The Road to Reclaiming Libertarianism and Stopping Populism
We need to be practical, and emphasize moral values too
Although I have never been a libertarian immediatist, I have long been sympathetic to a particular strand of libertarianism: one that was most prominent around the time of the 2003 Iraq War. It was fiercely anti-Iraq war and pro-free speech. It was also a lot more skeptical of the right-wing compared to later versions of libertarianism, because it was the Republican Bush administration that launched the Iraq War after all. During and after the 2004 US elections, it also played an important role in exposing and opposing the religious right. There was even talk that, perhaps, libertarians and the center-left could form a ‘liberaltarian’ alliance against the Bush administration. Above all, aughts libertarianism was more practical, in that it didn’t fall into the kind of useless fantasies associated with early-mid 2010s ‘anarcho-capitalism’, or the conspriacy theories associated with late-2010s and early-2020s so-called ‘conservatarianism’.
As I’ve maintained, libertarianism is a much needed force in the Western political landscape. Western democracies are based on political campaigns for the popular vote, which could encourage the rise of authoritarian populism. Libertarianism provides an important check against this danger. The recent collapse of libertarianism has enabled the rise of two forms of populist authoritarianism across many Western countries: the oppressor vs oppressed postmodern-critical far-left, and the culture war plus conspiracy theory far-right. If libertarianism could get back to the way it was 20 years ago, it would be a much more potent and productive force for good, and likely able to stop the rise of authoritarian populism. In this article, I am going to talk about how we can reclaim and restore libertarianism.
Firstly, a good libertarianism needs to be practical, rather than just theoretical. It needs to practically lead to more freedom for most people, in practice rather than just on paper. In the 1990s to early 2000s, beltway libertarians focused on cutting the size of government, and found themselves in bed with pro-war neoconservative Republicans who also shared the religious right’s authoritarian values, i.e. people who stood against many things libertarians support. It was the backlash to this that eventually led to the kind of extreme anti-establishment libertarianism of the 2010s. The fact is, right now, in this world, cutting the size of government solely in economic terms is not the most important or effective way to bring about more freedom. The relentless focus on this detracts from the bigger picture, and leads to objectively non-libertarian outcomes overall. Instead of focusing on cutting government per se, perhaps new ideas like a universal basic income (UBI) could be explored. This would fulfill the objectives of maintaining social security, simplifying the bureaucracy and further marketizing the economy at the same time. I think a UBI could be the key to the complete development and long-term maintenance of a fully market-based economy.
Secondly, a good libertarianism needs to be based on values, rather than just anti-establishment sentiment. The empty anti-establishment ‘libertarianism’ of the 2010s ultimately served as a pipeline to lead many into various forms of authoritarian-right politics, including Trumpism, the neoreaction movement, and even the alt-right occasionally. This ultimately led to the fracturing and discrediting of the libertarian brand. After all, most sane people are not going to support a ‘libertarianism’ that regularly produced converts to authoritarianism! To prevent this happening again, libertarianism must have a strong focus on individual freedom itself, rather than mindless anti-establishment sentiment. There should also be a particularly strong focus on opposing the arbitrary use of government power, something classical liberals have insisted upon since the Old Whig times.
Finally, I believe a successful libertarianism needs to be justified in a moral sense. Traditionally, libertarians have sought to justify their program on the non-aggression principle (NAP), but this has proved to be rather limiting. Overall speaking, libertarians haven’t been able to successfully defend the NAP against arguments from both the left and the right. The loss of former libertarians to the authoritarian right, to ideologies that flagrantly violate the NAP at every turn, throughout the 2010s is testament to this. Indeed, I would argue that the earlier beltway libertarians’ unprincipled alliance with neoconservatives also demonstrates the weakness of the NAP. We clearly need something stronger. I think the weakness of the NAP is that it is bound to be violated at least some of the time in reality anyway. A society with law and order needs policing by definition, and policing would inevitably violate the NAP at least sometimes. A society without policing is one without law and order, and the NAP would definitely be violated even more frequently in that case. This is why I have developed the Moral Libertarian principle of Equal (and maximum) Moral Agency for every individual. I think this is more practical to implement than the NAP in practice.
Originally published at https://taraella.substack.com.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory and The TaraElla Story (her autobiography).
