Michael Chapman
In his recent article, “The Strange Death of Libertarianism,” conservative Daniel McCarthy argues that libertarianism has lost its raison d’être and is no longer relevant. Free markets, he says, triumphed in the 20th century; marijuana and pornography are mainstream; and Americans are supposedly demoralized by “anti-government ideology.” Libertarianism apparently has nothing new to offer, so it’s time to move on with “right-wing populism” in the fight against a resurgent “socialism.” Mr. McCarthy also makes clear that Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, potential 2028 presidential candidates, prefer “common-ground” capitalism and align with right-wing populists.
Two things strike me about his argument. First, libertarianism is much more than a list of policies, such as free markets and legal marijuana. It is a theory of individual liberty and political power, centered on a timeless question: Who decides—the individual or the government? Second, libertarian ideas do not become obsolete because they succeed. Their success shows their power—and why the struggle for individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace never ends. The ominous rise of socialism and right-wing populism, both of which share some economic and political views, only makes libertarian ideas more relevant.
In The Libertarian Mind, David Boaz writes, “America’s libertarianism dates back to our founding” and the Declaration of Independence’s principles of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Adhering to those truths, libertarians believe people should be free to live their lives as they choose so long as they respect the equal rights of others.
Mr. McCarthy largely sidesteps that idea. Instead, he narrowly describes libertarianism as being about “anti-statism,” an “absolute faith in the market economy,” and support for legalizing pornography, pot, and gambling. Its “strongest selling point,” he writes, was the “profit motive.”
But even on those issues, his argument is too sweeping. McCarthy may argue that libertarians have won on free markets, marijuana, and gambling. But that is not accurate. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and recreational use is legal in only about half the states. Gambling is legal only in certain forms and varies widely by state; Utah and Hawaii maintain broad prohibitions. And America’s economy may be mostly market-based, but it is hardly a system of unfettered laissez-faire, given tariffs, subsidies, regulations, trade restrictions, immigration restrictions, and laws such as the Jones Act. According to the Economic Freedom of the World, the US declined from a rating of 8.74 (out of 10) in 1990 to 8.1 in 2023. That rating is slated to fall further in the near future. From our perspective, the world seems to be getting progressively less free on several important measures (though not all).
Nor do libertarians argue that people should necessarily make good choices. The libertarian argument is that adults should be free to make their own choices, provided they do not violate the rights of others. The point is not that every choice is wise; it is that government should not make every choice for us.
“Free markets had triumphed by the end of the 20th century,” Mr. McCarthy writes, and helped to get “libertarian-inspired conservatives like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher elected on both sides of the Atlantic.” The early internet, he adds, “seemed like the fulfillment of libertarianism’s promise,” a “demonstration of how freedom itself worked.”
“Yet all these successes were libertarianism’s downfall,” says Mr. McCarthy. In other words, libertarianism changed the world and is therefore no longer relevant. It has “lost its raison d’être.”
But ideas do not become irrelevant because they succeed.
Is free speech no longer relevant because we have the First Amendment? Are lower taxes and competitive market prices—diesel, anyone?—not important? Do the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness no longer matter?
Mr. McCarthy then claims that Americans are demoralized by anti-government rhetoric and disappointed that free markets and more consumer choices have not created a “more agreeable society.” “We have the wealth, but we don’t have the joy it was supposed to lead to,” he writes. That disappointment, he says, helps explain the popularity of socialism and right-wing populism: “They offer hope where there’s otherwise only despair.”
Yet to attribute that dissatisfaction to libertarianism is misplaced. The United States was not a libertarian dreamland in the late 20th century and early 2000s—despite freer markets—and it is not now. The US is a mixed economy burdened by about 100 years of ever-increasing government intervention and the national debt to show for it.
The federal government is gargantuan, with 2.7 million employees, a $6.8 trillion budget, roughly $2 trillion in annual deficits, a $40 trillion-plus national debt, and a new Middle East war that has cost more than $44 billion. That war is partly responsible for high fuel costs and shortages. Further, the government has repeatedly intervened in health care, housing, education, retirement, energy, agriculture, finance, transportation, and countless other areas of American life for decades.
That is not the kind of free-market world Mr. McCarthy describes. And it shows why libertarianism remains relevant.
Consider that President Trump has expanded executive power through executive orders and “emergency” authority. He has imposed extensive tariffs, which are taxes on consumers. Cato’s Scott Lincicome reports that 96 percent of the higher costs from tariffs were passed through to American prices; the Tax Foundation estimated that tariffs cost the average household about $1,000 in 2025.
The administration has also purchased equity stakes in 32 private companies. This is state corporatism, the “Middle Way between ‘atomistic’ competition and central direction,” which F.A. Hayek warned about in The Road to Serfdom, says Cato’s Scott Lincicome.
“When the conspicuous fist of state corporatism displaces the invisible hand of the market, liberty suffers, along with the dynamism, innovation, and prosperity that it fosters,” he writes. “With Uncle Sam as a shareholder, capital flows for political reasons instead of commercial ones, the government dictates routine business decisions (something we have already seen with US Steel), and entrepreneurial dynamism is replaced by static rent-seeking—from both the acquired firm and those seeking to curry favor with its government owner.”
Ayn Rand similarly said, “All the evils, abuses, and inequities popularly ascribed to businessmen and to capitalism were not caused by an unregulated economy or by a free market, but by government intervention into the economy.” Incidentally, Vice President Vance tweeted on September 24, “Our message to corporate America is simple: We’re not going to let you lay off American workers so you can replace them with cheap foreign labor.” (So, who decides—private individuals or the state?)
The list of libertarian concerns goes on. Chronic inflation is partly fueled by the government’s deficit spending—$12.55 trillion since FY2020. There is extensive government surveillance of Americans’ communications and financial transactions. Occupational licensing regulations hurt businesses and workers. Housing is constrained by zoning and related regulations. Legal immigration is so bureaucratic and restrictive that it is nearly impossible to become a US citizen, according to a 2023 Cato Institute report. The drug war, like Prohibition in the 1920s, is a failure. The federal government pressures social media companies to censor information it dislikes. And the White House recently revoked the press credentials of CNN, MSNOW, and Politico.
These are not relics of a libertarian past. They are contemporary battles over liberty. And they help explain the “disillusionment” and lack of “joy” that Mr. McCarthy describes.
Libertarians sometimes sound overly optimistic. Perhaps that is partly because we understand how much worse things can be. But optimism should not be confused with complacency. Libertarians are not winning—and, in many respects, have not been winning for a very, very long time. The size and power of government remain enormous, and many of the basic arguments for individual liberty are yet to be won.
That is not a reason to abandon libertarianism. It is a reason to take it seriously. We have a lot of work to do.
Thus, the core concern of libertarianism—government power vs. the individual—is more urgent than ever. The rise of socialism and right-wing populism makes that work even more important.
Mr. McCarthy notes that “the man most likely to be the next GOP presidential nominee” is J.D. Vance, who “is more enthusiastic about Huey Long than Milton Friedman.” It’s no secret that Vance, a conservative populist, has publicly criticized libertarianism, calling it “market fundamentalism.” But right-wing populism—economic nationalism and cultural traditionalism—will only compound the problems of America’s leviathan state and, ironically, move the country closer to socialism. That’s a fundamental libertarian concern.
In a recent article, Cato’s Norbert Michel details how Vance’s claim that 40 years of free-market policy caused America’s current distress is historically false. “The actual drivers of today’s cost-of-living strains are not the result of unbridled capitalism but of government intervention itself,” states Michel. “Today’s price pressures have been fueled by federal overreach, including massive deficit spending on a costly Iran war and the White House’s aggressive, anti-free-trade agenda.”
Vance supports such interventionism, including tariffs, subsidies, and government controls. He is “advocating top-down, state-directed economic planning,” says Michel. “It is nothing more than pick-and-choose socialism wrapped in a nationalist flag.”
Nationalist conservatives, right-wing populists, corporatists, and socialists share the same view: they “think that central planners in Washington know how to manage capital better than free individuals acting in competitive markets.”
That brings us back to the fundamental libertarian question: Who decides—you or the central planners?
“In a free society, you make the choices about your life,” said David Boaz. “In a politically dominated society, someone else makes those choices. … Libertarianism holds out the goal not of a perfect society but of a better and freer one. It promises a world in which more of the decisions will be made in the right way by the right person: you.”
That’s why libertarianism is relevant—and why reports of its death are dead wrong.
