Carte Blanche: Reconciling Libertarianism with Populism

Friedrich von Hayek - AFP / Murray N. Rothbard - Bettmann / Robert Nozick - Getty Images

In recent years, the concept of populism is now a predominant feature of the American political conversation, especially after President Trump’s 2016 campaign that condemned unequal trade deals and the damage done to the American job market. The Hill’s ‘Rising’ with Krystal and Saagar (available on YouTube) has become popular in this climate. For those unfamiliar, the premise of the show is right-wing, Saagar Enjeti, and left-wing, Krystal Ball, working together to cover news through a populist lens.

I bring up this show because Enjeti, who is a self-proclaimed “right-leaning” populist, regularly criticizes the positions of Libertarian lawmakers as corporatists in practice. Most recently, Enjeti criticized Republican senators, Mike Lee of Arizona and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, for their free market positions and how they were “out of touch” with their constituents.

I disagree with Enjeti’s assertion that Libertarianism is impractical. However, I think it is valuable to apply his evaluation of the American political landscape when analyzing two of the most reputable, potentially radical Libertarian positions: Minarchists and Anarcho-capitalists (Ancaps).

Populism is simply the political philosophy of appealing to the masses while standing in opposition to societal elites. The act of promising exorbitant entitlements and holding elites accountable seems to be the utopian society that F.A. Hayek, a favorite of this column, explicitly warned against. According to Hayek, when the government inevitably falls short of creating the spiritually fulfilling, egalitarian paradise that they’ve promised, populists and demagogues will ignore the rule of law and norms to seize power.

Does the state have the power, or even the right, to behave in such a manner? If citizens surrender their anxiety-laden freedom, they must be prepared for ‘safety’ birthed by tyranny. How can Libertarian philosophy penetrate this potentially dangerous quandary, so that we can better preserve the individual against the tyranny of majoritarianism? 

This topic might seem irrelevant for the corporatist welfare state in which we reside, but an analysis of Libertarianism’s most extreme positions is a revelatory and necessary exercise to evaluate the potential popularity of such radical social ideology.

In order to conceptualize Minarchists and Ancaps, let’s inspect each ideology’s strongest advocates. Robert Nozick, another favorite of this column, was possibly the most famous advocate for a minimal state but faced significant pushback in the Libertarian community from Murray Rothbard. Nozick, a Harvard philosophy fellow, gained notoriety refuting Rawls and his assumptions in his widely popular and influential book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

Rothbard, who was one of the most prolific historians of the twentieth century and a self-proclaimed “anarcho-capitalist,” was Nozick’s academic ‘rival.’ Rothbard famously reputed Nozick in his paper “Robert Nozick and the Immaculate Conception of the State.” Rothbard centers his criticism on Nozick’s assertion that the formation of the state as a result of the invisible hand which Adam Smith discusses in The Wealth of Nations. 

Nozick argued that the most important function of the state was the upholding of agreements and the settlement of disputes. This key to understanding the role of a minimal state: a singular entity with a monopoly on violence for the sake of protection against fraud, theft, enforcement of contracts, etc. This understanding contradicts Rothbard’s moral assumption that an entity with a monopoly on violence is inherently unjust and immoral.

However, Nozick does not argue for a state out of desire. Rather he perceives the inevitability of a single entity gaining supremacy over other ‘dispute settling’ agents as a natural precipitant of a laissez-faire system empowering the most successful within the market. An agreed-upon set of standards and norms are immensely beneficial to the market and individuals, as they act heuristically to save time wasted when we will individually set them. 

I think the central conflict Nozick acknowledges is that cooperation problems can deal with a greater blow to the free market than staunch preservation of individual freedom ever could. The most sacred tenet of philosophical Libertarianism is the condemnation of force against individuals. Force and coercion facilitate war, they facilitate oppression, and they facilitate tyranny. However, how can one uphold any kind of principle, especially the condemnation of force, if there is no codified law that preserves such a right?

Rothbard argues in Power and Market that a written law isn’t necessary for a consensual legal doctrine, instead norms act as law in a localized society. What about outside invaders that have no concept of respect for an aversion to force? What happens when an ‘agent,’ warband, or gang has no regard for the right of the individual and society reverts to scattered factions of warlords?

The problems of collective action must be rectified by a collaborative structure that can uphold norms best suited to protect the principles Rothbard and Nozick hold dear. Not to be overly dismissive of the Ancap faction, I consider the formation of a state an inevitability fueled by the Prisoners’ Dilemma that plagues collective action. This dilemma is not only present in state formation, the dilemma persists when forming a cohesive state that might stand against another formed state, and so on and so forth. This continual dilemma demonstrates Pandora's Box of state control and state expansion.

Furthermore, current American politics are simply another example of the Prisoners’ Dilemma. Due to the introduction and expansion of entitlements: in order to win, one must defect to the side offering more and more. This results in both sides defecting to corporate protections that preserve power and appear to benefit the voters.

The Libertarian Party must bolster the preservation of the individual and concede an entitlement that will best reflect the universal promotion of individuals: a UBI. Libertarians should promote the reformation of clumsy tax code and a UBI that would address the basic necessities of human existence. It isn’t the role of the government to supply such entitlements according to Nozick and Rothbard. However, the Libertarian goal of serving and protecting the individual can best be addressed in our current political climate with a measure like UBI.

Maybe Saagar wins the battle oversupplying populist demands, but I refuse to concede that the promotion of a limited government and protection of the individual is corporatist and impractical. The government unchecked is the strongest ally for corporations. As Rothbard asserts in his great work on American history, the Progressive Era proves this point. 

The government serves the people who endow it with power, but the forces of gridlock and separation of powers must be preserved to protect the ideals of liberty.