I think that libertarianism is generally closer to the truth than any other political philosophy held by a substantial number of people. It is also the case that libertarianism attracts a lot of individuals inclined toward grifting, conspiratorial thinking, bigotry, and authoritarianism. For example, Angela McArdle, until recently the chairwoman of the Libertarian Party, is basically a right-wing culture warrior, down to her full embrace of what ICE has been doing in Minneapolis, and rantings about the Epstein files.

The Mises Caucus, a faction of the Libertarian Party as far as I can tell, has over 150,000 followers on X. It often posts about Pizzagate and the deep state stealing elections. It’s basically a nonstop firehose of based signalling and MAGA nonsense. There’s also a major influencer named “The Redheaded Libertarian,” who spends more time showing cleavage and talking about the crimes of pedophile elites than the ways in which prices allow for an efficient distribution of resources through the aggregation of information.

Compare these figures with libertarians at the Cato Institute or in the economics departments of places like the University of Chicago and George Mason University. We can divide libertarians into two categories: elites and populists. Compared to their populist counterparts, elite libertarians tend to be more socially liberal, less favorably disposed toward foreign dictatorships, non-conspiratorial in their thinking, and anti-woke when it is tied to statist projects but less horrified by tolerance as a cultural phenomenon. Not all populist libertarians are influencers. One might put Hans-Hermann Hoppe in this category for claiming to have put together a case for restrictive immigration policies based on libertarian principles. He’s also written a book on how democracy has failed to protect individual rights. Ironically, populist libertarians are more likely to be explicit defenders of authoritarianism, even though their ideas have very little appeal among elites, while elite libertarians are more attached to democratic norms and processes.

Most libertarian-leaning members of Congress, or those who talk about liberty in classical liberal terms, can also be considered populists. The Freedom Caucus, which on paper at least organizes around the idea of cutting spending and smaller government, puts its weight behind funding DHS and protecting ICE agents from scrutiny or legal accountability. It recently called on Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act “if Democrat-run Sanctuary Cities continue enabling Communist agitators assaulting ICE and federal law enforcement.” No matter what you think of this position, it is difficult to see how being on the side of the administration in its draconian vision of immigration enforcement and contempt for constitutional rights lines up with a strong commitment to limited government. If you believe these positions are consistent, let me also note that members of the Freedom Caucus were among the most enthusiastic members of Congress acting in support of Trump’s 2020 coup attempt. No reasonable person can argue there’s a consistent through line that in ideological terms unites small government, anti-immigration, and lying about a stolen election. From my perspective, I see the Freedom Caucus being correct on some economic issues, taking views inconsistent with any individualist philosophy on immigration, and then on the 2020 election engaging in a naked authoritarian power grab.

Libertarian intellectual — The Milton Friedman of our age

Not every member of the Freedom Caucus has gone along with Trump’s authoritarianism and election denial. But those who didn’t in years past became outcasts. One such example is Justin Amash, who was a founding member of the group but then resigned in 2019 after saying Trump had committed impeachable offenses. Given that he has no more role to play in Republican politics, thi...