Skip to main content

Visit Project Liberal Foundation

Donate

Author: Shawn Huckabay

  • Freedom Civilized: The Liberal Case Against Libertarianism

    Freedom Civilized: The Liberal Case Against Libertarianism

    NOTE: This article originally appeared on the author’s blog, which can be found by clicking here. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Project Liberal. View other articles about liberalism on our blog by clicking here.

    I have written previously on the subject of my transition from libertarian to liberal and briefly on what I see as the crucial difference in perspective between the two. Here I aim to do something more comprehensive, albeit at a high level; I aim to dismantle the libertarian argument via liberal principles and offer an alternative liberal vision for politics.

    I will start by outlining what I think are good, basic descriptions of libertarianism and liberalism. Given that these are both contentious terms, I would ask the reader, if they find themselves at odds with my descriptions, to grant them to me for the sake of this piece. I am using both terms to describe real things, even if the reader would use different terminology.

    I will then attempt to build a basic meta-political foundation on liberal principles. My aim then will be to show that libertarianism is at odds with this foundation, and that the libertarian alternative is inferior to liberalism.

    “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion.” – John Stuart Mill

    What is Libertarianism?

    Libertarianism, in the American sense of the term that I will be using in this piece, arose during the mid-20th century in the United States. It began as little more than liberalism, but as the meaning of the term liberal began to distort in America, many liberal writers began to use the term libertarian to describe themselves instead. In Why I Am Not a Conservative, published in 1960, Friedrich Hayek wrote:

    In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use “liberal” in the sense in which I have used it, the term “libertarian” has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself.

    Because of this, many ideological libertarians in America today believe that their philosophy is simply the philosophy of the original liberals rebranded with a new label. This is not so; after the coining of the term in its modern usage, American libertarianism continued to grow and mutate into its own distinct political philosophy.

    Austrian School of Economics

    The first major deviation from liberalism came in the form of the Austrian School. This school of economics emerged in the late 19th century but really flourished in the early 20th century and argues for a radical form of unregulated free-market capitalism. The most extreme versions of this school reject empiricism outright, declaring empirical knowledge of economics impossible and the attempt a form of scientism, arguing that all valid knowledge about economics can only be inferred by reasoning from self-evident first principles.

    The Austrian School gave modern libertarianism its unique focus on economics and property rights. While liberalism has always defended capitalism and property rights, going all the way back to Adam Smith, economics were never as fundamental to the liberal ethos as it is to libertarianism, nor does liberalism have a dogmatic attachment to total absense of state interference in the economy. Note how the preamble to the American Declaration of Independence doesn’t even mention property rights.

    Ayn Rand

    The other major influence that pushed libertarianism away from its liberal roots was Russian-born American philosopher Ayn Rand. While Austrian School provided the focus on economics, Ayn Rand, with her philosophy of Objectivism, introduced a moral ethos to the movement by articulating the Non-Aggression Principle:

    The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man—or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense. A holdup man seeks to gain a value, wealth, by killing his victim; the victim does not grow richer by killing a holdup man. The principle is: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force.

    While Ayn Rand had a lot more to say on many more subjects, her opinions on other topics, such as epistemology, did not have much influence on the broader libertarian movement. In adopting the radical pro-capitalist stance of the Austrian School and attaching it to an explicit ethical principle, Ayn Rand helped to further solidify the American libertarian movement, despite her personal disdain for that movement.

    Murray Rothbard

    The central intellectual figure of modern American libertarianism is Murray Rothbard. In Rothbard, the various influences of the movement up to that point finally coalesced into a coherent, consistent philosophy of politics that would form the foundation of libertarianism going forward.

    Rothbard, being an Austrian economist, shared their disdain for economic empiricism and their support for radical capitalism. His chief economic influence was the Austrian school economist Ludwig von Mises, the namesake of the paleolibertarianMises Institute, on whose leadership team he briefly served.

    He also took Rand to task with his rationalist approach; while Rand grounded the non-aggression principle in ethical egoism, Rothbard took a Kantian aproach, arguing for a non-aggression axiom1 that was self-evidently true if one accepted his a prioripremises. He also reduced all individual rights to property rights, arguing that other rights, such as the right to one’s own life and to have one’s own body unmolested by others, were simply derived from one’s ownership of oneself as a form of intrinsic property.

    The result was the birth of anarcho-capitalism, the most extreme and consistent form of libertarianism. This political philosophy argues for a complete dismantling of all coercive institutions, including government, in order for form a stateless anarchic social order. The one and only universal ethical principle of such a society is radical respect for property rights grounded in the non-aggression axiom; all other considerations are of secondary importance, and anything that violates the non-aggression axiom is considered an intolerable evil regardless of any other factors.

    We have at this intellectual juncture travelled a great distance from the likes of Adam Smith, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill. While libertarianism of this sort has its foundational roots in liberalism, deep beneath the surface somewhere, so does communism, and neither can be credibly argued to be meaningfully liberal in the broad sense of the term despite their ideological origins, both having dispensed with core liberal ideas. We now turn our attention to the task of building a liberal foundation to politics to contrast this with.

    What is Liberalism?

    Liberalism is a political tradition that arose during the Enlightenment, a period in Western history, following the Renaissance, in which traditional attitudes and power structures were under extreme pressure and critique. In this highly active intellectual environment, people began to question the Church, the King, and the relationship between these power structures and the people more generally.

    Liberalism posits that the purpose of government is to protect the interests of the people generally rather than an aristocracy or other privileged class. As such, in contrast to monarchy or imperialism, the moral validity of a government is grounded not in the divine right of kings or simple might-makes-right, but in the consent of the governed. This is most famously and eloquently exemplified in the American Declaration of Independence:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    It is important to note that liberalism is not a dogma. There is no specific book or text that outlines “the correct liberalism”. Liberalism better describes a broad group of thinkers and ideas that share a focus on the above, but vary in the details.

    Freedom

    The central pillar of liberalism is political freedom, but before we can talk of political freedom, we must establish what we actually mean by freedom in the most general sense. To this end, I offer the following:

    Freedom is the ability of a willful being to successfully exert control over reality in order to satisfy its ends.

    A willful being is a being that has a will to do things. Will is essentially another word for intentionality; willful action is intentional action. Many animals would qualify as willful beings by this definition, but the abstract, conscious will relevant to politics is something only observed in human beings. A dog certainly has intent when it eats its dinner, but it cannot reflect on that intent, and its intentions are entirely a consequence of instinct and not influenced by abstract thought at all.

    Ends are novel states of reality that the will intends to obtain; if the end is achieved, reality is different than it was before in a way that satisfies the will. If one intends to open a closed door, the end is a state of reality in which the door is open.

    Control describes the physical interaction of the will with reality to achieve intended ends. If your intended end is an open door, control describes using your physical body to grasp the door knob and open the door. Successful exertion of control occurs when everything goes according to plan; if the door opens, and this was the intent behind willful action, we can say that the will has successfully exerted control over reality.

    Freedom As Moral Good

    “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.” – Aristotle

    While it may seem self-evident, it’s worthwhile to take a moment to defend the idea that freedom, as described above, is a moral good. After all, various individuals and philosophies throughout history have been anti-freedom, with arguably the most explicitly anti-freedom philosophy being that of Mussolini’s fascism:

    “The Truth Apparent, apparent to everyone’s eyes who are not blinded by dogmatism, is that men are perhaps weary of liberty. They have a surfeit of it. Liberty is no longer the virgin, chaste and severe, to be fought for … we have buried the putrid corpse of liberty … the Italian people are a race of sheep.” – Benito Mussolini

    If there is anything like an objective definition of the good for a willful being, the good is the achievement of intended ends. This is not to say that all ends are equally good, or that someone can’t be mistaken in their belief that the end they are seeking is what they really want. The only argument being made here is that, practically by definition, “a good” is something that a willful being perceives as a benefit, and that willful beings design their ends based on perceived benefit.

    It necessarily follows that freedom is good, since freedom simply describes the ability of willful beings to successfully obtain the good, whatever it may be. It would be incoherent to argue that an end is good but the ability to obtain that end is not good. This would amount to arguing that “hungry people being fed” is good, but “being able to feed hungry people” is not.

    What Constrains Freedom?

    If freedom is the ability of a willful being to successfully exert control over reality in order to satisfy its ends, absence of freedom is necessarily the lack of this ability. Whenever a willful being is not able to obtain an end that it desires, we can say that freedom is constrained. Such constraints can be roughly sorted into the following categories:

    • Constrained by internal capacity. When someone is unable to achieve an end due to limitations in their being directly. For example, lacking the cognitive ability to solve a problem or lacking the physical strength to move an object.

    • Constrained by material circumstance. When someone is unable to achieve an end due to lack of available resources. For example, being unable to power a motor vehicle due to a lack of available fuel or being unable to purchase a good or service due to insufficient funds.

    • Constrained by other people. When someone is unable to achieve an end due to interference from others. For example, being unable to enter a building due to armed guards posted at the door.

    To be very clear, none of these are mutually exclusive. Reality is complex, and in real-world situations, it is usually the case that all of the above are at play in a given situation.

    The Liberal Ethos

    Liberalism is the politics of freedom as defined above. Liberals seek to create and maintain political institutions that maximize the ability of people to achieve their desired ends. This ethos underpins all of its more concrete and specific claims, and colors all debate that occurs within the context of liberalism.

    Since people naturally seek their desired ends when they have the freedom to do so, liberalism is not focused on providing them with their ends but with ensuring they have the ability to do so. As such, liberalism is negative in the sense that its primary focus is removing constraints on freedom rather than providing positive goods. This does not mean liberalism is broadly anti-coercion; only that coercion, since it is necessarily a constraint on the freedom of some, must be justified in terms of the constraints it lifts from others. A straight-forward example would be a law against murder, which constrains the freedom of would-be murderers while granting much more freedom to the majority of mankind that prefer to remain alive.

    If we apply this ethos to the various categories of constraints on freedom, we get the following political goals:

    • Removing constraints of internal capacity. The liberal values the extension of human capacity in themselves and others, both physically and cognitively, such that they are more capable of achieving their desired ends.

    • Removing constraints of material circumstance. The liberal values helping the impoverished so that they are not blocked from participation in the benefits of civilized society and legitimately have the capacity to achieve their desired ends.

    • Removing constraints of other people. The liberal values protecting the person and property of the individual from coercive interference by other people.

    Since these categories are not mutually exclusive, and removing constraints from one person can impose constraints on another, the actual business of building a liberal social order is necessarily a complex one. This is where the focus on the institutions comes in.

    Liberal Institutions

    Freedom is a kind of utility, and liberalism is about maximizing that utility across the general population. That said, maintaining the balance of so many kinds of freedom across a large population of people is no simple ask. One is constrained not only by the limits of human intellect and knowledge to have a complete enough picture of reality to always select the most utility-maximizing option in a given situation, but by the fact that reality is in a constant state of change.

    To this end, liberalism puts a focus on building the right institutions. Properly designed institutions in good working order provide a means by which the people can ensure that government is acting in their interests, being corrected both as circumstances change and as errors are found.

    One can write entire books (and many have) on individual liberal institutions, and I don’t intend to provide a full-throated defense of all of them here. Instead, I will provide a brief description of some of the most important liberal institutions, couched in the terms described above, to show how they are implied by the base assumptions of liberalism. They are not presented in order of importance, apart from the first item, which is foundational.

    • Monopolistic Government. This is the foundation that all other government institutions are built from. By granting a government monopoly over a geographic area, one constrains the legitimate use of force to a body answerable to the people. 

    • Democracy. In order for a government to be answerable to the people, the people must be able to concretely influence the operation of government, even if indirectly through electing representatives to a legislature. Democracy is the institutionalization of this idea, providing a mechanism for exactly this. 

    • Rule of Law. Law is the codification of the constraints government imposes on the people. In a liberal society, the only valid laws are laws that impose minor constraints on the freedom of some to remove greater constraints on the freedom of others. In order for the law to be fair and just, it must be written down, clearly accessible to and understandable by everyone, and enforced equally across all classes of society.

    • Checks and Balances. While governments are intended to represent all of the people, the day to day operations of government will inevitably be conducted by a small few. In order to reduce the risk that anyone operating in government might exploit such power for their own ends at the expense of society as a whole, and to reduce the risk of a majority of society crushing the freedom of a minority via government institutions, government power should be distributed and constrained, with various branches of government providing checks against each other and balancing each other’s power.

    • Private Property. Few things constrain one’s freedom more directly than denying one’s ability to own property at all. The ability to own property and direct its use as one sees fit is foundational to a free society and a flourishing economy.

    • Contract Enforcement. In order for people to engage in meaningful social and economic activity, they must be able to make agreements with others with reasonable confidence that such agreements will be honored.

    Where Libertarianism Errs

    The cardinal sin of libertarianism, from which most of its other errors follow, is in the reduction of human freedom to mere property rights. Rather than property rights being an institution that is one of many means toward the removal of many possible constraints on human freedom, libertarianism defines freedom as property rights, and either throws out all other concerns or renders them entirely subservient to property rights, such that no end can ever trump property rights.

    This reduction of all freedom to property rights gives the libertarian an overestimated confidence in his individual ability to know what policies maximize freedom. After all, the libertarian is no longer tasked with balancing a complex set of institutions and freedoms in order to maximize a form of utility. All he has to do is take his one very simple principle and apply it consistently, and what follows is necessary and definitionally freedom.

    As a consequence, the libertarian no longer has any reason to value liberal institutions like monopolistic government, democracy, rule of law, etc. These institutions are for a practical political philosophy that understands that the world is too complex for any one person to know the right answer to everything. A dogmatic man with a simple narrative does not see a complex world, and as a consequence, has no reason to value any tools intended for dealing with complexity.

    Another unfortunate consequence is that the libertarian simply does not concern himself with any other constraint on human freedom. On a surface level, he might care that someone is critically impoverished, and even aim to help them, but he does not consider that impoverishment a constraint on freedom, and therefore, he has written off any use of coercion to solve that problem. It may be that a trivial amount of wealth, coercively taken from others, would greatly improve this man’s actual freedom by enabling him to begin the process of obtaining work and a place to live, while minimally impacting everyone else, but this line of thinking is verboten when freedom is not defined in its more important and general sense.

    A related problem for libertarianism is its naked deontological outlook. Rothbard’s non-aggression axiom is a deontological moral principle, which is to say, a moral principle one has a duty to follow and is (in the eyes of the deontologist) self-evidently true. Deontology dismisses the notion that outcomes or consequences have anything to say about morality.

    Since the good is not defined in terms of any kind of outcome apart from adherence to principle, libertarianism as a practical political philosophy is unfalsifiable. If a libertarian society were to come into being and was, by some objective measurement, worse to live in than a liberal society, this would not be seen as a refutation, because the good is not defined in terms of any particular result but in terms of adherence to a principle.

    The other problem caused by libertarian deontology is that it leaves one with a political philosophy without any grounding in deeper values. As long as one follows the non-aggression axiom, any value system is as good as any other. Want to create a racially-segregated micro-community to get the “benefits” of an ethnostate? As long as nobody is violating the non-aggression axiom, the libertarian has no basis to offer a moral critique. If racial segregation became the norm across society, with a minority race being denied access to many of the basic institutions of civilization, this would not be seen as a reduction in freedom for that minority as long as, on paper, the non-aggression axiom were followed and nobody’s property rights have been violated.

    There are also numerous practical arguments to be presented against a number of libertarian and anarcho-capitalist premises, but those are outside of the scope of this piece. The aim here was to show a foundational problem with libertarianism’s core premises. 

    Liberalism, by contrast, builds itself on a much more complete vision of human freedom, recognizes that freedom is multi-faceted and complex, understands the need for freedom to be manifested as an outcome in reality, and sees government institutions as a means to enable those outcomes in the most effective way possible. This is why liberalism has produced the wealthiest and most stable socities in human history, and libertarianism remains the pipedream of a small number of ideologues.

  • Technoliberal Estonia

    Technoliberal Estonia

    Estonia is renowned for its advanced digitalization and technological innovations. This digital prowess has led to its society often being dubbed “e-Estonia.” The hallmark of e-Estonia lies in the seamless interactions between its citizens and the government, facilitated by cutting-edge Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).

    But what does this have to do with technoliberalism? At its core, technoliberalism is a political philosophy grounded in principles of freedom, individuality, responsibility, decentralization, and self-awareness. Furthermore, it advocates for ubiquitous access to technology with minimal oversight. Central tenets of technoliberalism encompass areas like Government Building, Economics, Civil Liberties, Education, and Science and the Environment. It champions ideas such as a balanced government, decentralization, affordable education, environmental protection, appreciation of Fine Arts, and unrestricted communication technologies. Recognize the parallels?

    The Estonian model integrates a robust free market, encouragement for entrepreneurship, a Land Value Tax, accessible education and healthcare, and the efficient blending of public-private collaborations. Its hallmark is the extensive digitalization of public services, ranging from voting to tax filings and even residency applications.

    How did Estonia reach these heights? The trajectory of Estonian digitalization can be traced back to the challenges posed by its Restoration of Independence in 1991. With a primary infrastructure reflective of the Soviet era and less than half of its populace owning telephone lines, the nation had a significant digital divide to bridge. Recognizing this disparity, the first Prime Minister, Mart Laar, and his administration embarked on an ambitious journey to modernize and digitalize. This transformative period ensured that the nation transitioned from basic telephony to widespread mobile phone usage, ushering in a new digital era.

    A cornerstone of Estonia’s digital evolution was the Tiigrihüpe (Tiger Leap) initiative, launched in 1996. Championed by Toomas Hendrik Ilves, who later became the President of Estonia, and then Minister of Education, Jaak Aaviksoo, the program aimed to significantly bolster the nation’s computer and network infrastructure. A key focus was to enhance educational access, and by 1997, an impressive 97% of Estonian schools were online.Today, Estonia stands as a beacon of liberal ideologies in both its economy and political spectrum, ever-striving towards a tech-driven society. This alignment with liberal principles effortlessly translates to technoliberalism and other tech-focused philosophies that aim for a streamlined and decentralized society.

  • TED vs. Liberalism: The Suppression of Coleman Hughes

    TED vs. Liberalism: The Suppression of Coleman Hughes

    On paper, TED seems like exactly the kind of organization a liberal would want in the world. On their About page, they state that their mission is “to discover and spread ideas that spark imagination, embrace possibility and catalyze impact. Our organization is devoted to curiosity, reason, wonder and the pursuit of knowledge — without an agenda. We welcome people from every discipline and culture who seek a deeper understanding of the world and connection with others, and we invite everyone to engage with ideas and activate them in your community.”

    This mission statement has all the hallmarks of a liberal institution. Seeking deeper understanding of the world via connections between people with different ideas, backgrounds, and perspectives. Doing so without a specific agenda or axe to grind in order to arrive at the truth. A generally optimistic attitude towards all of this.

    Enter Coleman Hughes: a young black American writer and podcaster whose perspectives on race issues place him at the center-right of the current debate around such topics. He has taken stances against reparations (except for those alive that were directly affected by Jim Crow) and, after looking at the available statistics, has rejected the notion that police disproportionately do harm to black Americans. Most notably, he has taken a stance in favor of color blindness; the idea that we should strive to treat people without regard to race in our public policy and our private lives. This is the subject of his upcoming book.

    Until the recent shift in leftist ideas about race in American political discourse, color blindness was considered the standard liberal perspective on race and a fundamentally anti-racist point of view. Famously, it was the perspective of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., who said that “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” And to be sure, you will find no talk in favor of color blindness or treating people of different races equally amongst white supremacists, neo-Nazis, or other explicitly racist groups.

    Left-wing race activists, such as Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, have taken a very different stance in recent years. From their vantage point, color blindness is effectively turning a blind eye to injustice and racism itself and will only perpetuate systems of privilege that oppress black Americans. Race should be front and center of our understanding of the world, and the more extreme adherents to this ideology even believe that people of different races are so different that they can’t even meaningfully understand each other’s experiences. Notably, they often regard freedom of speech itself as a fundamentally white institution that exists specifically to privilege whites in American society, and generally favor both legal and cultural measures to restrict speech that contradicts their point of view.

    This view is at odds with the liberal perspective on not only race but politics and society more generally. It denies that harmonious coexistence of races is fundamentally possible, denies the validity of liberal institutions by declaring them to be toxic oppressive whiteness, and denies the superiority of the scientific method and reason as the means of understanding the world, declaring that these are white ideas.

    While this perspective is not held by the majority of the U.S. population, it is held by a significant contingent of academia as well as middle-to-upper-class white-collar America. The result is that some institutions are effectively controlled by such people, often even when those people only form a minority within the institution itself.

    And then you have TED; an institution that exists right on the verge of being controlled by this ideology, despite its surface-level agenda being, by all accounts, liberal. In fact, as the story that I am about to tell unfolds, it’s worth keeping in mind just how much confusion has been caused by placing both progressivism and liberalism on the left of the American political spectrum. We’re starting to see the inevitable break occur between these two points of view due to their irreconcilable differences, and indeed, the far left is more than happy to deny their liberalism and declare liberals the enemy.

    In keeping with the liberalism of their mission statement, TED invited Coleman Hughes to give a TED Talk on color blindness. At this juncture, I would recommend taking a break from this piece to watch the talk, as it is a great description of, and defense of, a core anti-racist liberal idea. It will also provide context for the story to follow; his talk was so professionally delivered, so clear in its meaning, and so devoid of any right-wing culture war talking points that it would be difficult to reasonably believe it represents a dangerous or racist ideology.

    Like all TED Talks, it was delivered to a live audience, but would be primarily viewed online on TED’s website and social media channels. The controversy began after the talk was delivered; an internal employee resource group for black employees called Black @ TED expressed anger at the talk. Other members of TED requested that it not be published. Ultimately, the video was only to be published if Coleman Hughes agreed to do a debate on the subject, despite no other TED speaker ever being asked to do this as a requirement for having their talk published. To his credit, Coleman Hughes agreed to the debate, and as a result, the TED Talk was indeed published.

    Once this information came to the surface, an unsurprising backlash began to occur. Notably, blogger Tim Urban, who himself has delivered the most viewed TED Talk of all time, was publicly critical of TED on X:

    Evidence that TED was intentionally suppressing the talk was also found; views for the talk on platforms not under TED’s direct control, like YouTube, were on par with other TED Talks delivered around the same time, but on TED’s own website, Coleman’s talk had about 10% of the views of other talks. While this evidence is only circumstantial, the Occam’s Razor explanation for it is intentional directing of traffic away from the video; there just is no other credible reason for there to be such a difference between platforms.

    This is the uphill battle faced by liberalism in leftist spaces. There is reason to be optimistic though; after all was said and done, TED did publish the talk, and it’s not likely they would have only a few years ago. Liberals who had just assumed their leftist friends were more or less on the same page are discovering that there are deep, irreconcilable differences of perspective at play.

    While the excesses of the culture war left are beginning to wane, liberals should stay vigilant, both of its reverberations and of the inevitable right-wing backlash already in progress. If we want a free, open, and integrated world, we have to stay the course and be wary of becoming too attached to any particular political trend or tribe. The liberal project is long term and will outlive whatever political coalitions exist today.

  • New Mexico Governor Bans Public Firearms

    New Mexico Governor Bans Public Firearms

    In the wake of a series of recent tragic shootings, including the heartbreaking death of an 11-year-old child outside a baseball stadium, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham took the controversial step of suspending the public’s right to carry firearms, either openly or concealed, for a period of 30 days.

    Initiated as an emergency public health order, the suspension underscores the precarious balance between empowering governmental authorities to address emergent situations and upholding rights enshrined in the Constitution. The intertwining of gun crime with public health parameters has been seen as a substantial overreach, stretching the legal understanding of what can be construed as a “public health emergency”.

    Even Governor Grisham anticipates legal repercussions stemming from this drastic move, a sentiment echoed by Albuquerque Police Chief Harold Medina, who has stated that he will not enforce the order. Medina’s stance is notable; the order is tied to a threshold for violent crime rates, with Albuquerque currently being the only city in New Mexico to currently meet the threshold.

    This contentious move by the governor has drawn ire from several prominent individuals, including former Congressman Justin Amash, who did not hold back in expressing his views:

    At the core of this debate lies the fundamental right to bear arms bestowed by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Although legal interpretations have permitted certain limitations to this right, critics argue that the governor’s sweeping prohibition of public firearm possession ventures far beyond the bounds traditionally upheld by courts.

    Moreover, this order might inadvertently penalize law-abiding citizens, stripping them of their primary means of self-defense, while criminals, predisposed to flouting laws, continue to wield firearms unabated. This creates a landscape where the innocent are left vulnerable, undercutting the very essence of the right the 2nd Amendment vows to protect — a right grounded in the principle of self-preservation.

    While the pursuit of public safety, especially in times of crisis, is a noble endeavor, it is imperative to navigate this path with a measured approach that respects the Constitutional rights of Americans. It is incumbent upon leaders to find solutions to crime and violence that do not strip Americans of their ability to defend themselves.

  • What Trump’s 10% Tariff Would Mean for the American Wallet

    What Trump’s 10% Tariff Would Mean for the American Wallet

    In line with his protectionist history, former President Donald Trump has suggested implementing a blanket 10% tariff on all imported goods. Trump refers to this idea as a “ring around the U.S. economy”, purporting that it would boost domestic manufacturing and reduce unemployment.

    However, history and economic theory have shown that tariffs and other protectionist measures don’t necessarily foster overall economic growth. Instead, they tend to skew the economic landscape, benefiting certain sectors at the cost of others. Trump’s proposal seeks to bolster domestic manufacturing, but such protectionist policies may not yield long-term benefits.

    Introducing such a tariff would likely hinder the exchange of goods and services between the U.S. and its trading partners. While the average American might see an initial hike in the prices of many everyday items, domestic producers of these goods could experience a brief surge in job opportunities and income. Yet, they too would be subject to increased costs for goods, leading to minimal net benefits.

    This outcome can be attributed to the principle of comparative advantage. Free trade encourages specialization, allowing those most efficient at producing certain goods or services to focus on that production. A broader trade network enhances this advantage, and much of today’s economic prosperity stems from open trade across borders, leveraging the benefits of comparative advantage.

    As Trump gears up for a potential second term, he remains a strong contender for the Republican nomination. However, lingering indictments connected to the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021 cloud his campaign. The ramifications of these legal challenges on the election’s outcome are yet to be determined.

  • AOC Blasts FDA Sunscreen Regulations

    AOC Blasts FDA Sunscreen Regulations

    In a recent video, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, often referred to by her initials, AOC, criticized the Food and Drug Administration for treating sunscreen as a drug. She pointed out that the FDA’s regulations have stymied progress, leading to inferior sunscreen products in the U.S. compared to those available in Europe and South Korea. She encouraged viewers to contact their congressional representatives about this concern.

    AOC is a prominent member of The Squad, a group of U.S. representatives with progressive stances that frequently place them to the left of much of the Democratic Party, and she is also a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. As a consequence, her call for less restrictive sunscreen regulation has surprised many. Several prominent conservatives and economic liberals have expressed appreciation for her stance.

    Peter Schiff Tweet

    Matthew Yglesias Tweet

    Nick Gillespie Tweet

    A week prior, she released a video in which she expressed frustration over the NYC Sanitation raid that disrupted the bustling economic activity in Corona Plaza. Many street vendors were operating without proper licenses due to the limited availability of those licenses despite the clear demand for their goods and services. Both videos highlight an unexpected alignment in policy objectives between her and economic liberals.

    These videos underscore the value of building coalitions in a representative democracy. Although we might align ourselves with specific political factions, we will often find common ground with those we might typically disagree with. It’s our hope that AOC collaborates with other members of Congress to amend the FDA’s approach to sunscreen, ensuring that all Americans can safely enjoy the outdoors, and that she is successful in enabling more small businesses and entrepreneurs to operate in New York City.

  • Denmark Announces Plan to Restrict Speech

    Denmark Announces Plan to Restrict Speech

    In the United States, the freedom to speak openly, even when our words might be deemed offensive or brash, is a privilege many of us take for granted. While there might be social backlash for certain expressions, it is the First Amendment that prevents legal consequences from muzzling our speech.

    However, a concerning trend is emerging in Europe; restrictions on freedom of speech if said speech offends Muslims. Recently, the Danish government has expressed their intent to review and potentially curtail free speech rights, especially in situations where religious or cultural sentiments are at stake. This seems primarily influenced by the grievances of the Muslim community over perceived derogatory comments or actions towards Islam.

    The Danish Patriots, a group that has caught much attention, provides a vivid example. They have publicly burned copies of the Quran in protest against what they term the “Islamification” of Europe. Such an act is deeply offensive to Muslims, who revere the Quran as the sacred word of God conveyed through the Prophet Mohammad.

    While the motivations behind such a provocative act by far-right groups might be suspect, their right to express themselves in such a manner shouldn’t be. As previously discussed, the freedom of speech is a foundational pillar for any liberal society, and this freedom extends even to those whose views we might find most repugnant.

    It becomes all the more concerning when it appears that one particular religion, Islam, is granted unique protections. Rarely do we witness European governments scrambling to ensure they don’t upset Christians, Buddhists, or adherents of other religions. This uneven treatment, whether intentional or not, affords Islam a distinct privilege that isn’t extended to other faiths.

    Of course, the rationale for such protection isn’t wholly unfounded. Europe has witnessed several devastating attacks by Islamist extremists in retaliation to what they deem blasphemous or offensive speech. This places European governments in the delicate position of balancing the fundamental rights of their citizens with concerns for public safety.

    Yet, suppressing free speech isn’t a long-term solution. Rather than fostering safety, it will simply embolden the very extremists it seeks to mollify. By ceding to their demands, we incentivize more aggressive demands in the future. Islamist extremists envision a global theocracy under their interpretation of Islam; simply refraining from overtly offensive acts won’t satiate such an expansive goal.

  • Why Freedom of Speech is Foundational

    Why Freedom of Speech is Foundational

    There have been many great defenses of freedom of speech over the years. Among my favorites is this speech by Christopher Hitchens, which I recommend everyone watch immediately even if you’ve already heard it. Once you’re done with that, though, allow me to offer something a little more focused. Hitchens, like many defenders of freedom of speech, hits some important points but doesn’t dig quite deep enough for my liking. This piece is my attempt to defend the foundational need for freedom of speech.

    What is freedom of speech?

    Before we proceed, we should probably define what we are talking about. Freedom of speech is a series of norms wherein people are given genuine liberty to express their actual thoughts to others. These norms can be broadly split into two categories.

    Cultural Freedom of Speech

    Cultural freedom of speech refers to norms, traditions, and attitudes within a culture that support freedom of speech. A culture of freedom of speech is why you would think it absurd to kick someone out of your house for disagreeing with you on whether food stamps are a good policy or not, or to fire them for voicing support for a political candidate you dislike.

    It’s the idea that we should tolerate some of the inevitable personal discomfort that comes from granting people autonomy to express themselves with the knowledge that their standing in life won’t change simply for disagreeing with someone. It is not an infinite tolerance, and to be sure, determining where to draw the line is one of the major cultural problems of our time.

    A fundamental assumption of cultural freedom of speech is that there is genuine value in living cooperatively with people that hold different values and ideas. This doesn’t mean you have to like their values or ideas; only that you don’t see differences of opinions of this sort as disqualifying someone from participating in society at large, and within reasonable bounds, you don’t see them as disqualifying someone from being someone you love, care about, and benefit from having in your life.

    Legal Freedom of Speech

    The second category is the legal implementation of freedom of speech. Cultural freedom of speech only deals in cultural norms and does not deal in the question of coercion. Legal freedom of speech does.

    The most famous example of legal freedom of speech is the 1st amendment of the US Constitution. This amendment means that the US government cannot use the force of law to prevent certain points of view from being expressed. It’s the reason a politician cannot pass a law criminalizing speech against him or his policies. It’s the reason you can’t go to jail for using the N word, no matter how rude it was to do or what it communicates about your values or beliefs. It’s the reason that any law criminalizing the burning of an American flag is null and void.

    Why Freedom of Speech is Foundationally Important?

    Human beings are fundamentally distinct from other animals. This seems to be a case of “quantity has a quality of its own”, as our nervous systems do not appear to be extremely different from that of a chimpanzee, and yet the gulf between humans and chimps when it comes to how they see and interact with the world is vaster than the gulf between a chimp and a lizard.

    Human beings primarily engage with the world through reasoning. Reasoning is the process of abstracting concrete experiences into broad categories and algorithmic structures that enable you to make inferences not grounded in direct experience. It’s how someone can figure out what a good bridge is and how to build it before creating a bridge.

    Human beings are also social animals. By nature, we live with other people and have deep emotional experiences grounded entirely in our relationship to others. It’s wired into us to interact with other people. And for good reason; the collective intelligence of several humans sharing information and learning in the areas of their respective natural inclination and strength is not merely the sum of their individual intelligences but is orders of magnitude more powerful. It’s the reason iPhones and skyscrapers exist.

    These two facts, reasoning being our primary means of interacting with the world and our social nature, are the reason freedom of speech is so important. The information sharing required in order for our collective intelligence to function demands respect for freedom of speech.

    Collective reasoning is the most powerful thing human beings have. The scientific method is its crowning jewel; in the empirical realm, it has systemized information creation and sharing so efficiently that the last 300 years make the previous 10,000 look like almost nothing in terms of human advancement.

    Closely behind the scientific method, though, is liberalism. While the scientific method normatively systematized the creation of new, useful empirical information, liberalism systematized it politically, providing the necessary legal foundation and institutions for maximizing human cooperation by restricting coercive activity, both from the government and the polity, that would otherwise inhibit it.

    This is why freedom of speech, both culturally and legally, is not just one of many important values, but the most important political value. Every other political debate in a civilized society can’t even happen without it. Human cooperation as such depends on freedom of speech to function.

    If you value living in the kind of world where humans achieve great things, problems get solved, and quality of life goes up for everyone over time, there can be no issue on which you are more steadfast than this one. A future without freedom of speech is a future in which the gulf between a human life and an animal life shrinks as our collective intelligence atrophies, problems are primarily solved with violence, and disease and decay are the norm. It is literally that important.

    Originally published on Substack.