Cato Institute Podcast on Possible "Abundance Alliance" Between Libertarians and Abundance Liberals

I took part along with prominent abundance liberalism advocate Jeremiah Johnson.

Earlier this week, the Cato Institute hosted a podcast building on my idea of a potential alliance between libertarians and "abundance liberals." I took part along with Jeremiah Johnson of the Center for New Liberalism. My Cato colleague Ryan Bourne moderated. Beforehand, I thought I might agree with perhaps 70-80% of what Jeremiah would say. But it turned out to be more like 90-95%! I particularly agree with his points about how libertarians should prioritize issues (given that we are unlikely to achieve a fully libertarian state anytime soon, if ever).

I embed the audio below:

Cato also posted links to several pieces relevant to this discussion. I reprint them below:

• Ilya Somin, "Two Cheers for Abundance Liberalism," The Volokh Conspiracy, April 23, 2026 [this is the post that started this discussion].
• Matt Yglesias, "What Libertarians Get Wrong About Freedom," The Argument, May 20, 2026.
• Ilya Somin, "Matt Yglesias on Libertarianism, Abundance Liberalism, and a Possible Alliance Between the Two," The Volokh Conspiracy, May 20, 2026.
• David Friedman, "Libertarians and Abundance Liberals," David Friedman's Substack, May 28, 2026.
• Ryan Bourne, "One and a Half Cheers for Supply-Side Progressivism," The War on Prices, September 16, 2022.

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

"He who sups with the Devil needs a long spoon."

You're playing with fire here, with all these alliances with people who are,

1. Not in agreement with basic tenets of libertarianism,

and,

2. Really good at Gramsian subversion.

[SRG2]

Yet you have no problem with libertarianism making alliances with the right, who definitionally are not in agreement with the basic tenets.

"Really good at Gramscian subversion" -unlike the American right who have subverted the judiciary, the justice system, and much of the media.

Perhaps your real issue is that as you're a right-winger with a veneer of libertarianism, you don't want to lose that veneer,

[Brett Bellmore]

I'm not saying don't do it, I'm saying be careful.

Yeah, the right doesn't share a lot of the basic tenets of libertarianism, either, but they're a LOT worse at subversion.

[Murcushio]

I would like to say that in general, I've been surprised and please at Cato largely holding its line.

I am not a libertarian; indeed, I regard it as a political philosophy for fools and children. And in general, my read on history and politics is that when the libertarian right (or for that matter the traditional right) is told by the authoritarian right to get with the program, especially when money and influence is involved, they click their heels together and obey.

Only that hasn't happened in the age of Trump. Cato and Reason looked at Trumpism, and they looked at normie liberals, and the decided "one of these things we can deal with and find some virtue in; the other is grossly beyond the pale."

They have stuck with that line despite massive pushback; donor checks have dried up, doors have slammed in their lobbyists faces, they've been denounced by the new faces of the right as traitorous scum. Even their own readership seems to regard much of what Reason publishes these days with revulsion; I occasionally think of venturing into the wider site (and paying money for the privilige) but every time I check... I mean, you think the comments here at Volokh can get bad sometimes? Anything published on the front page of the main site quickly attracts a stew racial, ethnic, sexual, and political slurs, an enormous amount of conspiracism that makes the local nuts here look sane, it's the worst. This is actually unusual; most outlets attract a readership that largely agrees with their takes.

Nonetheless they persevere in their stance of "man, fuck Trumpism; it's grotesque authoritarianism and we want no part of it." There are exceptions (Josh Blackman) but that's where they're at for the most part.

So yeah, kudos for that. It would have been very easy to just convert to "Trumpism IS libertarian actually" and keep on being members in good standing.

[Brett Bellmore]

"This is actually unusual; most outlets attract a readership that largely agrees with their takes."

How would you know? Most outlets censor their comments. Reason is actually quite unusual in that they don't.

For all you know, the majority of people reading Slate are routinely ticked off at what they're reading. How would you know, given the level of moderation?

Comments on:
The Supreme Court’s New Expansion of the Second Amendment Is Genuinely Deranged Not exactly a love fest. And that's with heavy moderation, and when the topic is one people get angry about, pre-moderation is imposed, where comments must be approved to appear.

[Rustica]

Cato is about as sincere about this alliance as abundance liberals are about sharing societal wealth.

[Bob from Ohio]

The left is welcome to have Cato and libertarians, they proved to be a snake to the right.

[SRG2]

Libertarians owe nothing to the right. That some right-wingers profess to a form of libertarianism doesn't make it so. (The No True Scotsman Fallacy crumbles as more conditions are attached.)