David Boaz, RIP
The longtime Cato Institute executive vice president was one of his era's most effective explainers of libertarianism.

David Boaz, longtime executive vice president at the Cato Institute, died this week at age 70 in hospice after a battle with cancer.
Boaz was born in Kentucky in 1953 to a political family, with members holding the offices of prosecutor, congressman, and judge. He was thus the type "staying up to watch the New Hampshire primary when I was 10 years old," as he said in a 1998 interview for my book Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.
In the early to mid-1970s, Boaz was a young conservative activist, working on conservative papers at Vanderbilt University, where he was a student from 1971 to 1975. After graduation, he worked with Young Americans for Freedom (YAF), in whose national office he served in various capacities from 1975 to 1978, including editing its magazine, New Guard.
In the 1970s, he recalls, YAF saw themselves as not merely College Republicans but were instead "organized around a set of ideas." When he started with YAF he already thought of himself as a libertarian but saw libertarianism "as a brand of conservatism. But during my tenure at YAF, as I got to know people in the libertarian movement, I came to believe that conservatives and libertarians were not the same thing and it became uncomfortable for me to work in the YAF office."
Now fully understanding libertarianism as something distinct from right-wing conservatism, "I badgered Ed Crane to find me a job and take me away from all this." Boaz had met him when Crane was representing the Libertarian Party (L.P.) at the Conservative Political Action Conference in the mid-'70s and kept in touch with him when Crane was running Cato from San Francisco from 1977 to 1981. Via his relationship with Crane, Boaz became one of two staffers on Ed Clark's campaign for governor of California in 1978, which earned over 5 percent of the popular vote. (Clark was officially an independent because of ballot access requirements but was a member of the L.P. and ran with L.P. branding.)
Boaz then worked with the now-defunct Council for a Competitive Economy (CCE) from 1978 to 1980, which he described as "a free market group of businessmen opposed not only to regulations and taxes but to subsidies and tariffs…in effect it was to be a business front group for the libertarian movement." He left CCE to work on Ed Clark's 1980 L.P. presidential campaign, where Boaz wrote, commissioned, and edited campaign issue papers as well as the chapters written by the various ghosts for Clark's official campaign book. Boaz also did speech writing and road work with Clark.
The campaign Boaz worked on earned slightly over 1 percent, 920,000 total votes—records for the L.P. that were not beaten until Gary Johnson's 2012 run (in raw votes) and 2016 run (in percentages). "The Clark campaign was organized around getting ideas across in a way that is not outside the bounds of what was politically plausible," Boaz reminisced in a 2022 interview. "When John Anderson got in [the 1980 presidential race as an independent], we recognized he was going to provide a more prominent third-party choice, maybe taking away our socially liberal, fiscally conservative, well-educated vote, and he ended up getting 6 percent. We just barely got 1 percent. And although we said, 'This is unprecedented, blah blah,' in fact we were very disappointed."
Boaz began working at the Cato Institute when it moved to D.C. in 1981, where he became executive vice president and stayed until his retirement in 2023. He was Cato's leading editorial voice for decades, setting the tone for what was among the most well-financed and widely distributed institutional voices for libertarian advocacy. Cato, with Boaz's guidance, provided a stream of measured, bourgeois outreach policy radicalism intended to appeal to a wide-ranging audience of normal Americans, not just those marinated in specifically libertarian movement heroes, styles, and concerns.
Boaz was, for example, an early voice getting drug legalization taken seriously in citadels of American cultural power with a forward-thinking 1988 New York Times op-ed that concluded presciently: "We can either escalate the war on drugs, which would have dire implications for civil liberties and the right to privacy, or find a way to gracefully withdraw. Withdrawal should not be viewed as an endorsement of drug use; it would simply be an acknowledgment that the cost of this war—billions of dollars, runaway crime rates and restrictions on our personal freedom—is too high."
Boaz wrote what remains the best one-volume discussion of libertarian philosophy and practice for an outward-facing audience, one that while not losing track of practical policy issues also provided a tight, welcoming sense of the philosophical reasons behind libertarian beliefs in avoiding violence as much as possible to settle social or political disputes, published as Libertarianism: A Primer in 1997.
Boaz's book rooted its explanatory style in the American founding, cooperation, personal responsibility, charity, and uncoerced civil society in all its glories. He explained the necessity and purpose of property, profits, entrepreneurship, and how liberty is conducive to an economically healthy and wealthy society, and how government interferes with the growth-producing properties of the system of natural liberty. He discusses the nature and excesses of government in practice and applies libertarian perspectives to many specific policy issues: health care, poverty, the budget, crime, education, even "family values." Boaz's book is thorough, even-toned, erudite, and thoughtful and intended for mass persuasion, not the sour delights of freaking out the normies with your radicalism.
Meeting Boaz in 1991 when I was an intern at Cato (and later an employee until 1994) was bracing to this wet-behind-the-ears young libertarian who arose from a more raffish, perhaps less civilized branch of activism. As a supervisor and colleague, Boaz was a civilized adult, stylish, nearly suave, but was patient nonetheless with wilder young libertarians, of whom he'd dealt with many.
His very institutional continuity—though it was barely two decades long at that point—was influential in a quiet way to the younger crew. It imbued a sense that one needn't frantically demand instant victory, no matter how morally imperative the cause of freedom was. Boaz's calm sense of historical sweep both as a living person and in his capacious knowledge of the history of classical liberal ideas was an antidote to both despair and opportunism for the young libertarians he worked with.
His edited anthology The Libertarian Reader: Classic & Contemporary Writings from Lao-Tzu to Milton Friedman—which came out accompanying his primer in 1997—was a compact proof of libertarianism's rich, long tradition, showing how it was in many ways the core animating principle of the American Founding and to a large extent the entire Enlightenment and everything good, just, and rich about the whole Western tradition. The anthology featured the best of libertarian heroes both old and modern, such as Thomas Paine, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Lysander Spooner, and Benjamin Constant from previous centuries and Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises from the 20th, as well as providing even wider context with more ancient sources ranging from the Bible to Lao Tzu. He also placed the libertarian tradition rightly as core to the fights for liberation for women and blacks, with entries from Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, and Angelina and Sarah Grimké.
Asked in 1998 why he chose a career pushing often unpopular and derided ideas up a huge cultural and political hill, Boaz told me: "I think it's satisfying and fun. I believe strongly in these values and at some level I believe it's right to devote your life to fighting for these values, though particularly if you're a libertarian you can't say it's morally obligatory to be fighting for these values—but it does feel right, and at some other level more than just being right, it is fun, it's what I want to do.
"I like intellectual combat, polishing arguments, and I also hate people who want to use force against other people, so a part of it is I am motivated to try to fight these people. I wake up listening to NPR every morning and my partner says, 'Why do you want to wake up angry every morning?' In the first place, I need to know what's going on in the world, and in the second place, dammit, I want to know what these people are up to! It's an outrage what they're up to and I don't want them to get away with it. I want to fight." For decades, at the forefront of the mainstream spread of libertarian attitudes, ideas, and notions, David Boaz did.
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
Sad news, Boaz was one fine writer and publicists for the libertarian cause.
He will be missed.
Sad news. Another giant on whose shoulders the libertarian movement will always stand.
saw libertarianism "as a brand of conservatism. But during my tenure at YAF, as I got to know people in the libertarian movement, I came to believe that conservatives and libertarians were not the same thing
Plenty of ignorami - as seen in the comments on the main Reason pages - don't seem to have understood that.
I know. They are all overlapping with Soros leftist liberalism now. Drugs, political prosecutions while releasing violent criminals, cutting dicks off kids, government funded industry, etc.
Nobody here has said libertarianism and conservatism is the same thing shrike. But there is more overlap by far. Especially if you exclude the GOPe. See Massie and Paul.
David Boaz was only 70 and went much too soon. I'll miss him.
Massie and Paul are different from the rest of Congress. Massie thinks like an engineer so he asks “How does this work”. Paul thinks like a doctor and asks “What do the symptoms tell me?”. Neither thinks like a politician who asks “How many votes can this get me?”
I’m still not shrike, you lying cunt.
But there is more overlap by far. Especially if you exclude the GOPe. See Massie and Paul.
Paul? LOL nope. Paul, like his dad, is only a libertarian wrt the Feds, not state governments. Massie is all over the shop but he does have some libertarian principles - not many, but still more than most in the modern GOP.
Just because the overlap with conservatives is low doesn’t mean that I think it’s somehow now high with progressives. (I note that as usual you bring up Soros – these foreign Jewish bankers really get to you.) But liberal advocacy of drug legalisation, same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and greater protections for citizens who encounter the justice system from police through to prisons are all consistent with libertarianism, and are all things largely opposed by conservatives such as yourself.
Some conservatives believe enough in freedom to claim to be libertarians, perhaps thinking that there’s a certain cachet to it, or a certain independence of thought. But then when it comes to the details, that people other than them may enjoy these freedoms, they get squirrelly – whether it’s, as above, drug legalisation, same-sex marriage, abortion rights, scepticism over police power and the justice system in general, etc and they show that their professed love of liberty is is merely wishing to keep the gubmint away from themselves, not the citizenry overall. And they sometimes elide between economic and political freedoms.
Further, philosophically, conservatism and libertarianism are immiscible – obviously so – and perhaps Boaz realised that as he learned and became wiser.
However, as people aren’t necessarily internally consistent, the brain being a wonderful rationalisation engine, and almost everyone has a limited understanding of the political principles they profess, they attempt to mix them.
"I’m still not shrike, you lying cunt..."
You should be honored to be confused with turd, asswipe; you're not that smart or honest.
Truer words never spoken, but I'm not sure if its true the way you think it's true. All I ever see from Beltway libertarians is "whycome conservative no act like libertarian! Whycome that conservative not singularly focused on cutting social securities and agreeing to disagree on everything else?!!"
Well, whycome?
It’s a puzzlement.
Scenario A:
Conservative: I like gun rights, the first amendment and… we need to cut the national debt, cut taxes, but I could go for a few tariffs to protect ‘Merican manufacturing!
Beltway libertarian: Ugh, Tariffs? Don’t you realize they raise the costs of flat screen TEEVEES! I reject everything about you and will dedicate every fibre of my being into defeating you.
Scenario 2:
Liberal: There’s too much freedom of speech, I hate gun rights, deficits don’t matter, we need to raise taxes, we want $50 an hour minimum wages, we need to ban internal combustion cars, we need some tariffs because we’re losing the Union vote and I strongly believe on federally funded IVF treatments? OH! And a mass surveillance system to make sure you don't drive on the roads we're putting borders around would be jim dandy in fighting climate change!
Beltway libertarian: What’s that you say? You support access to birthing people’s reproductive rights? Is… is this seat taken?
I used to say that conservatives gave lip service to economic liberty while being openly hostile to personal liberty, while progressives gave lip service to personal liberty while being openly hostile to economic liberty. Used to. So libertarians and conservatives had a shaky alliance based upon shared support for economic liberty. Now conservatives have become all-out authoritarians and are openly hostile to all liberty, and bizarrely call libertarians leftists for supporting it. As if liberty is leftist. Libertarians didn’t change. Conservatives did. They went fucking mental over Trump.
So what you see as a left-turn by libertarians is just them making a shaky alliance with progressives based upon shared support for personal liberty, because they’ve got nothing in common with conservatives anymore.
So what you see as a left-turn by libertarians is just them making a shaky alliance with progressives based upon shared support for personal liberty, because they’ve got nothing in common with conservatives anymore.
If you think that conservatives are uniformly anti personal liberty, and progressives are the only remaining light on the horizon in regards to personal liberty, I'm really not sure there's much anyone could do to help you out.
Tell me then, other than lower taxes and guns, what personal liberties do conservatives support? Because they appear to be quite hostile to everything else. Especially if it’s icky. Icky stuff needs to be outlawed. Because it’s icky.
And you completely ignored the main point, which was that conservatives turned their backs on libertarians when they decided to ignore 250 years of economic thought and go all-in on protectionism.
I'd say they are at least better than progressives on free speech. And better on economic freedom domestically if not always in international trade.
I agree about speech. Though on economic freedom the difference is not liberty vs control, but rather who controls what.
Or, shorter you: No, that seat's not taken.
I'm not looking for a seat. I'm looking to get off the damn bus.
Progressives are the full-on authoritarians, by far. They want to spend more, ban more, control more, and force everyone to suffer for their supposed goal of saving the planet from the crisis of slightly nicer weather.
Progressives are totalitarians. Conservatives are authoritarians.
Agree there is more than a little truth to your observation. I wish there was a way to stomp the statist totalitarians into the dirt without resorting to the lawfare tactics totalitarians are using. A very long list from Comey to Brennan to Fauci need to be punished using laws they have ignored gleefully. We can go from there.
Unfortunately our whole federal edifice has morphed into a systemic grift and if Team R had maintained the same grip on it Team D has now I have no reason to think they would have done much better. The obvious and only solution is to gut the whole thing but I'm convinced too many of the public are getting their share of the grift proceeds for that to happen. It doesn't look good in the long run.
I guess I don't pay much attention to "beltway libertarians" (whatever that is). I just assume libertarians agree with me since, obviously, I am the perfect libertarian.
I just assume libertarians agree with me since, obviously, I am the perfect libertarian.
Must be nice to enjoy your non-racist white privilege like that. 🙂
Well, the thing about conservatism is that it can mean a lot of different things depending on what is seen as traditional and worth conserving. A lot of American conservatism is pretty libertarian because the US was pretty lassaiz-faire historically in a lot of ways. In other contexts conservatism might be a lot more authoritarian and libertarians would be radicals.
Well, the thing about conservatism is that it can mean a lot of different things depending on what is seen as traditional and worth conserving.
This is it in a nutshell. Douglas Murray described the difference between the left and conservatives thusly:
Conservatives want different things in different places. The French conservative may want something different than the Spanish conservative, who wants something different than the Greek or British conservative. Whereas the left tends to want the same thing everywhere, at the same time and in the same order.
FYI, been watching some very interesting discussions on spirituality and religion which touches on this a little bit. Namely, that many on the secular/atheistic left believe that things like the western-like human rights are simply the natural progression of all of humanity-- that liberal, secular humanism and social justice (the generic meaning of the term, not so much the politically loaded version) are simply going to be the way of the world. As Tom Holland puts it, they're essentially "Christianizing" the entire globe.
Withdrawal should not be viewed as an endorsement of drug use; it would simply be an acknowledgment that the cost of this war—billions of dollars, runaway crime rates and restrictions on our personal freedom—is too high.”
What always goes unmentioned is that the Drug War doesn’t even work — drug use remains high, despite it being illegal, but becomes more dangerous, generates more real crime, and is accompanied with bigger government budgets and increased government and police corruption.
It's not just that the costs of the Drug War are too high, the supposed benefits never materialize.
Hell along those lines this eliminate any penalties for burglar, homicide, rape, pedophilia, tax dodging, destruction of private property, yeah let’s go. That’s gonna save a lot of money for the government because taxpayer dollars don’t count. eliminate the IRS - they don’t have to pursue us either. Yeah get rid of all government federal government programs that’s gonna save a lot of money and heartache. I’m all with you dudes. Good luck with that. Go Liberators.
Between you and CE, yeah. We had a world where local PD stopped pursuing criminals at the county line and the Marshals or the FBI took over. The days of opium dens, bordellos, and saloons aren’t unknown to our history either.
Of course, if you think the police shooting a blind, deaf dog because they think it has rabies is inhumanely cruel, you really probably aren’t going to like the impending opium den, posse-law society.
RIP
Brian, thanks for sharing your insight into Mr. Boaz.
RIP, but he turned into a TDS-addled asshole, unable to recognize the value we got from Trump.