Debate: Be Optimistic About the World
Can we relearn how to leave each other alone?

Optimism Is the Rational Approach
Affirmative: Katherine Mangu-Ward

Scanning the headlines or checking your bank statement, it's easy to succumb to pessimism. Humans are wired to focus on the negative—a useful trait in a dangerous environment characterized by scarcity, to be sure—so we are by nature a wary, gloomy, and regretful species. But a clear-eyed analysis of the conditions in which we live and the direction of most trend lines reveals a larger truth: Optimism is the only rational outlook.
Let's stipulate that politics—domestically and globally—are legitimate cause for pessimism among those concerned about the rise of populist authoritarianism and the decline of liberalism and pluralism. To worry about politics isn't irrational; there have been times in human history when the political outpaced and swallowed the personal, private, and commercial.
Now is not one of those times. The world outside of politics continues to get bigger, richer, and more interesting every day. We are all swimming in the primordial soup of the Great Enrichment; more than 200 years of spectacular increases in wealth, health, education, mobility, and choice that extends around the globe. In 1820, 84 percent of people lived in extreme poverty; today that number is 8 percent. In 1820, 90 percent of the world's population was illiterate; now it's 10 percent.
Improved medical technology and delivery systems have put beating HIV/AIDS, smallpox, measles, Guinea worm disease, and even COVID-19 within reach. Contrary to the gloomy predictions of the 1970s, a wealthier world is also one that values environmental recovery and conservation: In Uganda, for example, the population of elephants has grown nearly 300 percent since 2005. The top minds of our generation are pursuing promising technologies to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Americans are working fewer hours than ever before to afford the necessities of life, but the gains are even more remarkable in developing nations. "A person in China working eight hours a day to earn enough money to buy food in 1960, would only need to spend around 18 minutes to do the same in 2021," writes the Cato Institute's Marian L. Tupy. "The Chinese gained 7 hours and 42 minutes a day to do with as they please. Indians gained 6 hours and 30 minutes a day over the same period."
Wealth is more than just money. It's free time and freedom. Billions of people with hours and energy to spare are the world's ultimate resource and the greatest cause for optimism.
Even when we know these statistics, it's hard to keep them top of mind on a bad day. But we must. A collective bad mood—especially among disproportionately wealthy and powerful Americans—can create a vicious cycle of culture-war fearmongering that empowers tyrants and squelches innovation. Be rational. Be optimistic.

The Dream of Being Left Alone Is Dead
Negative: C.J. Ciaramella
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said that "the right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." By that standard, we're descending into barbarism and it's hard to muster anything but pessimism for the future.
Both the right and the left in America—and a small but vocal faction of self-described libertarians—have turned their backs on the very American value of minding your own damn business. Unmoored from any limiting principles, these camps are clamoring to use government power against their enemies and to do away with viewpoint neutrality in the public square. The feckless left frets about "disinformation," while the right daydreams about banning pornography and getting religion back in schools. Former President Donald Trump recently said that, if he is reelected, the federal government will take over school discipline from local districts.
The future these busybodies would prefer isn't a secret: loyalty pledges, intense policing of language, state retaliation against disfavored businesses and groups, increasingly centralized power and micromanagement of local affairs. People like to say all politics is local, but local politics are now all national too. Every public space and even many private ones become contested ground. And when a culture war achieves the totality its proponents desire, it ensures you cannot be left alone.
This sort of snitch state already exists in Russia and China, and the global outlook for liberal democracy is not promising. Narendra Modi's India is sliding into militant ethnonationalism, and Viktor Orbán's strongman government in Hungary has many admirers in Europe and the United States.
The point of waging a culture war isn't to win. It's to convince people that you need to be given more power to fight it. Hence the calls from the nationalist right for a muscular "wartime conservatism," which doesn't have room for any nerds bound by classical liberal values. Each side claims it is in an existential battle with the other, so there can't be any deescalation or truces. If you want a picture of the future, imagine Proud Boys and antifa punching each other in the face outside a drag show, forever.
Meanwhile, the expansion of facial recognition technology and police surveillance will make it harder in a literal sense to maintain a private life.
None of this bodes well for a libertarian interest in living freely or just having a normal, peaceful community. Even if the U.S. isn't Balkanized in the next decade, it's hard to see how our politics can get better in this climate—and even harder to see how we can regain a respect for leaving each other alone.
Subscribers have access to Reason's whole May 2023 issue now. These debates and the rest of the issue will be released throughout the month for everyone else. Consider subscribing today!
- Debate: It's Time for a National Divorce
- Debate: Artificial Intelligence Should Be Regulated
- Debate: Democracy Is the Worst Form of Government Except for All the Others
- Debate: To Preserve Individual Liberty, Government Must Affirmatively Intervene in the Culture War
- Debate: The E.U. Was a Mistake
- Debate: The U.S. Should Increase Funding for the Defense of Ukraine
- Debate: Mentally Ill Homeless People Must Be Locked Up for Public Safety
- Debate: Despite the Welfare State, the U.S. Should Open Its Borders
- Debate: Cats Are More Libertarian Than Dogs
- Debate: Make Housing Affordable by Abolishing Growth Boundaries, Not Ending Density Restrictions
- Debate: Bitcoin Is the Future of Free Exchange
- Debate: Be Optimistic About the World
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The feckless left frets about "disinformation," while the right daydreams about banning pornography and getting religion back in schools.
Personally. I'm more interested in stopping people from chopping confused little boy's dicks off before browbeating them on how irredeemably evil they are for choosing to be born white. But that's just me.
I liked that sentence. It takes something a majority of the left does, and the compares it with something that is a minority sentiment on the right. Because this whole thing is about a practice in good faith, right?
Both optimism and pessimism are beliefs, nothing more and neither constitutes rational thought.
Truth aka reality, not belief is the basis of rational thinking. Those who let beliefs define truth make truth meaningless through the existence of conflicting beliefs.
I’m not going to believe the world into a better place. I like to use correctly applied logic and science to demonstrate and expose lies and corruption and dare, taunt and goad the liars into demonstrating that they can neither prove what they claim nor refute what they deny.
As long as people value truth, they will recognize that truth is the only thing that we all share in peace.
I'm beginning to suspect that Misek is a plant, a Reason writer who periodically posts things just to significantly up the comment count on certain articles. It happens every time he posts something.
Intelligent, thoughtful comments that smash delusions and can’t be refuted have that effect.
You might try it sometime, “junk”.
Do you feel dared, taunted and goaded? Hahaha
It's junkmail, not junk. Or Mr. folder.
"Intelligent, thoughtful comments that smash delusions and can’t be refuted have that effect."
This from Nazi scum...
You are immune to such comments, hence your Holocaust denying drivel. Like George Washington Carver, you too will die penniless and insane. Possibly also trying to play a phonograph record with a peanut.
I’m beginning to suspect that Misek is a plant,
Possibly a ficus, or a dandelion. Definitely not a Wanering Jew.
Very well-played! ????
Not a dandelion, either At least the dandelion makes good wine.
Misek is more like a hybrid of Kudzu and Nightshade. It has to be held back constantly or its poison spreads everywhere.
And yet you cite religion, ideological dogma, aNational!, historical bullshit as a basis for your hatred against Jews.
Fuck Off, Nazi!
You’re lying again Kol Nidre boy.
I'll agree that attitude can't change objective reality. However, action can change reality, and attitude strongly influences action. People who believe the world can be changed for the better are far more likely to do the work needed to make it better. People who see no hope of betterment are more likely to surrender to apathy and despair, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Too bad your relationship to truth can only generously be described as tenuous.
Belief doesn’t guarantee taking the right action.
Perhaps if you ever refuted anything I said you could criticize my relationship with the truth.
Until then, doing so only demonstrates your own penchant for lying.
Don't want the same thing to happen to others, what happened to you ay?
Are you sure this isn't what you do for trophies?
Why are Capitalists cutting little boy's dicks off?
Is it profitable?
Why are Collectivists and Statists like yourself fucking up all nice things, especially since you don't even like profit?
"are legitimate cause for pessimism among those concerned about the rise of populist authoritarianism and the decline of liberalism and pluralism."
What the fuck?
Populists didn't create a massive alphabet agency spying and censorship machine to clamp down on people's social media posts.
Populists didn't just lock people in their homes for a year and try to have them fired for refusing injections that didn't really work.
Populists didn't indict four left-wing black nationalists and three Russians for exercising free speech to dissent.
Populists aren't trying to ram through a horrific censorship bill that makes using VPN's illegal.
Last but not least, populists haven't spent the last century or so turning every crisis, both real and imagined, into an excuse to expand the scope and power of the federal government.
As others have pointed out below, populism is the inevitable reaction to all of the things you point out and more that the elitist authoritarians have been doing since the early 20th century.
What color is the sky on your planet? This is hardly true, and even if it were, populists do nothing to roll back Leviathan when they have the chance. Instead, they merely try to seize control of the machine for their own ends. They love to bleat about freedom, but that goes straight out the window as soon as someone tries to do anything they don't approve of.
No, they just sought to seize control of all the existing machinery of control and repression. The only time they even pretend to want the machine shut down is when they're the targets. Given a chance to aim it at their enemies, they don't hesitate for a second.
I don't see them doing much to fight it, either. Why would they, when real freedom and privacy threaten their agenda just as much?
Long story short, I reject authoritarian collectivism whether it comes from the left, the right, or Mars.
Bad news, youngsters; fascists NEVER leave people alone.
The democrats tried for the Ministry of Truth, and are currently and openly working on the Ministry of Love. The Ministry of Plenty, by other names, is working on the law enforcement, health, energy, and publication sectors, with fingers deep into food.
The democrats tried for the Ministry of Truth
Nina Jankowicz is apparently trying to sue Fox.
It is a simple fact that the larger our government, and the more expansive its powers, the less we are able to leave each other alone. I care very little about the politics of Idylwild, California and even less about the government of DeMoines, Iowa. Why? Because they don't interfere with my life.
Unfortunately, largely leftists have created a government that disruptively intrudes on roughly 70% of our economy and therefore our lives. Our children are subject to the schools. Our life-or-death healthcare is dominated by Medicare, Medicaid and ACA. My banking, loans and other finances are controlled by myriad laws. For 2 years, I couldn't go anywhere without donning the talisman masks of these crazy zealots. And even if I tried to operate outside those regulatory structures, ~30% (+/- 8%) of my productive labor goes to supporting these aims.
Populist Authoritarians didn't create this situation. Populism is the natural result of people around the country waking up and realizing that the Authoritarianism was already here, and merely trying to wrest control of it from a band of rich elites.
Obviously the answer is to reduce the size and scope of government. But until people are honest that this is the problem, and that it didn't come from Trump, but 40 years of elitist power-grabbing, we are doomed to continue squabbling over who gets that power, not how to stuff the genie back in the bottle.
But until people are honest that this is the problem, and that it didn’t come from Trump, but 40 years of elitist power-grabbing, we are doomed to continue squabbling over who gets that power, not how to stuff the genie back in the bottle.
The Progressive Movement has been building the administrative state for over a century now.
I also find it disturbing that populist authoritarianism is being defended in the name of Trump.
Your comment reminds me of Ken before he lost his mind. He was promoting and defending authoritarianism because it's better than the totalitarian left. Well, not in so many words. But he was correctly contrasting the political right and left as authoritarian vs totalitarian, and promoting the political right. That's the same as "Authoritarians rah rah rah!" Truly a choice between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich.
Where did I defend Trump? And where am I noting one is better than the other?
If anything I am pointing out that many Reasonista writers explicitly chose one over the other. Ciaramella, KMW and a couple of the others seem uniquely bothered by the rise of Populist Authoritarianism, while retaining a blind spot for Elitist Authoritarians. They call it out in this article among many. To them, Trump and his populism was a bridge too far.
And that is just lunacy. Authoritarianism was *already here*. For all his flaws (and they were legion) Trump was a piker compared to what Bush, and especially Obama unleashed on this country. Patriot Act, Operation Choke Point, Fast and Furious, Dodd Frank, ACA, and Title IX – by the end of the Obama administration, the Government was actively controlling vast swaths of our country, and had been weaponized against its own people. And the fact that these writers feel the biggest threat was POPULISTS getting control of that government is a big problem.
Ciaramella supported and voted for Joe Biden. He didn’t give the “both sides” nonsense. He picked. Because he was fixated on “Populism” while remaining blind to the steady weaponizing of our government. And as a result, we now live under a regime that is investigating, censoring, prosecuting, and mandating the health choices of its own citizens. And he still thinks the danger is a populist getting control of that apparatus? Please.
If anything I am pointing out that many Reasonista writers explicitly chose one over the other. Ciaramella, KMW and a couple of the others seem uniquely bothered by the rise of Populist Authoritarianism, while retaining a blind spot for Elitist Authoritarians.
I stop reading whenever I see “So-and-so didn’t say XYZ which means ABC despite anything actually said…”
And the choice you provide is like diarrhea or constipation.
"So-and-so didn’t say XYZ"
Which is a bald faced lie.
Ciaramella explicitly supported Biden. He explicitly said the existential threat was Populist Nationalism. I am not holding him accountable for things he didn't say. I am holding him accountable for things he did say.
Are you going to correct yourself?
I'm not digging that deep. Not important enough.
Oh we are back to the "not serious" sarc. Gotcha.
This is obviously more important to you than to me. Though I cannot fathom why.
"Your comment reminds me of Ken before he lost his mind"
And by the way, I do remember this period. It was quite creepy how obsessed you were with him. You constantly brought it up, complaining about how he "chose" the GOP over the Dems. It was always curious to me that you never held folks like Ciaramella to the same standard.
"It was always curious to me that you never held folks like Ciaramella to the same standard."
Actually I'll rephrase that- it is curious how you are attacking me for holding Ciaramella to the same standard.
I’m not attacking you. I’m simply tired of the “They didn’t say this which means they mean that and I’m going to respond with this other thing” that passes for argumentation in these pathetic comments.
Where did Overt say that? I must have missed it.
Weird to claim Ken lost his mind. What I recall is that he got tired of putting up with character attacks. It seemed that Nardz mainly aggravated him enough to leave.
I wish he would come back. Even if I disagreed, his takes were appreciated.
it didn’t come from Trump, but 40 years of elitist power-grabbing, we are doomed to continue squabbling over who gets that power, not how to stuff the genie back in the bottle.
What part of #OrangeManBad do you not understand?! /sarc
Minor nit: it's more like ~100 years of elitist power grabbing, all the way back to at least the time of Woodrow Wilson (may he burn in hell) and the start of the Progressive era. As far as stuffing the genie back in the bottle, that's probably not possible at this point. At least not without a complete societal collapse first. Obviously I'm firmly on Team Pessimist.
It is a simple fact that the more people grow in power, the more that power intersects with the lives of others and the more rules are needed to delineate the ever increasing intersections.
RetardoBoys just can't comprehend that simple fact.
So KMW only sees fit to be concerned about "populist authoritarianism" but seems not to notice the elitist authoritarianism that much of the populist movement is animated by resistance to. It is a blind spot which makes conversation about how to get out of the current political mess difficult to get into, because most of the pearl clutching is all about the excesses of populism.
So KMW only sees fit to be concerned about “populist authoritarianism” but seems not to notice the elitist authoritarianism that much of the populist movement is animated by resistance to.
B-b-but... OrangeManBad! And FloridaManBad! And SpaceManBad! And...
How is your comment any different from when leftists deflected criticism of Obama’s policies with accusations of racism? I’ll give you a clue: It’s not.
Alright sarcasmic. Describe some instances of actual populist authoritarianism in the last twenty years.
You don't even have to give citations. Just give us some examples.
Sure if we...
Turn in all guns. Guns will be strictly the province of government to impose whatever they want without resistance.
Accept the religion of climate change and go along with any green new deals.
Accept abortion on demand up to and at the point of delivery
Believe that anyone born male can decide to be a woman and beat the stink out of any person born female and chooses to remain so, and compete on a woman's sports team.
Accept however much government is desired to be imposed upon us, toward achieving the above ends, and instituting a massive surveillance state to make sure we all comply.
Government hasn't produced America's surveillance state.
Capitalism has.
Can we relearn how to leave each other alone?
Unfortunately this is begging the question. An overwhelming percentage of the population never had the capability in the first place. As the undoing of the enlightenment accelerates it is not going to get better.
The inherent assumption that all factions would leave the others alone, when some are explicitly predicated on not leaving anyone else alone. You must confess to belief in their dogma or else you are a bigot or worse.
Unfortunately this is begging the question. An overwhelming percentage of the population never had the capability in the first place. As the undoing of the enlightenment accelerates it is not going to get better.
There's an article-length comment on how the modern iteration of mainstream libertarianism literally enables massive increases in the size, scope and power of the state. But I have things to do.
Relearn? That implies people ever learned to leave each other alone in the first place. Even a cursory examination of history shows otherwise.
Hell, just a cursory examination of US history proves that too many people don't want to leave each other alone.
"the global outlook for liberal democracy is not promising"....
Funny. 'Liberal Democracy' never promised Liberty at all.
And that is the very root of the problem.
Ctrl-F "Constitution" = ZERO results.
So can [WE] mobsters RULE "democracy" save us from tyranny??
No. It's not equipped to do so without a Supreme Law LIMITING Gov-Gun Tyranny.
Good grief a 1st grader would understand such a simple concept.
As usual, both sides are right and, ultimately, both are wrong. It is possible to be pessimistic about freedom in the short term while being optimistic about global wealth in the longer term. The debate here should, I think, be about WHY authoritarianism is advancing at this particular time. With wealth growing steadily for over a century, WHY are leftists continuing to push to impose their socialist programs on society, finally triggering a rightist reacionary culture war?
They never stopped. We have just hit a critical mass due to the influence they've had on the rising generation.
Okay, then ... why are their narratives gaining traction with people who have increasing wealth and opportunity and nothing really to complain about? How are they swayed by the desire for fairness and killing the goose that lays the golden eggs when things are more fair than ever before in the history of humanity?
Because that's what leftist do?
When the most powerful, wealthy financial institution in the world (perhaps) calls for seizing private property…immediately, is this populist authoritarianism? Asking for a friend.
https://dailycaller.com/2023/04/05/jpmorgan-ceo-jamie-dimon-eminent-domain-green-energy/
The feckless left frets about “disinformation,” while the right daydreams about banning pornography and getting religion back in schools.
I can give you widespread examples of the former, can anyone provide me "widespread" examples of the latter? Like is there a cabal of deep state, federal security state officials, a massive NGO system funded by government, and broad unity among titans of industry on this getting-religion-back-in-schools thing? Or is this the fever dream of an obscure county clerk in Kentucky? Because Bowf-Sidezing this one is gonna be fun to watch.
“can anyone provide me “widespread” examples of the latter”
Russian schools. 11 timezones. Wide enough?
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Your bullshit is certainly not lacking is width.
Thanks for reminding me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDmWYVdN8ug
11, it's not even funny.
Optimism? How dare you!
Everything is so terrible and unfair.
If the liberal order is failing miserably to confront the issues before it, the populist authoritarian impulse isn't going to be any more successful. Score one for optimism.
it is a sign of how easy the argument for pessimism is, that the only holes those who don't like that argument can find in it is that it does not focus ENOUGH on the flaws brought to the table by the other "tribe."
leftist/rightist/authoritarian/totalitarian/etc./etc...... the big problem is the number of people more dedicated to their political party and it's power than true ideology or principles. the best example is the principle of control over your own body. both sides hate that principle when it stands in the way of banning abortions or forcing vaccines.... they just pretend to love that principle when they are not the ones who came up with the specific idea.
Never-mind the left is 95% in agreement while abortion banning cannot even muster up a simple majority on the right.
I don’t know how optimistic I can be for a rational and free world when I see things like this:
10 Books Voted the Most Dangerous Text Ever Written
https://bosslevelgamer.com/dangerous-books-27231
Yep, you read it right. Yep. Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations is put in the same boat with Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Karl Marx’ The Communist Manifesto, William Pierce’s The Turner Diaries, and Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power..
Classics of Reason and Freedom lumped in with the works of Communists, Nazis, Racists, and Psychopaths!
Big Dummies!
Sanford Dummy Reel
https://youtu.be/moYdbNXBwvk
Funny, The Holy Bible, Al-Qu’ran, and The Rig Vedas or other religious texts are not mentioned as dangerous works.
Robert Greene’s and Machiavelli’s works may be useful…to counteract and Jiu-Jitsu evil people like the Totalitarians lovers of the other works that seek for slavery and death. But that’s about it.
So I have heard from elsewhere, The Anarchist Cookbook is basically a suicide manual. Best to consult legitimate biology, physics, chemistry, and gunsmithing courses for finer points on the technology of Freedom.
This listicle has no intellectual lobe-icles, testicles, ov-icles, or even Neuticles to recommend it! Hide in your panic room and judge books for yourself!
Any book that purports to teach readers how to distinguish edible mushrooms from poisonous mushrooms. The pictures and descriptions in these books never do justice to the profusion and variation of mushrooms in the wild. My advice, if you feel you have to consult a guide book before consuming a mushroom, don't eat it.
Books are fine things, but they have limitations. The term 'book learning' is a pejorative for a reason.
Another bad thing about this list is that it does not include your favorite Red Book by Mao-Tse Tung or Ecotopia by Earnest Callenbach. Though, fret not, it does include the book of what you call Adolf Hitler's "poses."
Fuck Off, Beefsteak Watermelon Rickshaw Boy!
The Red Book was written by Carl Jung. It was bigger and therefore more dangerous than Mao's Little Red Book.
"Mao-Tse Tung"
Mao Zedong is a more accurate way to transcribe the name. Each syllable begins with a voiced (vibrating) consonant.
A lovely little Maoist musical interlude from one of the 8 model operas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdD-s9DFL4k
I spell his name and yours "M-U-D."
Fuck Off, Beefsteak Watermelon Rickshaw Boy!
Mao Zedong is the more accurate transcription.
The Red Book was written by Carl Jung.
Don't rely on mushroom guide books.
I'm glad you asked about the song from the White Haired Girl, I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdD-s9DFL4k
The song is about the anxiety felt by a young girl awaiting for the return of her father, gone off to make money to pay off their parasitic land lord before lunar new year, when debts traditionally are due.
While taking risks and visiting far-flung locations, I make $100 each hour. Last week, I travelled to Rome, Monte Carlo, and ultimately Paris while working remotely. This week, I’m back in the USA. I just use this one ed48 fantastic website for easy tasks. see it, . . Click here—————————— https://hardincomejob90.blogspot.com