Libertarian Moment

Nick Gillespie: Libertarians Have Won the Culture Wars, Even Though Universities Are "Constipated, Stultified"

Interesting discussion from Australia's Friedman conference with Claire Lehmann of Quillette.com.

|

Have libertarians—and the broader right and/or classical-liberal movement—really lost the "culture wars"? Why are universities in the United States and other advanced nations so "constipated, stultified" when it comes not just to free speech but open inquiry and academic freedom?

While I was in Sydney, Australia a couple of weeks ago to speak at the 5th Annual Friedman Conference (organized by the Australian Libertarian Society), I was interviewed by Claire Lehmann, the founder of the great and essential site Quillette.com, about these topics.

The interview, which appears on Rebel Media, is below.

Spoiler alert: I think libertarians have already won the culture war in the most important ways possible. Whether it's businesses like Whole Foods, Overstock, and Amazon; the massive and ongoing proliferation of platforms such as Netflix, YouTube, and Twitter; or gig-economy titans such as Uber and Airbnb, capitalism and entrepreneurship has been recast as an innovative, disruptive, liberatory system that allows us all to produce and consume whatever we want under increasingly personalized and individualized circumstances. What we need to do next to nail down what Matt Welch and I have dubbed The Libertarian Moment is to articulate the ways in which our society's cultural, economic, and even political operating system has already bought into the idea that decentralization, individualism, innovation, and freedom to experiment.

If the medium is the message (all props to Marshall McLuhan)—if an operating system is more important than any specific content generated within that system—what has been abjured as "late capitalism" for decades has effectively ended all debates about how libertarian policies and mind-sets have freed us from bland top-downism in all parts of our lives. This isn't to suggest that we are in any way living a utopian dream. It's simply to point out that even after 15 years of drowsy economic growth and a massive expansion of state (and in many ways, corporate) power, our living standards continue to rise. Add to that huge advances in tolerance and change when it comes to racial, ethnic, and gender disparities and transformative shifts on topics as varied as drug policy, sexual orientation, criminal-justice reform, and gun rights too.

Cultural and political pessimism isn't just a losing strategy, it's a misimpression. Again, that's not to say that massive problems don't exist and need to be confronted. Will we ever see an actual federal budget again, much less that cuts government spending? U.S. foreign policy remains a shameful, disastrous, and destructive hodgepodge of hubris and stupidity. Speech and expression are under attacks from the right and the left, and the bipartisan turn against free trade and the easy movement of people across borders needs to be beaten back. As the late, great Arthur Ekirch explained in his neglected masterpiece The Decline of American Liberalism, forces of decentralization and centralization—of liberation and authoritarianism, of individualism and collectivism, of choice and coercion—have been slugging out in the United States since before there was a United States. The question is whether we are moving generally in a direction of more autonomy and less restriction on how we live our lives.

But…well, watch the interview already.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

78 responses to “Nick Gillespie: Libertarians Have Won the Culture Wars, Even Though Universities Are "Constipated, Stultified"

  1. Crony capitalism. Militarized law enforcement. And, yes, illiberal policies in higher education. These are some of the things that must be brought to heel before you can come even think about declaring culture war victory. So long as entrepreneurship battles regulatory capture and people are fine with that, so long as speech rights are abridged at universities and people are okay with that, so long as we cheer the drug war, there is no libertarian moment.

    But more importantly, could they even understand your accent, Gillespie? And not very chivalrous, by the way, making her hold the mic for you.

    1. It’s a typical Gillespie article, which basically amounts to “move the goal posts, declare victory, and hit the enter key”.

      1. Enter key, or escape key?

      2. Which would you prefer? Pollyanna or Chicken Little?

        1. Most people who comment here complain and bitch about everything.

          They love being victims of something.

  2. There’s no such thing as “Classical liberalism”. There is only Liberalism, and everywhere it’s ever been implemented it’s followed exactly the same trajectory. Every. Fucking. Time. There is not a single exception on earth where it hasn’t wound up evolving into some variant of social democracy/progtardianism. What you’re referring to might be more aptly called “Larval Stage Liberalism”.

    As far as the claim that libertarianism has won anything, given the criteria, you might as well claim The Libertarian Moment occurred when Sears published their first catalogue, as it would appear you’ve redefined libertarianism to be the building of more and better shopping malls. I somehow doubt that’s what most libertarians signed up for.

    1. what’s been implemented is not and has not been liberalism. That the left calls it such is the sort of verbal misdirection in which the left traffics. That Nick’s claim is overheated is also true.

      1. As I pointed out, what the left has implemented is always the end point of so-called “Classical liberalism”. That is why I refer to it as “Larval Stage Liberalism”. They’re simply two different life-stages of the same beast. Caterpillars become butterflies, but butterflies never become caterpillars.

        1. If you can’t understand that differences between the principles of (‘classical’) liberalism and socialism then you don’t really belong in grown up conversations.

          I guess you actually weren’t joking when you posted that link to the blog about how the difference between capitalism and socialism is a ‘minor tax code adjustment’ and all that stuff about subhuman arabs? Yeah… lay of the paint chips, pal.

          1. Are you trying to prove his thesis?

            1. Are you trying to make a point?

          2. Unless I’m missing something, you’re the one suggesting there is only classical liberalism and socialism.

            There is the (I think quintessentially libertarian) argument that liberalism has such a shaky ideological foundation that it inevitably morphs into justifying increased regulation and redistribution.

            1. I was referring to a blog post he linked elsewhere approvingly that made that precise characterization.

              And I’m arguing no such thing. His spiel appears to be that there’s right wing and left wing, and anything else just plays into one of the two, and that classical liberalism is just leftism in disguise or some bullshit.

              1. I saw his link, and I couldn’t tell if he was linking to it approvingly or to mock.

                Here, at least, he hasn’t said there are only two sides, just that classical liberalism leads to modern liberalism.

                1. Maybe it does. But it also led to amazing, unprecedented prosperity and freedom for a large chunk of the world’s population. I don’t know that there is any alternative to liberalism that would have had similar effects.

                  I suspect, and I’m purely speculating here, that progressive left-liberalism, sort of socialism stuff that has been so popular is something that people are likely to gravitate towards in a society that has reached a decent level of prosperity.

                2. “I saw his link, and I couldn’t tell if he was linking to it approvingly or to mock.”
                  Well, my impression at least was the former.

          3. What’s the world coming to when even a guy named Dick Puller doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

        2. That is fallacious reasoning. Most of the currently socialist/social democratic countries in the world never had classical liberalism, so to claim that classical liberalism is to blame is unjustifiable.

          Socialism is just a common temptation in the modern era, regardless of what previous forms they had. Especially for countries that are protected from invasion without having to pay a penny for defense (ahem EU ahem)

    2. There’s no such thing as “Classical liberalism

      Translation: FACTS ARE INCONVENIENT TO MY BIGOTRY.

      There is not a single exception on earth where it hasn’t wound up evolving into some variant of social democracy/progtardianism

      Translation: I REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT PEOPLE CAN BE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE AND SOCIALLY LIBERAL …. EVEN IF A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DESCRIBE THEMSELVES THAT WAY. BECAUSE MY BIGOTRY OUTVOTES 60% OF AMERICANS!!!

      THE GODDAMN SNOWFLAKES HAVE ALL BEEN BRAINWASHED BY GEORGE SOROS AND THAT MUSLIM FROM KENYA.

      I somehow doubt that’s what most libertarians signed up for.

      How would you know?

      Then again, Gillespie is full of shit that we can “win the culture war” by simply LYING about what cultural issues even are! Hint for any goobers: capitalism is FISCAL NOT CULTURAL.

      And lodging your nose up the ass of extreme social conservatives means LOSING the culture war! DUH.
      This is even crazier than Nick’s insane bullshit that massive postwar spending cuts were the “incentive” for a postwar boom that never happened! It just keeps getting deeper and deeper in today’s Reason.

      Is this why 91% of libertarians REFUSE to be labeled as libertarians??? (Cato survey, conducted by a top independent pollster. so now they do internal polling!)

      1. You know, John, I’ve been gone from this board for a while. Like, two years. And yet, when I come back it is to one again find you sneaking into articles and posting comments hours or days after they were published and commented on.

        You can’t win arguments on your own merits, and the information and references you make are all patently absurd. You’re a functional retard that convinced your handler to give you internet access so you could loose your pent up aggression upon people who are clearly more intelligent and informed than you.

        Ahhh. That’s better. Hey guys, how are you doing? Long time no see!

        Who am I kidding? I’ll have to hit the links for anyone to say hello at.

        1. Also, this stupid autocorrect will be the death of me.

        2. You can’t win arguments on your own merits,

          What are you challenging, Sparky?
          Let me know so I can jam it up your ass.

          And … super dumbfuck … have you noticed over 50 comments posted after mine? (smirk)

  3. Are you freer now than you were 10 years ago, 20 years ago, to pursue your own interests, live your own life as you see fit? How much of the crap going on the world now is actually new and how much is crap that’s always been going on but now – thanks to the internet – people are aware of it? And how much of the crap actually has anything whatsoever to do with your daily life?

    1. WRT gun rights and pot legalization, we’re freer now than 20 years ago.

      But 20 years ago the Federal Government was smaller, the National Debt was less, we didn’t have the Department of Homeland Security or the “we must destroy our freedoms in order to save them” war on terrorism, we had fewer regulations on businesses, we didn’t have the rabid attacks of freedom of speech by the Left as well as the Right…

      So while a case can be made that we’re more free now than in 1997, I think the stronger case is that we were more free in 1997 than we are now. (We may be better off now, but “better off” isn’t the same thing as “more free.”)

      As for 10 years ago, it’s a closer call. But even that is consistent with “we are losing the overall battle for freedom.”

      1. We are definitely less free from government meddling in our lives and business. I think Nick does have a point about technology and social change enabling other kinds of freedom. But “libertarian moment” oversells it quite a bit.

  4. Claire is pretty cute. Also, as others have pointed out, being able to buy more stuff easier does not outweigh the ever growing ability of the government to meddle in every aspect of life, to constantly surveil all of us, and to basically say FYTW.

    1. Economic abundance fools us into thinking we’re freer.

    2. My thesis is that we have big government because we can afford big government. The richer we get as a society the more government we get. Almost as if there is a universal law that government abhors a vacuum.

      We have big government because the overwhelming majority (90%+) of people want big government. Government provides a service that is in demand. We libertarians are the odd ones out.

      1. What if alternatives were proposed? What if someone defended liberty, ANYONE?

        It was humiliating to watch two experienced governors running without a single policy solution — at a time when Americans are eager for even radical change. The libertarian establishment, with it’s bullshit about “libertarian ideas” (NEVER any solutions) was totally crushed on November 8th.

        So libertarians (the establishment) cannot show how to do ANYTHING better than it is now?. “Git gubmint out” is preaching to the choir .,.. at a time when 91% of libertarians REFUSE to CALL themselves libertarian. (per Cato)
        A half-century down the drain, for an opportunity that opens up only once or twice per century,

        Well, at least we’re in a Libertarian Moment. Who knew that means Eve of Destruction?

        1. They had policy alternatives. Just that their alternatives didn’t have a place for government. Which is why many so-called libertarians hated them. They want gub’ment solutions just as much as the next guy!

          1. They had policy alternatives.

            Bullshit.
            MASSIVE bullshit.

            They want gub’ment solutions just as much as the next guy!

            How else, Sparky?

  5. I’m surprised Nick isn’t signaling how “hip” he is by boomersplaining to Claire how great Radio Birdman and The Saints were.

  6. The butthurt #Resistance is now talking about expatriating after Macron’s victory. Trolling these twats on Twatter is my favorite vice.

    1. Isn’t Macron basically a (by French standards) a classical liberal? Granted that still probably puts him barely to the right of Bernie Sanders, but there’s still a slight irony in people who complain about the Koch brothers moving to France because of Macron; the shift from Hollande to Macron is definitely a rightward shift (in the sense of sway from socialism toward capitalism).

      1. Yes. Macron is more pro free market than Le Pen.

        1. He’s a centrist who founded his own party, which makes his job tough in a Parliamentary system!

      2. Sanders is nothing like a classical liberal. And no, Macron isn’t either.

        1. I didn’t imply he was.

          1. I didn’t imply he was.

            You certainly did

            “Isn’t Macron basically a (by French standards) a classical liberal? Granted that still probably puts him barely to the right of Bernie Sanders,”

            1. No, I said Macron was a classical liberal by French standards; my remark about him being barely right of Bernie Sanders was to suggest that in France socialism was far more the norm than here, not that Sanders was a classical liberal.

              1. Shit, Karl Marx was a classic liberal by French standards!

                1. FUNNY, but some may take you seriously. Google “Bastiat.”

              2. No, I said

                You said what I quoted. Apparently, you didn’t understand the words you used. For example …

                not that Sanders was a classical liberal.not that Sanders was a classical liberal.

                You don’t know what “barely ” means? Or “French standards”?
                Clasical liberalism has its roots in France.

                de Toqueville? Bastiat? Learn about classical liberalism in 19th century France at this classical liberal archive

                http://oll.libertyfund.org/groups/28

                1. You really are autistic aren’t you. France is one of the least classically liberal countries in the world today. You may as well go yell at Brandybuck for saying Marx is a classical liberal because you clearly do not understand how sarcasm or hyberpile work.

      3. Watching these imbecile progressives cheer on the election of an investment banker is amusing, indeed. Mentioning that is almost always met with “BUT HES NOT LITERALLY HITLER!!1!”

        1. Most progtards have raging boners for investment banks/ers and capitalism in general. When you think about it, they would not be able to sit around all day pouting and blogging if there were true equality in this world. Nor would they be able to go on vacations to eco resorts in Myanmar or Costa Rica, buy the latest Tesla, or send their kids to a new agey day care if they had to bear the true (according to them) cost of these things.

          1. Umm, Macron IS a progtard by the bipolar standards here, since he TROUNCED the rightwing candidate,
            Contards?

            1. You need to screw your head on buddy. La Pen is a statist and Macron is a (very mildly) comparatively pro-free market candidate, so shouldn’t you be accusing him of being an antigubmint right winger?

    2. All the evening news shows were touting Macron’s victory over “far right” LePen. LePen strikes me as a national socialist. Rand Paul and Amash are also reported as “far right” Republicans. They are free market/capitalists.
      How can “far right” define two diametrically different ideologies? Smear or what?

      1. Anyone not of the left is, by the left’s definition, far right. Or extreme. Usually both.

        1. …and stupid and racist and xenophobic and islamophobic and LITERALLY HITLER!

          1. I have mostly avoided Derpbook since the election for this very reason. I only go on to wish happy birthday to a few. Otherwise, I don’t want to see the latest postings about retarded marches, or how Republicans are more evil than National Socialists.

      2. See, there’s this wormhole in the political spectrum… it’s scientifically proven, don’t ask questions!

      3. I especially like how they refer to the various anti-immigration parties in Europe as “far right”, then in the same sentence mention the Greens without suggesting any direction on the spectrum.

        1. then in the same sentence mention the Greens without suggesting any direction on the spectrum.

          (laughing) Most Americans already know where Greens are on the spectrum.
          Do you have any other hysteria to share with us?

      4. “Right wing” means different things in Europe and the US. In Europe, pretty much everyone is some kind of socialist. And the traditionalist view is more towards monarchist in many cases (or half-assed commie revolutionary crap in France). The traditionalist view in the US, on the other hand, is a lot more about minimal government and economic freedom.

        1. This is why we need more white European immigration, obviously. Gots to keep out those Hispanics and their socialism/authoritarianism. White Europeans don’t have that problem.

          /satire

      5. It’s highly convenient for the left to conflate libertarianism with racist fascist retards.

        Sadly too many libertarians seem to be more than willing to help them. (Yes, I mean you, alt-right trolls).

        1. If only more libertarians were like HazelMeade and make us look like delusional and obsessive screaming fools instead.

      6. If you deny reality, change the definition of rightwing — are naive enough to think a banker is rightwing … then what is George Soros? Warren Buffett? (lol)

        1. Why would being a banker preclude being right or left or any wing? The only thing being a banker says about one’s politics is that they oppose anti-usury laws.

          1. Why would being a banker preclude being right or left or any wing?

            It wouldn’t. That’s WHY it would be naive to assume he is rightwing because he’s a banker..
            Have you ever had a comment appear in the wrong place? I had responded to an assumption — perhaps the guy who thought it was hysterical for progressive to cheer the election of an investment banker — probably Otis Driftwood, after just a quick look upscreen..

            Most of the jabber here on left and right is kinda scary!

      7. Smear or what?

        Your phrasing suggests confusion. Right and left are based on how they align in each country.

        Rand and Amash are far right by American standards. Obviously, the far right in North Korea would not equate with the same label here, or even in France,

        They are free market/capitalists

        Which places them on the right. It’s their views on social issues which makes them “far” right — but perhaps not Justin, since I don’t think he’s near a statist as Rand/

        La Pen is far right on such issues as immigration, Islamophobia, attacking “ultra-liberalism” as a main theme — all as the far right here. Most of the rest is “local.” And her party as the farthest right in France, She AGGRESSIVELY celebrated Trump’s victory as proof of the same wave she is riding — which ain’t no lefty! She visited Putin. And France had a MUCH larger Russian hacking scandal in her favor (which may be why she was crushed)..

  7. Add to that huge advances in tolerance and change when it comes to racial, ethnic, and gender disparities…

    Is this from a proggie speech generator?

    1. Is this from a proggie speech generator?

      For how long have you worshiped ii the cult of Ron Paul? … virtually the only ones ignorant that libertarianism is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, closer to the alt-right and white nationalists. The Alex Jones freaks.

  8. A lot of tolerance is not really tolerance, it’s accept this new social standard or be ostracized, lose your job, or in some cases, be fined by the government

    Never mind that 10 years ago holding that same position would be perfectly normal

    And it’s reached a point where if don’t want to have sex with a “woman” with a penis, you are a transphobe. I think a lot of straight men are drawing a line, but as the pressure mounts, it will be the new normal once people starting losing their jobs over it..

    1. if don’t want to have sex with a “woman” with a penis

      More of her to love.

    2. And it’s reached a point where if don’t want to have sex with a “woman” with a penis, you are a transphobe.

      That’s kind of an odd claim to make. Yes, some people would say that, but it’s hardly a new social norm.

      1. Today, maybe, what about tomorrow?

        The people advocating this are using the same demonizing language against people who think sexual attraction has something to do with the object of desire’s sex as those that dissent on sex segregated spaces.

    3. I accuse women who (aren’t fat or ugly) don’t want to sleep with me of being Markophobic; this bigotry can’t be tolerated. Who’s marching with me?!

    4. Never mind that 10 years ago holding that same position would be perfectly normal

      Umm, it was not discussed then, and widely unknown.

      It’s like that dumbass Cruz. He his wife and kids could have been in a bathroom with a trannie — and never known it — for at least 20 years.

      It’s the Christian Taliban that got into a snit and made it an issue — since nobody was noticing.

  9. And it’s reached a point where if don’t want to have sex with a “woman” with a penis, you are a transphobe.

    It is sad indeed that you have been forced to have such sex.

    1. Looks like you missed the point by a mile or two.

  10. Gillespie is nothing is not consistently wrong.

    Libertarians longed to have college show trials over “rape”? Libertarians longed to have people who didn’t agree with pop culture lose their livelihoods? Longed to have science bastardized to pursue progressive goals?

    Really?

  11. If Facebook is any barometer, then yes I think we have lost the culture wars. I try to avoid getting bubble-ized on Facebook, so I have a ton of right leaning friends, a ton of left leaning friends, and a handful of libertarian friends.

    The right is all about sticking it to anyone that smells of immigration or free trade, demanding that government provide them jobs, while keeping their gub’ment pork untouched.

    The left is all about government providing anything that anyone on the left might want. Free contraceptives, free healthcare, free abortions, free sex change operations, free bathrooms for fifty two different genders, etc. Plus SJW-ism run amok.

    And sadly, the libertarians are mostly batshit crazy. Some good guys out there, but still way way too many conspiratards and cranks infesting the space. A lot of the militia types did leave to rejoin the right after Trump won, but the libertarian Facebook bubble is still largely crazy town determined to make libertarianism unpalatable for ordinary folk.

  12. Nick Gillespie, the epitome of out-of-touch navel gazing libertarian cultural gatekeeper, is surely right this time.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.