with serious implications across society, including implications on civil liberties, free speech and even world peace or lack thereof.
Another thing we need to recognize is that libertarianism has become the way it is because of deliberate actions by forces from certain factions of the ruling class, acting on the small movement in the form of big sums of money over various periods of history, in order to promote their broader agendas. This, in my opinion, is what has pulled libertarianism into an unjustifiably close association with the political right, to the extent that the movement is now in danger of being swallowed by right-wing populism. First, it was the 'taxation is theft' but civil liberties and wars don't matter people. Later, it was the Tea Party people. Lately, it has been people from the populist right looking for anti-establishment credentials. All these people are not true believers in freedom, and we must not let them define the libertarian agenda going forward. I think remaining committed to a meaning of freedom that makes sense for ordinary people is the key to seeing through these schemes.
To defend libertarianism from all the aforementioned forces, I believe we need to call out those who say they are freedom but are not really for freedom in any ordinarily meaningful sense of the word. We also need to continue to think about what freedom means, and the conditions under which it is achievable or not. I think that if we have a firm sense of this, we will not get tricked by the pretenders so easily.
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.
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.
This is How to Save Libertarianism from the Populist Right | Moral Libertarian Talk
We need a broad based coalition of true libertarians that transcends left and right
Ever since the Mises Caucus takeover of the US Libertarian Party and the resulting civil war inside that party, the libertarian brand has been weak and tarnished. This has come at a very unfortunate time, as authoritarian forces are on the rise across the West. Just when we need libertarianism to be strong, she is badly wounded. As I have said before, while I'm not a libertarian immediatist, libertarianism has long been an important part of the Western political landscape, holding the destructive ambitions of self-righteous wannabe authoritarians at bay. A West without libertarianism would likely descend into competing groups of authoritarians with religious zeal fighting over who gets to shove their beliefs down other people's throats. This is why we need to save libertarianism.
Some people have suggested that libertarianism won't die out completely, but it might live on under other labels. I personally can't accept this. I can't agree to give up the name of the movement that played an important role in opposing the authoritarian excesses of the 'War on Terror', opposing the Iraq War, supporting gay marriage and standing for free speech against cancel culture. Some have suggested that libertarians simply join the neoliberals. However, this is unsatisfactory, not just because freedom-loving libertarianism is simply very different from technocratic neoliberalism, but also because we have genuine irreconcilable differences in worldview. Neoliberals have never shared the libertarian passion for non-violence and world peace. Now things are actually getting worse because the neoliberals have decided to welcome into their tent neoconservative hawks who have become refugees from the Trumpified Republican Party. While I have some sympathy towards old-school Republicans being forced out of their party by Trumpism, simply because there is a clear parallel to what is happening to libertarianism, and to the woke skeptical movement I consider myself a part of, this sympathy doesn't extend to willingness to be in the same tent as neocon hawks. After all, opposition to the 2003 Iraq War was how I first got into politics, and my attraction to libertarianism began with its anti-war stance back then. Peace-loving libertarians being forced into a tent with those who have the opposite view is definitely a bridge too far for me.
What we also need to remember here is that the US Libertarian Party, or even the kind of libertarianism it represents, don't actually own the libertarian label. There are civil libertarians, geolibertarians, green libertarians, libertarian socialists, and so on, and since a few years ago, Moral Libertarians. The l-word is everywhere across the political spectrum, and the Mises Caucus can't change that. What we need to do is find the common ground between these different types of libertarians, as well as other people who might love freedom but are not yet using the libertarian label, and bring them together. Together, we are much larger than the reactionaries in the Mises Caucus will ever be.
To get this done, we will need to actively attempt to transcend traditional left-right boundaries. I believe this will actually be a good thing, because for far too long, English-speaking libertarianism has unjustifiably leaned too closely to the right, which is a major reason for the Mises takeover being able to happen in the first place. Detaching libertarianism from the right, and making it a truly left-right cross-spectrum thing, will prevent right-wing reactionaries from devouring the libertarian brand, and also prevent a Mises-style takeover from even being able to happen again in the future.
We should also remember that the original reason why libertarians tend to make alliances with the right was because the right once stood for economic freedom. However, nowadays, the Right loves Trumpist protectionism, and they worship Viktor Orban's Hungary, which is ranked a lowly 72nd on the Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom. The fact that they want the West to emulate a country with less economic freedom than the US, UK and most other Western countries shows that they don't believe in economic freedom. They only believe in culture wars, which is what Hungarian politics is most known for in the West. Ironically, Scandinavian social democracy, the model most often admired by the English-speaking left, actually offers a lot more economic freedom. Denmark, Sweden and Norway all rank inside the top 10 in the aforementioned index! This just shows that the 20th century idea that the right is better for economic freedom is very outdated indeed. It's time to break free from these old stereotypes.
A Simple Message to Authoritarians of All Stripes
The West has an authoritarian problem right now. Religious right, cancel culture activists and the rest, this is for you
This is a message for all of the authoritarians on both the left and the right, who dream of remaking society by forcing their beliefs on the rest of us. It's not going to happen, and you've lost the plot. Normal people just want to live and let live, to be left alone to live our own lives, and we also want everyone to get along as much as possible. We don't welcome people who seek to shut down people who disagree with them, or shove their beliefs down other people's throats. We won't give an inch to this kind of divisive authoritarianism, whether it is rooted in religion or other utopian beliefs. Normal people are not going to accept authoritarians who've lost the plot, no matter their political affiliations, or what kind of 'ideals' they supposedly hold. We just say no to all of it. That's it.
Why Allowing More Freedom is Generally the Morally Better Choice
Individual liberty is justified because morality can be improved
Over the years, I have illustrated why values like free speech, free expression and freedom of conscience are important in multiple ways. However, what I call the 'competitive morality' case for freedom might yet be the most important reason why freedom is important to maintain. Given both the left and the right have become increasingly disrespectful towards long-standing norms that safeguard freedom in recent years, I think this is a message people across the Western world really need to hear right now.
Basically, history has shown us that things can be done better. The way we do things today is much improved compared with back in the middle ages, or even during the industrial revolution, for example. While improvements in material conditions, methods of production and technology are most often celebrated, morality has also been improving over the generations. While things are still far from perfect, morality has overall been objectively improving over the centuries. We don't allow slavery, the torture of prisoners, and duels to the death anymore, for example. Given this history, there is every reason to believe that morality can continue to improve into the future.
The main drivers of improvement are innovation and competition. This is clear to see when we are talking about technology. However, it also applies to matters of morality. If everyone just accepted slavery as part of life, it would never have been abolished. This demonstrates the importance of allowing enough freedom for innovation. On the other hand, if the anti-slavery message wasn't able to compete with those arguing for the then-status quo on an equal footing, it might not have won out, despite being objectively more sound. This demonstrates the importance of maintaining a fair playing field in the marketplace of ideas. Both of the aforementioned objectives would require free speech, free expression and freedom of conscience. It is freedom that both allows innovation, and allows fair competition in the marketplace of ideas. Therefore, ultimately it is freedom that allows morality to improve over time.
Looking at history would confirm this theory. Societies that were more free and open generated more improvements in morality. Even though the freedom to experiment might sometimes lead to errors too, overall speaking, allowing this freedom is worthwhile in the end, especially in light of the resulting improvements being able to benefit many generations to come. This is why, looking at it from a broad picture scale, allowing more freedom is objectively more moral. It is proven by both history and logic. I think we should take this into account when assessing political options, for example when voting. I believe that, generally speaking, supporting choices that are overall orientated towards more freedom, as well as punishing politicians that actively advocate for less freedom, is generally correct as a principle.
Reconciling Libertarianism and Reformism
Libertarianism needs practicality and credibility, which is what reformism is good at
Today, I am going to talk about my project to reconcile libertarianism and reformism.
On one hand, I have been sympathetic to libertarian thinking for more than 20 years, even though I have to acknowledge that libertarian immediatism is not realistic at all, and the dominance of immediatists have seriously harmed the popularity of libertarianism. I first became interested in libertarianism during the 2003 Iraq War, when the right was trying to silence anti-war and anti-Bush speech, including the infamous cancellation of the Dixie Chicks. Given that we live in a moment where the postmodern left practices cancel culture regularly, and the populist right thrives on banning books, drag queens, abortion and even masks, it is clear that society needs a big dose of libertarianism ASAP. We need to make libertarianism credible and popular again for this to happen.
On the other hand, over my observation and involvement in the Western political landscape of the past 21 years, I have gradually come to develop an appreciation of reformism. I believe the heart and soul of reformism is basically the classical liberal belief that society and people's lives can be made better via empiricism and rationality, tempered by the Burkean conservative view that any change should be based on practical needs rather than abstract ideas, and should be gradualist and consistent with a given society's traditions rather than revolutionary and abrupt. Note that genuine Burkean conservative philosophy, developed in response to the events of the French Revolution, is very different from what so-called conservative political parties represent today. I have stated this point many times in the past, but it bears repeating, because this is very important to understand. Anyway, over the years I have come to the firm conclusion that only a reformist politics can provided sustainable progress for society, by avoiding both misguided radicalism and reactionary backlash.
The first problem we have here is that most libertarian thinking that has been developed over the past few decades, especially the so-called libertarianism of the 2010s, is fundamentally faulty on some level, which makes it support the opposite of liberty some point down the line. In the 1980s-90s the beltway libertarians and their obsession with cutting government dominated. These people ended up doing nothing to advance individual liberty per se, and some even sided with the Bush administration's 2003 Iraq War, which was a total sellout of libertarian values. On the other side were the paleolibertarians, a faction that were steadfast in their anti-war beliefs but sided with far-right paleoconservatives on most other issues. This paleolibertarianism was the precursor to what became known as the 'libertarian to alt-right' pipeline in the 2010s, and was arguably the precursor to neoreaction thinking, which is clearly not libertarian at all. Later on, there was 'anarcho-capitalism', which is a very extreme form of libertarianism that opposes government in all its forms, and fantasizes about things like private police and fire departments. I think it is this kind of extremism that eventually gave rise to the conspiracy thinking that ultimately discredited libertarianism by around 2020.
The second problem we have is that most of the libertarian thinking that has been developed over the past few decades is simply incompatible with reformism. They all want government gone, and right now. This, I think, is the reason for both the unprincipledness and the tendency towards extremism. Therefore, to make libertarianism credible again, it needs to be realigned towards the reformist philosophy. And it's not as difficult as some might think. As I said before, reformism is basically liberal rationality plus conservative cautiousness and gradualism. Both the classical liberal emphasis of rationality, and the conservative emphasis that reform should be based on practical needs rather than abstract ideas, can modify libertarianism to make it more reformist and practical. This, in turn, would make it more credible, and hopefully more popular. By making libertarianism credible and popular again, we can build a strong bulwark to prevent both the illiberal left and the illiberal right from crushing individual freedom with their culture war agendas.
To reconcile libertarianism and reformism, I believe we need to further develop the philosophy of both traditions more fully. In particular, we need to separate the core strands of thinking of both traditions from what has been happening in the crazy politics of the past 10-15 years. From there, we need to identify the common ground between the two traditions, and the areas where they might be able to supplement each other. Right now, I can think of attention to the complexities of reality, respect for different opinions, and compassion as a few areas of common ground between libertarians and reformists. I'm sure there are more to discover. This will be a major focus of my work going forward.
The Problem with... Libertarian Immediatism
It is responsible for killing all hope for freedom and peace
Today, I'm going to talk about the problem with libertarian immediatism. Firstly, what is libertarian immediatism? It is the strand of libertarianism that strives to achieve libertarian conditions immediately. For example, libertarian immediatists often strive to cut government massively right now, and insist on this as their first policy priority. Libertarian immediatism has been the loudest, and hence most well-known, version of libertarianism in the past half a century. In fact, many people probably have not heard of the other form, libertarian gradualism. This is why libertarianism strikes most people as extreme and impractical almost by definition.
So what is the problem with libertarian immediatism? Put it simply, it has gotten us nowhere near achieving more liberty, or fulfilling the non-aggression principle. Firstly, the impractical nature of libertarian immediatist demands have turned many practical minded people away from libertarianism. This has profound implications. For example, the lack of credibility of libertarianism among many moderates means that they could become less likely to listen to the case for things from enthusiastically safeguarding free speech, to market-based solutions for climate change, to a non-aggressive approach to policy both at home and abroad more generally. The weakness of libertarianism means its opposite prevails in practice, and we certainly don't want that.
Recently, I have come to appreciate that reform and change needs to be based on practical need rather than abstract philosophy. This is basically what genuine conservative philosophy (as opposed to reactionary thinking) has to teach progressives, and progressives of all persuasions would do well to learn this lesson. Given that libertarianism is by definition a progressive philosophy, I believe libertarians would do well to heed this lesson. If they did, they would at least stop squabbling over whether we should abolish driver's licenses, or whether the fire department can be privatized. The endless talk over these theoretical issues, that have nothing to do with people's everyday lives, is making many people skeptical of libertarian philosophy, and rightly so.
Moreover, libertarian immediatist policies like cutting government massively right now have many unwanted social consequences. Libertarian immediatists are generally totally non-consequentialist in their philosophy, but most people actually judge ideas in part by the consequences they bring. Most people are going to judge a set of policies that could put many people into immediate poverty, as well as raise the crime rate massively, pretty negatively. If libertarianism is to find real popular support, it must become practical. And to become practical, we must abandon libertarian immediatism. There really is no other way.
How Wokeism Allowed the Religious Right to Return
And how to build the coalition to defeat them once again
This is the bad news: the religious authoritarians have returned in full force, and they are smarter and more cunning than ever. The evidence of their influence is all over the news: draconian abortion bans, anti-LGBT bills, and more. Looking back, religious authoritarianism last peaked around the mid-aughts (around 2004-06), and that time we successfully pushed back on their attempt to teach unscientific intelligent design theory in schools, and defeated their moral panic campaign around gay marriage, which provided a strong foundation for winning the reform later on. Looking back, the aughts were definitely an underrated example of resistance to authoritarianism, that ultimately also led to some social progress backed by widespread support. Now that the religious authoritarians are back, I think we need to revive the coalition that defeated them last time.
Of course, we also need to be aware of the different tactics that they are using this time around. One thing that is different about the religious right this time is that they are, at least when facing mainstream audiences, less open about their religious motivations. They often resort to arguments for the 'common good', or capitalize on the widespread frustration with wokeism, as their starting point. However, the religious motivations are still clearly being articulated, if you pay attention. For example, all the prominent postliberal intellectuals are deeply religious, and many have essentially argued for religious values to have a bigger influence on law and policy. On the more technical side, 'common good constitutionalism', and other similar legal philosophies based on 'natural law', are ultimately religious political ideologies too. What is happening is clear: religious authoritarians are out to make the West less liberal, and make it OK for the government to shove their religion down your throat. And they are doing it by attempting to gain power while not being fully upfront about their religious motivations.
The rise of woke thinking is actually helping the religious right hide their religiously driven motivations. This is because postmodern critical theory has no respect for the power of ideas and free will. Instead, they believe that everything is part of interconnecting systems of oppression, and that analyzing and deconstructing those systems are the only important thing to do. The woke won't seriously engage in a debate of ideas that is not connected to their theories of systemic oppression. This means that they won't take on the ideas of religious-driven authoritarianism seriously. Instead, abortion bans are to be explained by 'patriarchy', anti-LGBT bills are to be explained by 'heteronormativity', and the solution is to 'fight these systems' by deconstructing and dismantling everything. This ultimately results in distraction from the problem at hand: that reactionary religious zealots are attempting to shove their religion down our throats, and that only a serious attempt at defeating their bad ideas by rational debate will save our freedoms.
There are also other ways wokeism has allowed the religious right to return. Firstly, it was the force that was responsible for breaking up the aughts coalition against religious authoritarianism. The divisiveness of postmodern critical theory was what caused the split, with the controversy around 'atheism plus' a good example of this. (I am not an atheist so I am not familiar with the specifics of this, but the controversy was famous enough for me to know about it.) Secondly, its weakening of the classical liberal consensus has allowed the religious right to make the case for authoritarianism much more easily. Thirdly, its attempt to impose an agenda based on religion-like philosophical commitments on the rest of society has normalized the once outrageous idea of shoving religion down other people's throats. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, frustration towards wokeism is being used by the religious right to attract support, with quite a bit of success.
All this is why the new coalition against religious authoritarianism just cannot include the woke. Instead, we need to attempt to rebuild the coalition among those who will fight the religious right like it's 2004 again. I think we should try to deradicalize as many of the woke as possible, so that they come back down to reality, and become able to join our fight against the religious right. However, we also need to be realistic that this work can only be done to a certain extent, especially if we are talking about the short to medium term. Therefore, the more important work will be in making the non-woke see that the religious right is rapidly becoming a big problem, because they want to make the West less liberal and more theocratic, by participating in the culture wars while not being upfront about their motivations. Once more people realize this, we will be able to build a strong coalition to push back, just like we did two decades ago.
How to Win the Argument with the Illiberal Right | TaraElla Clips
This is an excerpt from an article by TaraElla.
While those on the Left often end up basically attacking all of conservatism, I believe this is the wrong approach. Conservatism represents a basic pattern of human thinking, and many people are inclined towards that way of thinking, at least to some degree. Conservatism exists because it is evolutionarily adaptive, and it is not going to go away, despite the wishful thinking of the Left. Therefore, the only way to fight against an illiberal conservatism is to build up a liberal conservative alternative.
It all starts with making room for conservative minds and voices within liberalism, and ensuring that they are on an equal playing field. One thing I have advocated for over the years is the inclusion of liberal conservatives, i.e. conservatives who agree to uphold the classical liberal consensus, in liberal culture and politics.
Liberalism is actually a set of commitments, based around respecting individual freedom of conscience, favoring objective evidence over superstition and dogma, and building a good order based on these principles. As such, it actually does not exclude conservative-leaning minds, as long as they too support these principles.
Why Liberalism is Anti Chaos | TaraElla Clips
This is an excerpt from the article by TaraElla.
In the most basic terms, liberalism is a belief that society should be built on a social contract that ensures an ordered liberty, where all can equally enjoy this liberty. Different factions within liberalism differ on what the social contract should include, or what liberties should be upheld, but one common element present in all versions of liberalism is the belief that liberty's existence is dependent on the existence of order. Thomas Hobbes, who argued that an absolute sovereign was necessary to avoid the brute natural state of "the war of all against all", is often considered an important thinker in the liberal cannon. While modern liberals are certainly more democratic than Hobbes, we still agree fundamentally with his belief that an order needs to be imposed, in order to ensure a sustainable liberty.
In this way, liberalism stands in stark contrast to anarchism, the other major ideology that has some notion of freedom at its center. Unlike liberalism, anarchism does not believe in an ordered liberty. Indeed, it does not accept the need for any enforced order at all, because its ultimate goal is to remove all 'coercive' and hierarchical relationships between humans. Given that any imposition of order must inevitably be 'coercive' and hierarchical to some extent, anarchists reject the liberal goal of an ordered liberty as oppressive in their worldview. As to how to avoid the natural state of "the war of all against all", anarchists have never provided a convincing answer.
The Case Against Cafeteria Libertarianism | Lib Lib Report
Reactionary populism is not compatible with a sincere commitment to classical liberal values.
Welcome to the Lib Lib Report, i.e. the Liberal Libertarian Report, where we talk about news and current affairs from a liberal libertarian point of view. We aim for a practical pro-liberty politics encouraging things like free speech and free thought in the here and now, while aiming to make the social contract of Western society more libertarian moving towards the future.
Today, I want to talk about a disturbing trend: what I think could be called 'cafeteria libertarianism'. This term obviously borrows from the common saying of 'cafeteria Christianity', and just like cafeteria Christians, cafeteria libertarians pick and choose what issues they want to be libertarian on, while ignoring other issues, or even having sympathies to outrightly authoritarian stances on other issues. The ultimate effect of this is that anyone could claim to be 'libertarian' because every kind of politics has its libertarian areas, and thus people who actually have highly authoritarian agendas can falsely claim to be friends of liberty.
My regular audience would know that I am a 'libertarian gradualist', as opposed to the immediatists that make up the bulk of the mainstream libertarian movement. Libertarian gradualists, while not supporting immediate libertarianism in every policy area, are not 'cafeteria libertarians', because we are sincere about advancing liberty overall. What makes a 'cafeteria libertarian' is their lack of a wish or vision to progress things overall to the side of liberty. Instead, they identify as 'libertarian' as a reaction to something they don't like, for example wokeness, cancel culture, or some kind of government regulation. In other areas, however, they are totally OK with authoritarian policies, to the extent of heaping praise on people who are taking action to move the Overton Window towards authoritarianism. You know, like cheering on Ron DeSantis using his state power to punish Disney for disagreeing with him. Or nodding in agreement to online influencers who promote a populist 'post-liberal conservatism'.
I guess the reason why we have 'cafeteria libertarianism' is because of the mistaken belief that the status quo, minus the woke, is already libertarian, or even worse, that Western society used to be truly free in some past golden age. This attitude is basically reactionary conservatism. The fact is that Western society, up until now, has always been somewhat authoritarian, especially towards those who don't agree with the majority. Anyone who has read any history, political science or law would recognize this. A sincere commitment to classical liberal values simply isn't compatible with a reactionary populism that defends traditionally popular freedoms but denies or even opposes less traditionally popular freedoms. There was a reason why John Locke, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill were all progressives in their time, who argued for things that weren't necessarily popular. This was because their vision was one that hadn't been realized yet. Even today, we still aren't there yet. I believe that recognizing we aren't there yet is the key to building a sincere progressive libertarianism, and rejecting reactionary 'cafeteria libertarianism'.
Recognizing that the classical liberal project is one that still has a long way to go would also allow us to keep being committed to our long term goals of more freedom, and remember to play the long game in response to current events. For example, free trade and globalization as it existed in the past four decades has had unfairly negative effects on many working people. Global corporates benefitted at the expense of working families, and this has created massive backlash. Refusing to deal with these problems would be irresponsible, and politically suicidal for any movement. However, that doesn't mean that we should suddenly be allies with people denouncing free trade as inherently evil, promoting conspiracy theories about globalization, and advocating for a return to the regressive 'clash of civilizations' attitude towards the world. Instead, we should continue to maintain that free trade and globalization are good because they make the world freer, but also acknowledge that how it is executed matters. Ultimately, it needs to be made to benefit working people rather than global corporates, which I believe is very doable. Similarly, while we can acknowledge that liberals need to do more to acknowledge the importance of families and the social fabric, we still need to firmly argue against the absurd claim that liberal thinking, going all the way back to Locke, is to be blamed for current social problems like low birth rates and high divorce rates. Anti-liberal forces both Left and Right want the liberal project to fail, and they are going to blame everything on there being too much freedom, as if there was such a thing. To fight back, we need to have a clear vision of what we actually believe in, and why it will lead to good outcomes.
How the Woke Wars Could Derail Libertarianism Again | Lib Lib Report
People are rightly concerned about history repeating itself
Welcome to the Lib Lib Report, i.e. the Liberal Libertarian Report, where we talk about news and current affairs from a liberal libertarian point of view. We aim for a practical pro-liberty politics encouraging things like free speech and free thought in the here and now, while aiming to make the social contract of Western society more libertarian moving towards the future.
Today, I want to talk about a crisis that is unfolding within libertarianism. Let's start with the controversy over the recent takeover of the US Libertarian Party by the Mises Caucus, although that's not what I really want to discuss. As I've said before, I'm not a big fan of the libertarian immediatism that the Libertarian Party insists on having as its platform, and given that I'm not a supporter of that party, I have generally not been interested in its internal politics. However, the current controversy seems more significant, because it goes to the heart of what libertarianism is, and hence implicitly what liberty is too. I mean, some libertarians, including both members and non-members of the party alike, are worried that this could ruin the commonly accepted view of what libertarianism is, and I'm sorry to say that I share their concerns too.
Let's start with the controversy itself. The Mises Caucus is a right-leaning faction within the Libertarian Party. Officially, they have a conventional right-libertarian platform, and there is quite a bit of diversity among their membership in terms of social views. However, it is the broader strategy of some members of the caucus that have gotten people concerned. To put it simply, prominent members of the Mises Caucus have been enthusiastically embracing the anti-woke side of the 'woke' culture wars, and other associated culture wars in the American political landscape. They are also not shy about their intention to attract new members and supporters that are really into these culture wars. The problem with this is that authoritarian conservatives and other right-wing authoritarians are also often participants in the anti-woke movement, and their ideas could dilute or even confuse libertarian positions. Indeed, non-Mises members of the Libertarian Party have accused the Mises Caucus of watering down traditional libertarian positions to make the party a more comfortable place for the authoritarian right, should they want to join. They cite the caucus's removal of the pro-choice plank in the party platform as evidence of this, for example.
Having experienced the horror show that was the 'paleo' strategy of the 1990s, many libertarians fear that this could be similar, or even worse. Even those who aren't totally opposed to the Mises Caucus fear that their methods will leave the party and the movement vulnerable to a further takeover by elements of the authoritarian right. I think this possibility, rather than the Mises Caucus itself, is what many people are actually worried about. In other words, I think the controversy over the Mises Caucus takeover is situated in a larger crisis, rooted in the fear of a more general authoritarian right takeover. The fallout is a symptom of the larger problem, one that people must be able to talk about openly.
Basically, I have two thoughts about this. Firstly, the libertarian movement is small and weak, and is able to be easily taken over by outside forces with their own agenda. The current fear simply reflects this reality, unfortunately. This is of course not new, as niche groups have often tried to insert their niche issues into various minor party platforms around the world, including libertarian parties. (Nor is it limited to the libertarian movement. The trans community has experienced a similar phenomenon in the past decade, for example.) This is also an important reason why I'm not a libertarian immediatist. For me, the important thing right now is to build a movement that will support and promote individual liberty, because a movement that is dedicated to this idea, rather than cutting government per se, would be much more resilient. By emphasizing practical liberty and rejecting libertarian immediatism, the liberty movement can also attract much more mainstream support, thereby making it much harder to take over.
Of course, what we are worried about right now is not just a niche group trying to insert itself into libertarianism, but a total takeover of libertarianism by bigger forces that could be described as authoritarian right-adjacent at least, if not in the authoritarian right itself. Given the situation we are potentially facing, I would even say that building a broad-based practical liberty movement is likely to be the only way to save the reputation of libertarianism going forward. And this is important, because in the Western political landscape, libertarians are the only players who consistently and credibly advance an anti-war agenda. The fall of libertarianism could lead to the total victory of the interventionists that brought us Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Secondly, the 'woke wars' in general, and the anti-woke movement in particular, have spiraled out of control in some ways. As I have recently said, the word 'woke' has lost its original meaning and much of the 'woke wars' are now basically empty tribal culture wars. And because the anti-woke alliance was an alliance of convenience in the first place, and an alliance that stood against rather than for something, its meaning and future are now up for grabs by whoever has the best organization, numbers and money. This could allow the anti-woke movement to be dominated by the authoritarian right rather than old-school liberals or libertarians, because the authoritarian right are simply better at organizing and fundraising. This is why I fear that woke vs anti-woke dynamics could work against liberals in both directions going forward, and the only way to take a stand for liberty is to find a way to transcend the tribalist 'woke wars' now.
That's why, going forward, I believe we should be 'post woke'. We should look at all issues objectively, on their own merits, rather than see them in a 'woke wars' state of mind. We should still be opposing postmodernism and critical theory, but we should do so on well reasoned grounds. And I will definitely call out people who use the 'woke' word as an empty insult, as a tribalist culture war thing. Because this certainly won't help to advance individual liberty.
A Libertarian Argument for the Pro-Choice Position | Lib Lib Report
It doesn't even depend on your moral views on abortion itself.
Welcome to the Lib Lib Report, i.e. the Liberal Libertarian Report, where we talk about news and current affairs from a liberal libertarian point of view. We aim for a practical pro-liberty politics encouraging things like free speech and free thought in the here and now, while looking for more libertarian solutions moving towards the future.
The leak of a US Supreme Court draft opinion suggesting the overturn of Roe v. Wade earlier this month has reignited the long standing debate between pro-choice libertarians and pro-life libertarians. At the heart of the matter is whether the proper libertarian position regarding abortion should be pro-choice or pro-life. I want to talk about my thoughts on this matter, and how this might inform the liberal libertarian orientation in politics in the here and now. Before we start, I have to make it clear that what I'm going to talk about does not directly concern the legal merits of Roe itself, or the leaked opinion. It is about pro-life vs pro-choice positions in libertarianism, and the arguments are equally applicable in other situations. I must also say that I don't pretend to speak for other libertarians, and these are just my own thoughts. As they say, if there are ten libertarians in the room, there is likely going to be ten different positions taken on an issue. And this diversity is certainly something I welcome.
Let's start with this story about a friend of mine. She is a religious person, and she certainly believes that abortion is morally equivalent to taking an innocent life. But then, she has never been a fan of getting the government involved in this issue. Given that the most vocal pro-life activists often like to equate abortion with murder, and hence equate legal abortion with the absurd position of legalizing murder, my friend has never been one to voice her opinions in public, because she was worried that they might ask her something like 'so you think murder should be legal?' My friend used to think that her views were deeply unpopular until this month, when the heated debate over Roe v. Wade revealed that there were indeed plenty of people who shared her views. Apparently, even among those who believe abortion is morally equivalent to taking an innocent life, they don't necessarily have to equate it with murder, at least legally speaking.
To understand this, I think we should step back and take a look at the larger picture. The argument of the staunchest pro-life activists basically goes like this: given abortion is morally equivalent to murder in their view, how can it be acceptable that murder is generally punishable by the maximum penalty available, while abortion is legally allowed? However, the assumption of that argument is that the government's role in society is that of moral enforcer, and it should always punish behavior that is immoral. This view is basically rooted in the social contract of the pre-Enlightenment West, where everyone lived by and agreed to moral values that were determined by the authorities, which was generally the church, based on religious tradition and scripture. The problem with this model was that everyone had to agree to be bound by the the laws of Christianity in the first place, and also the authority of the church in interpreting the religious law. This was not that much of a problem in pre-Enlightenment times, given that the vast majority of people in Europe were Christians, and they also closely obeyed the decisions of the church hierarchy in matters of faith.
The Enlightenment challenged the absolute authority of the church, and this was where things changed. As I liked to say, liberalism is basically rooted in freedom of religion. Liberalism represented a new social contract, one that was necessary to maintain the peace, in a Western world that no longer universally accepted the supremacy of a unified religious authority. Given that morality was deeply tied to religion, the end of religious agreement would, at least to some extent, also mean the end of moral agreement on many issues. This made the old social contract where the government was society's enforcer of morality unacceptable, and indeed oppressive, to a significant number of people in society. The horrible religious conflicts in Europe back then demonstrated this point very well. Hence, liberalism arose to give Western society a different social contract: one where the government plays no role in determining and enforcing standards of morality, but instead functions to guarantee that every citizen has an equal right to live life according to their own moral conscience, as long as other citizens' rights to do the same is equally respected. Of course, social change is slow, and this idea, while already long firmly embedded into the legal traditions and institutions of the Western world, is still yet to be fully implemented, or to fully supplant pre-Enlightenment cultural views. Hence, even today, both the authoritarian Left and the authoritarian Right continue to demand that governments legislate for the common good, or react swiftly to moral panics of all kinds, without much regard for the requirements of the liberal social contract. This, I believe, is where a lot of the unnecessary culture war style political conflicts come from. Libertarianism is basically a movement to end this state of confusion, and move the Enlightenment's ideals forward to their logical conclusion, by fully realizing the implementation of the liberal social contract in the Western world.
It follows that, in a fully libertarianized society, with a fully liberal social contract, the government simply can't legislate against something because people find it morally wrong. They can only legislate to ensure the equal standing of parties to the social contract. Murder would still be illegal because it violates the rights of another party to the social contract. Abortion, however, would be different. Countries cannot practically consider fetuses to be citizens with full rights of citizenship. For practical reasons, citizenship can only begin at birth. There is a reason that our documents have our date of birth, not our date of fertilization. Even when abortion was illegal, fetuses were not considered citizens. Therefore, fetuses cannot be considered parties to the social contract. This means that abortion cannot be considered a violation of the rights of a party to the social contract, and cannot be outlawed on these grounds. It can only be considered a matter of morality, which under a libertarian social contract, the government should have no ability to legislate over. Therefore, abortion and murder are indeed very different, no matter what your moral views on abortion are. From this, it can also be concluded that the correct libertarian position on the matter of abortion is the pro-choice position. Again, this doesn't even have to depend on your moral views on abortion itself.
Of course, here on the Lib Lib Report, we are not libertarian immediatists. While we want to move society towards the libertarian destination in the long run, we recognize that this is not where we are at right now, which is why we practice a more pragmatic liberalism in the here and now. We recognize that the current social contract of Western liberal democracy is not yet the libertarian one, and calls to legislate based on morality and the common good are not universally considered illegitimate in the West at this time. However, given that we are Liberal Libertarians, with a libertarian destination for society in mind, I think we should aim to move towards, and not away from, that destination as much as possible, in the policy positions we support. Especially given that abortion has already been legal in America and most other Western democracies for decades, to outlaw abortion now would be to take a big leap backwards, away from the libertarian destination, something that is simply not acceptable for those of us committed to taking society towards the libertarian destination. This, I think, is a very good justification for taking the pro-choice position in the politics of the here and now.
The Liberal Libertarian Alternative: An Introduction | Lib Lib Report
Welcome to the new Lib Lib Report, i.e. the Liberal Libertarian Report. In this first episode, I want to explain what liberal libertarianism is, and what this show is going to be about. Let's start here. Liberalism, in a broad pro-liberty sense, is losing ground to illiberal critical theory-based movements on the Left, as well as illiberal populist forms of conservatism on the Right. Given that classical liberal values are fundamental to the social contract of the post-Enlightenment West, I believe that if we let liberalism fall, the consensus behind Western society as we know it will basically collapse, and much that we hold dear will disappear forever. Therefore, it is certainly an urgent priority that we act to save liberalism. But what should we do?
Right Now, Liberalism Lacks a Grand Vision
I think the biggest reason why liberalism has suffered is because it is seen to lack a longer term vision. Much of contemporary liberal discourse is very pragmatic, i.e. it seeks to resolve issues in the here and now, using solutions that are aimed at respecting individual liberty and equality as much as possible. However, there is almost no vision of arriving at a better destination eventually. Contrast this to both the critical theory Left and the populist Right, which promise their supporters the possibility of a different world. While a true liberalism can never, and should never be utopian, I think we should still offer a vision, where we can reach a different, better world in the longer term. This longer term vision would, in turn, provide stronger justification for choosing the liberal path in the here and now.
So what long term vision, what kind of long term destination, should a robust 21st century liberal politics offer? This is what I want to explore next. But let's detour a bit and take a look at my early political development, and how I chose between liberalism and libertarianism.
The Possible Liberalism vs The Impossible Libertarianism
When I was in college, I had the idea that, if I were to start a political party, I would call it the 'Liberal Libertarian Party'. I liked parts of libertarianism and liberalism, because, after all, both were dedicated to increasing individual liberty. At first, I thought that libertarianism was grander in its vision, which was why I was more attracted to it. But about a year later, especially in the context of an election, I came to realize that libertarianism wasn't practically going to win any time soon, and we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Back then, my top two priorities were ending the 'War on Terror' and legalizing the freedom to marry for gay couples. And I saw clearly that liberalism, rather than libertarianism, was the only hope for delivering these things in the foreseeable future. And so, I became mostly a pragmatic liberal from that point onwards.
Libertarian politics, in the conventional sense, has always been a hard sell. Even 20 years ago, when people most commonly identified as 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative', libertarianism still had few supporters. And it's not for no good reason either. Conventional libertarians are almost always 'immediatists', i.e. if they had a chance to govern they would cut the size of the government to the absolute minimum at the first opportunity. This could have a lot of undesirable, perhaps even dangerous, effects on society, some of them even likely to be unforeseeable or unpredictable. Conventional libertarians often don't care too much about this, because libertarianism cares more about first principles than practical consequences. However, the average voter out there, whose priority is usually a stable and secure life, often first see an unfamiliar set of policies as a potential wrecking ball if allowed into government. And immediatist libertarianism, let's be honest, does sound like a wrecking ball to most voters. Hence, they are never going to vote libertarian, no matter how libertarians frame their message.
Besides the practical pitfalls of an 'immediatist' libertarian politics, there is also the pragmatic consideration of electoral competitiveness. Right now, the West has a major problem of worsening economic inequality, and both the critical theory Left and the populist Right are calling for a more robust economic safety net. The challenges of the last two years has further increased the common desire for a stronger safety net. If libertarians continue to call for cutting government programs across the board, because of ideological reasons, it is certainly going to sound tone deaf. The trouble with this kind of ideological stubborness is that, it has practical consequences in the real world. It means illiberal forces that promise to deliver what the people want will gain ground instead, leading us to a more illiberal future. I believe the most important thing about participating in politics is a sense of responsibility for the consequences one's decisions might have on people's lives in the future. Ideological purity that might lead to future disaster certainly sounds irresponsible to me.
Pragmatic Liberalism Plus Long Term Libertarianism?
The impracticality of libertarian immediatism means that we are left with the choice of practicing a pragmatic liberalism for now. This would include defending free speech vigorously, encouraging free and independent thinking, promoting and protecting civil liberties, and safeguarding the freedom of individuals from being trampled on by the tyranny of the majority. By extension, I also believe in advocating for objective science-based policies, and a peace-orientated approach to international relations. I have said a lot about the aforementioned goals over the years. However, a liberalism that is only ever concerned about pragmatic problems in the here and now lacks the grand long term vision, which means it has a deficit in passion, and in particular makes it much less attractive to more idealistic people.
This is where a kind of long term libertarian goal comes in. Liberal libertarianism aims to combine the practice of pragmatic liberalism, perhaps with some libertarian influences, in the here and now, with having a longer term goal of moving towards a much more libertarian society. What liberal libertarianism recognizes is that, right now, the immediate application of a typical libertarian platform could actually harm individual liberty in many cases, given the long-standing social and economic structure of society. A pragmatic liberalism therefore best serves individual liberty in the here and now. However, liberal libertarianism also recognizes that, given the rapid development of technology, automation, and new social practices enabled by technology like crowdsourcing, mutual aid and the new sharing economy, there is indeed scope to move in a much more libertarian direction in the longer run, especially when the aforementioned developments become much more mature. Therefore, while liberal libertarians are basically pragmatic liberals in the here and now, they have also not given up on the libertarian dream in the longer term.
Don't get me wrong. Liberal libertarianism is certainly not just liberals who daydream about a libertarian utopia in the distant future. The existence of the long term 'libertarian destination' in our roadmap actually influences policy orientations in the here and now. For example, the underlying long term goal of moving towards a decentralized society would justify the choice of more decentralized and market-based mechanisms when deciding how we might strengthen our social safety net. A universal basic income (UBI) scheme could be one way of doing that, and a liberal libertarian would therefore prefer a UBI over welfare schemes that are means tested or tied to work requirements. A liberal libertarian would also be particularly interested in encouraging the development of decentralized, market-based or market-like systems where individuals could engage in mutually beneficial exchanges, because that could eventually lead to ways to cut the size of the government, without turning power and resources over to big business like conventional privatization schemes do.
What This Show Will Be About
This show will be part of an attempt to build a liberal libertarian worldview and politics. It will be for liberal libertarians and people of other ideologies alike. I hope my ideas can inspire fellow liberal libertarians to think about what could be pragmatically done to address problems in the here and now, how we can have a much more decentralized and free society in the ideal future, and how the two can be linked. Meanwhile, people of other ideologies can hopefully come to appreciate how a liberal libertarian would see the issues, and where there might be opportunities for cooperation, even if we have differences in other areas. The show will discuss news and current affairs from a liberal libertarian perspective on some days, and talk about liberal libertarian philosophy on other days. The show will have episodes that focus on imagining the libertarian future, and how our current choices might help or hinder us in getting there. I'm also going to explore how Moral Libertarianism, i.e. the principle of ensuring equal and maximum moral agency for every individual, can serve as a philosophical bridge between the pragmatic liberalism of the present and the idealistic libertarianism of the future.
How the Culture Wars are Turning People Away From The Truth | TaraElla Report S6 E15
Let's start with Locke. Among some sections of the Right, there has been a new found fascination with Locke. Long used to worshipping another great British thinker by the name of Edmund Burke, often considered the father of conservatism, recently many on the Right seem to have swapped Burke for Locke, perhaps because the current iteration of the right doesn't really resemble Burkean ideals of conservatism anymore. Perhaps it's because the Right is more likely to defend free speech than traditional institutions nowadays. Anyway, recently Ben Shapiro recorded a video for Prager U titled 'If We Lose John Locke, We Lose America', in which he explained the basic ideas of Locke, and how America's Founding Fathers were greatly influenced by his work.
All that was said in the video was correct. Locke's ideas of individual liberty and equality, and the existence of natural rights that a government should not be able to take away, revolutionary back in his own time, have since come to form the political consensus of the majority of people in the West, and we are very lucky indeed for that. Shapiro is also correct that, if we do lose the ideas of John Locke, it would be very terrible, because we would be losing liberal democracy itself. Furthermore, he is also correct that the ideas of Locke are currently under attack in many parts of the West, and they must be defended at all costs. Just a few weeks ago, 150 prominent intellectuals signed a letter defending free speech and open debate published on the Harper's Magazine website, and this was swiftly met with severe backlash. It is clear from this that the values of Locke and classical liberalism more generally are no longer guaranteed as the conensus position in Western society.
What wasn't discussed was why Locke's ideas are being rejected by more and more people, and how we can reverse this trend. I guess the immediate cause is the rise of critical theory and postmodern thinking, particularly thinking inspired by the dangerous ideas of 20th century thinkers like Herbert Marcuse and Michel Foucault, who saw power in everything and celebrated subjectivity over objectivity. However, given that these ideas have an increasing following, there must be a reason. There must be something that is making people abandon objectivity and commitment to truth, and embracing a power struggle worldview where defeating your enemies matter more than the truth. And I think that thing is the culture wars.
John Locke's great ideas didn't come out of a vacuum: he had a lifelong commitment to the truth, and as a physician he had a strong commitment towards science, including precusors to what we would now consider the scientific method and evidence based medicine. Classical liberal values are indeed the natural values of people who are committed to the truth, and principles like free speech naturally flow from that commitment. When one is instead committed more to destroying one's enemy, one simply cannot stay true to classical liberal values like those of Locke. In that context, postmodern values would make much more sense. Which is why, conservative politicians and commetators, who are equally guilty as those on the left in pouring fuel onto the cultural war fire, and especially conservative pundits whose brand are strongly tied to 'destroying' those on the opposite side, should hardly have any claim to John Locke's legacy. They are part of the cancer that is killing classical liberalism, they are not part of the solution. This is, of course, also why I have made the decision to leave both the right and the left behind, because there's no way you can stay committed to the truth, and all that it entails, when you take a side in these culture wars. Indeed, I believe only those who refuse to participate in the left vs right fight can have any serious claim to the classical liberal heritage.
---
Welcome back to the second part of this special episode of the TaraElla Report. We'll now leave John Locke, and move onto Noam Chomsky, one of the most respected leftist thinkers in the world today. You would think Chomsky would be the last person to be in the bad books of a big chunk of the left, but yet this has happened. As I mentioned in Part 1, recently 150 prominent intellectuals signed a letter defending free speech and open debate, which was published on the Harper's Magazine website. The fact that Chomsky was among them was taken as a sore disappointment among many people in what I would call the neo-New Left.
The simple fact is, Chomsky has always been a free speech absolutist, and the neo-New Left just cannot accept it. Chomsky supports free speech because, while he is a socialist, he has a strong appreciation of the foundational classical liberal ideals. Besides, he is an old-school leftist, you know, the kind of left that existed before the corruption of Marcuse and Foucault. While some leftists today, including Bernie Sanders, are still that kind of worker-first left, and I have great respect for that, many parts of the left have been overtaken by the Professional Middle Class dominated post-1968 New Left, which has an agenda for radical cultural change that most working people would be opposed to. Now, I'm not talking about ending racism or things like that. That, I totally support. What I'm talking about are the ideas of radical critical theory, ideas from thinkers like Herbert Marcuse, whose infamous 1965 essay Repressive Tolerance justified the withdrawal of free speech from certain people, and thinkers like Michel Foucault, who saw power in everything and dismissed the importance of objective truth. This agenda is hugely responsible for the mess we are in today, where people see their fellow citizens not as comrades but as enemies, and where commitment to the truth is at an all time low across the political spectrum.
As I said before, there are still many leftists today who want to bring back the worker-centered left, the left that also championed free speech unconditionally, and in both these endeavors I consider them solid allies. But these people are rarely heard among the dominant voices on the left these days. Even those voices on the left that seem to focus on material issues often end up disappointing me, because they turn out to be not that far from Marcuse and Foucault in their cultural thinking. For example, BreadTuber NonCompete recently made a video critiquing Chomsky's decision to sign the Harper's letter. His argument was full of the 'institutional power' angle, and although that could be construed to be about the exclusion of pro-worker voices, the specific examples he gave were mostly purely cultural. I am especially troubled by his view that James Bennett deserved to lose his job at New York Times for publishing an article from Senator Tom Cotton, much as I dislike and disagree with Cotton. In essence, I saw it as very similar to those pieces written by pro-identity politics types arguing against the letter with quotes from Marcuse and Foucault. Indeed, quotes from Marcuse and Foucault wouldn't sound out of place at all, had they been inserted into the video. It just shows which side of the free speech cultural divide a lot of these apparently economic, but not explicitly anti-IDPol, leftists are taking. And frankly, it worries me a lot.
Which is, of course, why I don't identify with the Left anymore. Even as the economic woes of the West are getting worse, even as I perhaps take a more critical stance against our current economic system, I still wouldn't identify with the Left as it currently exists, because much of the Left these days are in the grip of critical theory, and that's not OK. Don't get me wrong, I am all for racial and social justice, as well as economic fairness. Don't get me wrong, I'm still pro-worker and pro-working families, and I am actually increasingly passionate about economic fairness. It's just that I cannot, in my good conscience, claim to be in the same boat with the significant faction of the left that has almost fully internalized the ideas of Marcuse, Foucault, and other very problematic thinkers, and have become effectively hostile to free speech as a result.
Left Making The Same Mistake Conservatives Made? | Re Michael Shermer, Rubin Report | TaraElla Report S6 E6
Today, I'm going to talk about the part of the recent Micahel Shermer interview on the Rubin Report, where Shermer and Rubin discussed things around free speech. Shermer presented a history of the Left's support for free speech, from the early 20th century, through to the Free Speech movement by 1960s student activists. He illustrated that it was only more recently that the Left began to turn against free speech. I would even argue that it is an extremely recent phenomenon. Back when I was in college, the Left certainly tolerated a lot more of free speech, on issues from Bush-43's Iraq War, to gay marriage, and even rap music and video games. So, yes, I may be a lot younger than Shermer, but even I grew up in a world where the Left were relatively more tolerant of free speech and dissent than the Right. To this day, I still feel weird about some people on the Right championing free speech, while some people on the Left champion so-called 'safe speech'.
But is it true that, the Left doesn't support free speech anymore, that it has become what the Right used to be, shutting down dissent and so on? I don't necessarily think so. Just in the last year, we saw Tulsi Gabbard, who is clearly on the Left, make free speech one of the big issues of her campaign for the Democratic nomination. Furthermore, if you dive deeper into their politics, you will see that many online free speech activists actually have left-leaning economic views. And then, there's the anti-PC left, represented by new media like the Red Scare podcast, which has been gaining a lot of strength in the past 2 years. In other words, the culture of free speech and dissent is alive and well on the Left. What I think is happening, is that a small minority of loud individuals and well organized groups in the Marcusean and postmodernist part of the Left, are pushing the narrative that Shermer described, like how certain speech is harmful, and how harmful speech is a form of violence and so on. This is all based in Marcusean critical theory and postmodernist thinking, but these ideas are certainly not accepted by the whole of the Left.
I get the feeling that the majority of the Left probably don't agree with this 'controversial speech equals violence' view. However, they don't feel like pushing back either, perhaps because they think that it distracts from the economic issues, or perhaps because they fear that certain activists may come after them. This gives the false impression that the whole Left is now in agreement with this essentially fringe view.
As a Trad Lib, i.e. a 'traditionalist liberal', I think that we can advocate for New Deal style economics and free speech at the same time. We don't have to apologize for being a free speech absolutist, even as we advocate for things like a UBI and universal health care. There's no reason why these things don't go together. As I said in the last episode, in this brave new world of politics, where the traditional left and right factions are breaking into pieces, and where many of us increasingly identify as neither Left nor Right, it is much easier to stand up for what your own conscience believes. And my own conscience certainly believes there is not enough free speech right now. Just ask yourself, have there been times in the past year where you wanted to say something but didn't dare to say it, for fear of possible backlash or worse? There definitely have been times like these for me, and it's only increasing in frequency. While I care about the economic issues, I'm equally concerned about the state of free speech and the free market of ideas, and I can't pretend to not care. As Trad Libs, we can stay true to our values, both by supporting New Deal style economics, and by opposing the influence of critical theory and postmodernism. For me, personally, it is two parts of the same goal, the goal of restoring the liberal ideal as it existed before 1968 or so, before the post-68 cultural radicals and economic neoliberals alike ruined it.
Finally, I would like to remind people like Rubin and Shermer that, while the Right has come a long way in terms of free speech, they are still far from perfect there. Just last year, conservative intellectual Sohrab Ahmari kept making a big deal about the need for government intervention into culture. My argument was that, while you can certainly disagree with 'Drag Queen Story Hour', government intervention would still constitute a violation of free speech, and the widespread sympathy for Ahmari's position is of concern for libertarians of all stripes. While I certainly think the libertarian-Right is an important and worthy partner for us Trad Libs going forward on the issue of free speech, I still have my concerns about the authoritarian-Right.
There are No Libertarians in a Pandemic? | TaraElla Report S6 E4
Today, I'm going to take a look at the increasingly popular saying that 'there are no libertarians in a pandemic'. What this phrase refers to is, of course, government spending. Right now, governments around the world, left, right and center, are spending huge sums of money to bail out the economy. This, of course, is strongly at odds with the conventional libertarian philosophy of minimal government. Furthermore, the pandemic has highlighted the utility of having universal health coverage in times like these. It appears that minarchy, and the whole 'taxation is theft' idea, is really unfit for a pandemic, or indeed, any national or international crisis.
Does this mean the future for libertarianism is now bleak? I don't think so. The problem is, too many people imagine libertarianism to be about minimizing the size of government at all costs. However, I don't think that is how the NAP should necessarily be interpreted. The fact is, drastically lowering spending has not much to do with the NAP. While some may argue this from the 'taxation is theft' angle, this would equally apply to a tax rate of, say, 10% vs 30%, because in both cases, if you don't pay your taxes, you still go to prison. On the other hand, making all taxation voluntary would mean nobody pays tax at all, which would lead to the government ceasing to exist. Therefore, the 'taxation is theft' argument is ultimately not meaningful, unless you are also OK with anarchism and all its consequences. At least since industrialization, we have never actually lived by the 'taxation is theft' idea, and for good reason. I think it's time libertarianism broke from that particular obsession.
Instead, the NAP could be interpreted at a more abstract level, to support things like free speech, freedom of conscience and religion, and ending the endless wars, while still leaving room for an adequate government response to pandemics and other crises, as well as things like universal health care. This is where Moral Libertarianism comes in. In the Moral Libertarian view, the important thing is each individual has equal and maximum moral agency, to pursue what they believe to be the necessary course of action under their moral compass. Where the NAP comes in is that, no other individual can have an overriding power to coerce them to do otherwise. After all, a coercive relationship is, by definition, an aggressive relationship; and non-coercion is essentially non-aggression in a broader sense. Applying the NAP this way allows much more flexibility in terms of government spending, and the provision of programs like Medicare For All. It would also allow a more robust response to things like climate change, in the longer term. In my opinion, it would make libertarianism a much more practical and popular ideology.
Andrew Yang & UBI Supporters Can't Be Real Libertarians? | TaraElla Report S5 E12
NOTE: While I did support certain candidates in the 2019–20 Democratic primaries because of their ideas (e.g. UBI, anti-war, broad tent approach), it doesn't mean I endorse their other positions.
Libertarian is a really controversial word right now. Both when used as a label of pride and a smear, it carries a range of sometimes contradictory meanings. For example, the far-left has often accused Andrew Yang's UBI as a 'libertarian trojan horse'. I don't know what that is supposed to mean, but it's clearly something bad. Meanwhile, some self-identified libertarians have indeed been enthusiastic supporters of Yang during the past year. On the other hand, other self-identified libertarians have criticized those Yang supporters as 'not true libertarians', because they clearly aren't for drastically cutting government if they support a Democrat. Finally, some elements of the anarchist far-left have come out and said that, no, you are all fake libertarians, because the word 'libertarian' actually means anarchist in its original meaning.
So, who is a libertarian? It appears that we don't have a clear and agreed definition of the word. Some may point to the Non-Aggression Principle as the foundation of the whole idea, and most would agree. But then, how would you define what is an acceptable application of the NAP? I mean, there's the example where if you don't pay your taxes, somebody would take you to jail at gunpoint, so that's a violation of the NAP. However, even if the government were as small as only having a police force, law courts and a military, they would still need tax revenue, so the aforementioned situation would probably still happen to people who refuse to pay their taxes. And given that lower taxes are not really associated with lower tax evasion, it appears that the very existence of taxation would already violate the NAP, and a tax rate of 5% would likely violate the NAP as often as a tax rate of 50%. If we are to accept this logic, it would indeed lead to anarchism being the only acceptable libertarian position. However, as we all know, the majority of libertarians don't actually want anarchism!
Therefore, let me propose this: a libertarian is somebody who supports individual liberty as a core value, and supports the application of the NAP in some form. Now, this definition can encompass a wide range of people, and I don't think that's a bad thing either. For example, my support of practical individual liberty is the reason I support a UBI program, and for me, as a Moral Libertarian, I believe the best way to apply the NAP to its fullest spirit is to follow the principle of Equal Moral Agency for all on every policy issue. Now, another libertarian may not see things the same way, and that's fine. Freedom of conscience and diversity of thought are core values for every libertarian, and we should be able to respect our differences, as the NAP requires of us. Furthermore, I think if we define libertarian this way, it's much more useful and logical. For example, some definitions of libertarianism focused solely on low taxation or property rights would include people who clearly don't believe enough in individual liberty, while excluding those who have a more consequential model of liberty. It's how fans of Milo Yiannopoulos and Lauren Southern can define themselves as libertarians, while trying to exclude supporters of Andrew Yang. I think this is ridiculous, because there's clearly no way being neo-reactionary adjacent is actually more supportive of liberty than being a UBI fan.
At this point, I think we should also return to the roots of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism arose as a response to the religious conflicts of the late middle ages, and its purpose was to allow people with different faiths to coexist in peace and cooperate. This arrangement only works where there is a robust social fabric supported by strong social institutions, especially strong families. One reason I particularly liked Andrew Yang's campaign was his emphasis on families. Having a UBI as well as free marriage counselling may somewhat detract from the goal of smaller government, but it's good for families, especially those with stay at home moms. Given that families are the most essential part of the social architecture supporting liberty, there is indeed nothing more libertarian than supporting strong families. Liberty is the best guarantor of the natural social fabric, and the natural social fabric is the best guarantor of liberty.
-
He was the perfect trap the far-left set for us Back in 2018-19, when Jordan Peterson was at his peak, and going around promoting his critic...
-
Having studied, analyzed and talked about the ideology and philosophical theories of the contemporary Western far-left so much for several y...
-
How Culture War Extremists Destroy Freedom Since the 2010s, left-wing cancel culture has been a major frustration in many contexts. Left-win...
