In this chapter we will be tackling political theory, which is presented as a direct consequence of the moral philosophy I outlined in the last installment. This being that Man should live his life to achieve his own ends, with his own happiness as his highest ideal and reason as his only absolute. A pretty conventional premise shared by Stoics and Objectivists alike. It rests on the simple acknowledgement that you are born into a world which you cannot control, and the only thing you can change is yourself. Moreover, the only tools available to you to perceive and understand the world are your own sense and mind, so Man must be free to think and act for himself. A consequence of this conclusion is that individual freedom is an ideal we should strive to emulate in our societies. Now, I’m not going to spend any time rehashing arguments for individual liberties, as I’ve already discussed the value of liberty as it pertains to complexity in previous sections. If you remain unconvinced I implore you to explore the plethora of other political philosophers who have managed to bludgeon the topic to death over the past few centuries. The interesting question of political philosophy (in my view, at least) is not, “is freedom a virtue?” but, “how might and must freedom be achieved?” Which is where the title of this chapter comes into play. “The Structure of Freedom” may sound oxymoronic, but really it’s the most authentic account of reality. To the extent that liberty brings about prosperity, it requires certain preconditions to survive. When we talk about the value of liberty, we do not mean complete laissez-faire, but rather live-and-let-live, and that’s an entirely different can of worms. So, let’s have a crack at it.
Part #1. Welcome to UM
The great green door that guards the town of UM swings open, and you are shocked by the sight that greets you. You had been expecting a modest medieval village, with dirt roads and thatched roofs and old picket fences. Instead, it is as if you have stepped through a looking glass and been transported to a land of decadence. The plain, grey stone walls that surrounded the exterior of the city give way to a brilliant, opulent interior, like an unassuming oyster cracked open to reveal the mother of pearl within. The city is dazzling, with tall townhouses towering up into the sky and streets swept so clean that they sparkle in the sunlight. There are people everywhere; men, women, and children walking around wearing crisp cotton clothes, frequenting florists and produce carts and cafes that spill out of the storefronts and out, on to the surrounding streets. There is a joyful bustle in the air, a pleasant sense of purpose and prosperity as far as the eye can see.
You stand in the middle of street, mouth hanging open, inhaling the scent of freshly cut flowers and baked bread, taking in the spectacle. Nobody has taken any notice of you, and you’re not sure what to do, until you spot a sign hanging from an emerald green post that reads “To the Palace” with a finger pointing off into the distance. You notice at the base of the sign is a cobblestone that has been painted gold, and a few feet away is another, and then another one after that, like a shiny trail of breadcrumbs seducing you into the centre of the city. You decide to take the bait and follow the path, wondering who might rule a place as magnificent as this.
Part #2. Anarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny
The task of all political theorists is to answer three fundamental questions: What is government? How does it emerge? And what constitutes legitimate versus illegitimate political power? While the first question is a simple matter of definition, the latter clearly carries a strong moral competent, which is why politics is downstream from morality and not vice-versa. Simply being born into a system does not make it any more righteous than its potential alternatives. Thinking for yourself means thinking by yourself, and if you want to tackle difficult questions concerning the structure of society, it’s best to start from first principles. I like the idea of being able to build a system of government from a blank sheet of paper, but then one must ask, “where to start?”
The social contract is a common remedy to this question. In the tradition of political philosophy, social contract theory calls upon the thinker to imagine a time before the existence of government. A state of nature, or anarchy, where every man was for himself and accountable to no one, vulnerable to the might and malevolence of any man who would seek to do him harm. In such a circumstance, it would seem only logical that over time some men would elect to protect their own interests by entering into agreements with others. Surrendering some personal liberty for the sake of their mutual prosperity. Thus, government is born, which is defined as that agency which possesses a monopoly of legitimate authority over a given territory. This can be considered moral due to the fact that each member entered the union by their own volition. Of course, the problem with this theory is that it is pure fairytale. And even if it weren’t, there’s no reason why I should be bound by the agreements made by my ancestors. In reality, government is any predominant system of power that you are born into, yet did not agree to. The coercion came first, not the contract. Better rip up that piece of paper, let’s try again.
The truth is that we are all born into circumstances against our will. Whether that is the state of nature, where we are vulnerable to the elements and the malevolence of others, or slavery, where our lives are owned by unchosen masters, or any other political system, wherein you are subject to rules you did not agree to. Oppression is the default, the expectation, not the exception. And by-definition, government is that which compels, that which has the power to act upon you against your will and without legal recourse. Anarchists insist that because of this, all political power is illegitimate, as any system of power which acts upon you against your will violates your rights as an individual. But here’s the problem with that analysis: rights are an important conceptual tool, yes, but they are by no means a guarantee. You have no more right to rights than you do to clean clothes or food or a roof over your head. Life doesn’t owe you anything, and even worse, the general rule of history is that you must actively work to stay alive and preserve your liberty. The concept of “rights” are not an entitlement, but a luxury that we have become accustomed to. You have no inherent, inalienable right to live free from force, such a notion flies in the face of reality. It’s a nice daydream but it wont get you far in terms of practical philosophy. What you do have a right to—a moral imperative, not a political promise—is a right to act in any way you see fit to preserve your freedom. A man born into the state of nature may make a contract with his fellow man in an attempt to protect his own livelihood. A slave born under tyranny may act to escape his oppressors. And you, a citizen born under democracy, may seek out any political system you find preferable.
The problem with anarchism is that it is a description of reality, not a political philosophy. All life is inherently anarchical due to the fact that the current systems are perpetuated through power, nothing more or less. Might is right at the end of the day, maybe not morally speaking but practically so. Despite the desire to establish a global world order, all political systems emerge out of anarchy, and can return to it at any moment. A political theorist that embraces anarchism is simply passing the buck, evading the difficult questions of political theory in favour of the invisible hand of market solutions. But these solutions require structure, which is exactly what a state provides. Anarchists and anarchocapitalists make the mistake of seeing the state as an inhibition to the market, rather than a logical consequence of it. A state does not acquire power out of thin air. Force must be financed, and power is perpetuated by a paying populace. Meaning ultimately, the state is a subscription service like any other. If you are unsatisfied with the product, simply take your business elsewhere.
Of course, you’re thinking it’s not that simple. I’m sure we all have our grievances with our current governments, but it’s not like my postbox is crammed full of pamphlets offering meaningful alternatives. Not yet, at least. So what’s to be done about the problem of power? How do we set about building the sort of systems we would like to see? The conventional liberal answer is that the political project is to be perfected through the democratic process. A government by the people and for the people. But this presents another problem: the democratic delusion relies upon the assumption that the whim of the collective outweighs the will of the individual. After all, who are you to know what’s good for you? You’re probably better off allowing the group to decide. But don’t worry, this is a free marketplace of ideas, if you have anything worthwhile to say, just be sure shout it loud and clear and eventually everyone else will come to the exact same conclusion. Now, the problem with this proposition can be proved in a single point. If the only way to disprove the moral sanctity of democracy is by appealing to the majority, then I’m already playing by its rules. There is absolutely no reason to assume that group consensus equals moral righteousness, and the politics of persuasion only work once one has bought into this foundational premise. Asking the people to keep the government in check simply begs the question of what will keep the people in check, and the problem of power persists. Now, some will insist that a constitution, or bill of rights, or some other sort of legal document will be enough to preserve certain political freedoms. But if the state is the final arbiter in matters of interpretation then it is always in their vested interest to bend words to their advantage. So if neither the people nor the state can be called upon to keep their power in check, then how are we to resolve this puzzle?
You will find that the tension between the political left and right can be condensed to concerns over where power is concentrated, which manifests in two forms; force and finance. The right is concerned about coercion through force, they want small government and economic liberty. Whereas the left is concerned about coercion through finance, so they want a government large enough to control the economy. These stances are two sides of the same coin, meaning the politics of power inevitably turns into a nesting issue. In any political system you can conceptualize there will always be the concern that those in power can be bought or pressured to act against the standard of good governance. If those in power can be bribed with money then the people with money are the real ones in power. And if those in power can be threatened through force then might becomes right and we return to the state of nature. Both of these concerns are real and seemingly inescapable, so what’s to be done about it?
Part #3. Here There Be Dragons
As you follow the trail of gold, venturing deeper and deeper into the city, you notice something peculiar. From the outside, the walls of UM seemed only large enough to enclose a rather small village, but the further you walk the more you see. Parks and picnic tables, patios and poppy fields, on and on, seemingly for miles. Eventually you stop a passerby on the street to inquire about this strange state of affairs.
“Excuse me,” you say. “Maybe I’m confused, but I could have sworn this place looked much smaller before I entered it.”
The woman laughs. “You’re new here, aren’t you?” she asks.
“Yes,” you say. “Just passing through.”
“You’re right,” she replies. “UM is bigger on the inside. Our founding father designed it that way, to keep the dragons at bay. For a town too big for its britches soon loses its riches.”
“What do you mean?” you ask.
“As you may have noticed,” she tells you, “UM is a place of abundance, of commerce and community. We attract all sorts from all over Wonderland who wish to come and enjoy the pleasantries of our way of life. Naturally, as more people come, the town grows in proportion. But this can attract bad actors. So the magician who built UM cast a spell upon the enclosure, allowing the city to prosper without ever revealing its splendour.”
“But I heard that the town was being harassed by a dragon,” you say.
“Yes, it is. The dragons collect gold and jewels from all the villages in Wonderland, and in exchange they leave us alone. For dragons are lazy creatures, so long as they can threaten violence and take home a bounty for their horde they are happy. Thankfully, our walls allow us to protect our real riches, and the dragons takes only a tiny portion of what we produce.”
“But why should the dragons take anything at all?” you exclaim. “That’s not fair!”
The woman shrugs. “Life isn’t fair. But things are much better here than they are elsewhere. Landlords and rent-seekers are inevitable. But before there was UM, anyone with even a modicum of success would have been sought out and plundered mercilessly. At least here with have peace, and with peace comes prosperity. So it’s a small price to pay, really.”
You consider this for a moment and it seems to make sense. “Do you know how much longer until I get to the palace?” you ask. “I’ve been walking for quite a while.”
The woman points down the road to a spot of brilliant emerald on the horizon. “That’s it there,” she tells you. “But if you’re going to see the princess, bring along a token for her time.”
“A token?” you say, a little taken aback. “But I haven’t got any money.”
“It doesn’t have to be money,” she says, “just something as a sign of good faith.” She smiles and gives you a wave goodbye, turning to take her leave.
It’s late afternoon and the sun is starting to set. Now that you’re out of the main village, standing among farm fields, you have a better view of the horizon. You notice that the sky is covered in a crystal lattice you hadn’t seen before. It’s nearly imperceptible except for a few faint glimmers refracted by the sunlight. You realize that it’s not just the walls protecting UM, but a great glass dome, enclosing the town like a gemstone. That must be how the dragons remain ignorant to the what is nested within. You look around for something suitable you could take to the princess and eventually your eyes settle upon a field of flowers. You pause to collect a bundle of poppies before you set out again, towards the palace.
Part #4. Money, Value, and Virtue
I like the idea of magic being a pull from within, something from nothing. If you read chapter four of this series then you’ll understand what I mean when I say that free will can be considered a form of magic by this definition. The enchantment that has been placed upon UM is an extension of this same principle. The walls limit the size, but not the scope. This is an analogy for the relationship between money and prosperity. While the former may be fixed, the latter is boundless. But what does this have to do with politics? Or power? Well, as I said earlier, force and finance are the two main means through which power manifests. We already know that might is not right from a moral standpoint, but what about money? What is money, anyhow?
Some people will try to tell you that money is the root of all evil. They would be incorrect. What money really is is a signal, nothing more or less. It is a consequence of specialization and division of labor, it is what allows trade to occur easily and effectively, acting as an intermediary for what people want. The problem with money is that people see the signal and confuse it for a cause, rather than an effect. People assume that the goal of a business is to make money, and this is partially true, but how businesses makes money is by producing something people value. They must create a product or service that people want and are willing to pay for first.
Another way of thinking about it is that money is an IOU from society. When you go to work, you put in the work first and get paid later. In other words, you produce the value first and then receive a token of value in exchange. Something to be cashed in later for something you desire. But the value has already been generated, whether you spend your money or not. People get mad at billionaires for all the money they have sitting in their bank account, as if that wealth somehow prevents other people from generating their own. But that’s not how money works. A billionaire sitting on a stack of bills has produced an excess of value and cashed out only a small portion of what they are owed. The only damage that can occur from that money being pulled from the market is in a context where it is indivisible and thus prevents further trade from occurring. Luckily, however, we’re not dealing in clamshells anymore.
Part of the beauty of Bitcoin is that it has a fixed quantity which can be subdivided indefinitely. In a closed system, deflation is desirable, for it’s a sign that more and more value is being generated, making your dollar worth more today than it was yesterday. Purchasing power is the proper measure of a prosperous populace. My point is that just because Bezos has billions, this doesn’t make you any poorer. People make the mistake of assuming that because the money supply is limited, someone else having results in them having-not. This occurs because people conflate money (which is zero sum) with wealth, or prosperity, which can grow indefinitely. The walls of UM may stand firm, but this does not prevent the people from flourishing.
But money is power! you insist. You said so yourself! Surely if too much money becomes concentrated in the hands of the few then they can manipulate the system to their advantage! This may be true, but only to the extent that money may be used to purchase coercion. There is an important distinction here—money empowers, while coercion inhibits. In our current crony-capitalist system this glaring flaw is all too apparent. We all know that the corporations are in bed with the government, and this corrupt coalition of force and finance under the guise of democracy creates a worst possible outcome for everybody. But this is not the fault of free markets. Rather, it is the result of a political system wherein rules and regulations are implemented and bent for the sake of special interests. The signal is being tampered with. But this is a bug in the system, not a feature of it.
What I want you to understand is that capitalism is a complex system and money is the signal which drives the market. You don’t get emergent coordination without a reliable means of communicating information. This is why prices are so important, they provide the necessary information required to spur production. Without reliable representations of what people want and what they are willing to pay for it, the laws of supply and demand begin to break down and the system will no longer be effective. Ultimately, it is the profit motive which enables prosperity. There is money to be made in giving people what they want, and money is also the means which allows you to do more in the future. Income inequality is therefore not only a logical consequence of complexity, but a necessity if you wish to promote prosperity. Stifle the signal and the system shall remain stagnant.
The ability of individuals to accumulate capital is therefore of central importance, and this can only be accomplished when consumption lags behind production. If we only ever worked enough to keep our heads above water then our living conditions would never improve. Saving is what has transformed our productive capacity. Having in excess is what allows people to take risks and invest in the future, being able to opt for long term gains rather than short term satisfaction. This key point is absent from Marx’s critique of the capitalist. Owning the means of production also means adopting all of the consequences of its success or failure. While the workers wages are guaranteed, it can take decades for the owner to know if their investment has paid off.
A businessman or entrepreneur who makes good investments is rewarded with the ability to make more in the future. His competency is measured by the success of his enterprise. If you wish to make money you have to make something people value and provide it at scale. People get rich by developing new technology or new ideas, you simply can’t cut hair or flip burgers fast enough. Nowadays “billionaire” is used as a pejorative, but successfully orchestrating the production and distribution of products and services to the masses means you have earned the right to allocate capital. Men do not grow wealthy by accident, but by merit.
To pull from Paul Graham, up until a few centuries ago the main means of making wealth were mines, serfs, and slaves, and the only way to acquire these things was through inheritance, marriage, conquest, or confiscation. So naturally wealth has a bad reputation. It is an incredibly recent development in human history that one can earn wealth without having exploited someone else to obtain it. What brought about this change? Well, at some point in medieval Europe, merchants and manufacturers began congregating in towns. Together, they were able to stand up against their feudal lords and keep the fruits of their labor rather than being extorted for them. For the first time in history, the bullies stopped stealing the nerds’ lunch money. The reign of the dragons had come to a close.
The ability to acquire wealth is what incentivizes production and innovation. It takes a lot of risk, time, and grit to pursue a vision. Nobody would be willing to put in the work if there was no possibility of being able to claim the reward. Take the incentive of wealth away and technical innovation grinds to a halt. As Thomas Edison once said, “genius is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration.” Elon Musk has talked about working 120 hours a week, not showering, and sleeping on the factory floor in order to keep up with production goals. Most people would not envy this position. It is only with a strong vision that such sacrifices are possible or even desirable. Musk wants to bring us to Mars, and I don’t see why anyone with less ambition should be able to stop him. In fact, we should strive for a society wherein the best and most productive people are as prosperous as possible, for they make life better for the rest of us. A rising tide raises all ships. What made Europe so powerful all those years ago was allowing those who generated wealth to keep it. Let the nerds keep their lunch money and watch prosperity flourish.
Part #5. The Princess in the Palace
When you arrive at the castle it’s nearly nightfall. You can’t help but experience a sense of deja-vu as you once again knock at a great green door, but this time it shines of green emerald rather than green paint. No guard answers, the door simply swings open as if of its own accord. Strange. There are no guards inside the palace either, just sparkling green emeralds everywhere you look, encrusted in the ornate columns and stained glass that decorates the interior. Your footsteps echo loudly through the empty halls as you look around. Then, a few feet in front of you, you spot the familiar trail of gold, inset as a thick line running through the green marble floor, luring you down a long hallway and towards a brilliant white light. As you approach, the corridor gives way to a single, round, white room. The gold thread grows thicker as it nears the centre, building up and into a gold throne perched in the very middle. Entering the room feels like stepping inside of a pearl. The walls and floors blend together as one white sheet, curving up into a dome which is punctured by a single skylight, shining a ray of moonlight down upon the young girl who sits patiently at her post.
The princess has long dark hair, fair skin, and a serene look on her face. She is wearing a simple white gown which rests just shy of her shoulders, adorned with a single emerald amulet. There is a tall, thin crown perched atop her head, as well as two gold bands circling her brow with the letters “UM” overlaid in the middle. She looks at you expectantly. You remember the poppies clutched in your hand and present them to her, bending on one knee and raising the bouquet with your right hand.
“Here you are your Highness” you say, a little awkwardly.
“Poppies are my favourite,” she replies, accepting them graciously. “Thank you.” She proceeds to take two large flowers and tuck them into the gold band that wraps round her head, placing one over each ear and letting the long green stems trail down her chest. An unconventional accessory, maybe, but they frame her face beautifully and give her an unexpected air of grace and maturity.
“How old are you?” you ask without thinking, blushing as you realize your rudeness.
The girl smiles. “I’ll be fourteen in May,” she tells you.
“And you’re here all alone? Shouldn’t there be someone here to protect you?”
“Protect me from what?” She asks, gazing at you inquisitively. “Why would any of my subjects seek to harm me when it is I who protect them?”
“Surely you must have enemies,” you muse.
“Oh sure,” she smiles. “Lots. That’s what the walls and guards are for. Tru would never allow anyone in who wishes to hurt me,” she says firmly.
“He let me in,” you say. “I could be anyone.”
“Do you wish to harm me?” She inquires.
“Oh, no! Of course not.”
“So then what are you here for?”
You consider this for a moment. “To be honest I’m not sure, coming here just seemed like the right thing to do. But now that I am here I’m quite curious to know how a girl as young as you rules over a place as prosperous as this.”
“Good reason,” the princess tells you plainly.
“That’s it?” you ask, rather taken aback.
“Yes,” she says. “That’s it.”
Part #6. Royalism, Realms, and Patchwork Politics
It is my belief that the fundamental project of political philosophy is trying to resolve the problem of power. There will always be some agency exercising authority over you, but what does legitimate power look like, and how might we go about achieving it? The problem every political philosopher must face is the fact that no institution can be made invulnerable to coercion or corruption; force or finance. Finance enables and force inhibits, but both can be used as a means of achieving the other. This puts us in a double bind if we wish to construct liberal societies, for individual liberty cannot be guaranteed, only approximated. But is it better for power to be distributed, or concentrated? The royalist solution is simple—the best way to guard against threats of force and finance is to entangle them explicitly, rather than trying to tease them apart. The question of, “who watches the watcher?” is an infinite regress. Power is power, and it’s best for it to be outlined in big bold letters. By centralizing authority rather than distributing it, there can be no question as to who is calling the shots.
This idea of royalism, which I borrow from Curtis Yarvin, runs counter to all of our intuitions as to how we should structure society. How could liberty be achieved through absolute monarchy? That’s the last place you’d think to look for it. But it’s also the first place I have found a satisfying solution to the problem of power, with an answer so simple and elegant in its honesty: instead of trying to evade tyranny, embrace it whole heartedly. Coercion is inevitable, so why not make it transparent and accountable? Corruption cannot occur when power is concentrated in the hands of a single individual. Either they are doing their job well, or they are not. No need to complicate things any further. If the end you wish to achieve is individual liberty, then the best means to get there is meritocracy, nothing more or less. Ultimately what I want is good government, I don’t really care how I get there. It just so happens that the most effective systems are governed by a single individual. Any other structure of power becomes vulnerable to the aforementioned influences, and when problems arise it’s not always obvious who’s to blame.
I can already hear your concerns.“But what if the monarch becomes malevolent? How can I know that they wont act against my best interests?” The answer is that you can’t. No political system can promise you anything in perpetuity. You can become subject to tyranny through democracy or despotism, it makes no difference. The real question is what you should do if such circumstances were to arise. And the answer is simple—flee to anywhere else that will take you and pay the price for peace. Are you starting to see how the puzzle pieces fit together? The fundamental flaw in our traditional conception of politics is the belief that government is a force that lies outside of the free market, rather than a natural consequence of it. The state offers a service for a price like any other corporation, so there is no meaningful distinction between a monarch and a CEO.
Another word for royalism could be corporatism (or Neocameralism, as Yarvin calls it). In this view, a government is just a corporation which owns a country, holding a monopoly on authority within a certain territory. It would operate based on the model of a joint-stock corporation, where the monarch acts as a replaceable CEO. If they start acting against the interests of the company, upsetting their customers and threatening their shareholders profits, they would be thrown out, and a more competent ruler would take their place. Now, it may turn out that there are certain advantages to a heritable monarchy, but this would by no means be required or expected. We want nobility through ability first and foremost.
If you can get rich by being a good ruler then there is no incentive to betray your citizens. The opportunity for corruption vanishes if those in charge are living lavish lifestyles. Why should the princess of UM not live well if she is providing stability and security for a simple fee? The townspeople should want her to be healthy and happy. Her prosperity symbolizes the success of the city, and it is in her vested interest to serve as many subjects as possible. Even those who do not have the means to pay upfront could be allowed in through some sort of payment plan or indentured servitude. It might even make sense to hire knights to fight to free the slaves of nearby villages, if that would one day turn them into paying customers.
Now, I know people will object to this formulation because of a knee-jerk reaction against capitalism. How can you claim any political system to be moral when it is based off of the profit motive? I would argue that these things are one and the same. There is money to be made in giving people what they want. So any political system that people choose to endorse through their purchasing power must be doing something right. Remember, I don’t conceptualize morality through some God’s eye view, but rather an individuals assessment of value and virtue. It’s entirely possible that you and I may wish to live in different political systems, with different rules enforced upon us and different freedoms afforded to us. I’m a meta-libertarian in that sense. If you want to live under some communist or socialist regime that’s fine, just don’t drag me into it!
This is where the concept of patchwork politics comes into play. Instead of advocating for one political system that everyone must be subject to, why not let the free market take care of it and let people subscribe to whatever services they see fit? If you don’t like the system you are born into, simply take your business elsewhere where your values are better reflected. Instead of voting at the ballot box you would vote with your feet. There is no reason to think you should have a right to exist exactly as you please wherever you happen to be born. It’s like living at your parents house, if you don’t like playing by their rules anymore then it’s time to move out!
By reconceptualizing systems of government as competing subscription services, the social contract is reborn as a living document rather than a simple thought experiment. Entry into a new patch on the quilt would require you consenting to certain terms and conditions. You agree to follow the rules and pay your fees or perform your communal duties, and the realm promises to treat you fairly and uphold their end of the bargain. Of course, there is an inherent asymmetry here since you lack any means of enforcement should they seek to go back on their word, but this is no different than the status quo. At least with the patchwork model competition between realms would promote good customer service. Any realm that abuses their power would not keep it for long. There is no economic incentive to mistreat your citizens, just as there is no reason a restaurant should wish to poison my food. But there is good reason for competing realms to intervene should one government become tyrannical. For instance, right now no country wants to help out the poor North Koreans, since it is all cost and no benefit, even though I’m sure the citizens would pay almost any price for political freedom. It is only by introducing a profit motive that there becomes an incentive to spread peace and prosperity.
So this is all fine and dandy in theory, but how does any of this map onto reality? Even if you agree that such a state of affairs would be desirable and preferable, there’s no way it’s feasible, right? Well, picture this: tomorrow morning you wake up and there is a pamphlet in your mailbox. It’s from the second richest man in the world, Elon Musk. He is announcing that he has purchased some island off the coast of America (or built a satellite in space) where he is going to establish his own sovereign nation. The leaflet includes all the relevant information as to what life on the island will look like, what rules the citizens will be subject to, and a progressive pricing model that delivers different benefits for different subscription services. You can live in a completely autonomous city with self driving cars, hyperloop tunnels, public promenades and beautiful flower boxes on every street corner, or you can opt for a more rural homestead where you develop the land yourself and pay a much lower premium. He says he has negotiated with all the great nations in the world to ensure the island’s protection and has a backup arsenal of his own military power should things go awry. The cost of entry to this new venture is less than you currently pay in taxes, and the benefits seem to dramatically outweigh the status quo. Would you go? I certainly would. If not, why? Maybe you have more communal values. Musk is selling a libertarian utopia, but you would prefer a system that’s a little more equitable. Well no worries, it just so happens that Bernie Sanders has made a similar announcement. Through grassroots funding he has aggregated enough capital to purchase an island off the coast of Scandinavia with much more communitarian ideals. Free housing, healthcare, and education for all, you simply need to sign up for which public service you would like to provide in exchange. If you have more leftist policy inclinations, I’m sure this would also sound preferable to the status quo. And if neither of these suit your fancy, just ask yourself what sort of system would and imagine that alternative. What’s stopping any of these regimes from becoming a reality other than our belief that they it can’t be? I want to change that.
This segment of the series did not end up as I first envisioned. I knew I was a libertarian in the moral sense, but it wasn’t obvious to me how best liberty might be achieved in a political sense. The classical liberal vision of a small government that limits its own powers, either through democratic sovereignty or judicial authority, seemed unfeasible. The people can’t be trusted to choose liberal policies, and a document cannot be depended upon to enforce them. And the only alternative is anarchism, which feels empty. It may be an accurate account of reality, but it says absolutely nothing as to what should be done about it, simply passing the buck to the free market. No one is persuaded by a political philosophy which promises nothing more than ambiguity. No, there must be a structure to liberty, a logical thread which gets us from point A to point B. Anarchy to prosperity. As Yarvin describes it, libertarianism represents a sort of Newtonian window of political physics, it produces reliable results only when certain preconditions have been already achieved. It is the final stage in a political hierarchy of needs, the necessary preconditions of which being peace, security, and law. Only once these fundamental needs have been met can the free market produce prosperity. What I love about this formulation is that it maps perfectly onto the proper functions of government: a protected border which establishes that nation’s relation to the land, a police and protection service which keeps the populace safe, and the rule of law, which outlines the rights and responsibilities of the realm’s residents. Only then can you have a free market, with a court system that mediates contracts and disputes between customers.
This is where my true interest lies, at the meat of the issue, in law and practical policy. I’ve explained to you what the structure of liberty is in theory, but not what it should look like in practice. I can’t tell you how or when such a vision might be achieved, but I plan on building a roadmap to the best of my ability. So that’s what’s next, a digital mirror for the modern prince. As a personal challenge, if nothing less. And at best, as a promise for what is to come.
Continue to Part 7: On Land
Wonderland is a free publication that outlines a philosophy and political vision for the 22nd century. To support my work and receive updates on new posts, sign up for a free or paid subscription.
1.6 The Structure of Freedom