LIBERTARIANISM, ITS STRENGTH IS ITS WEAKNESS
Kai H. Kayser
Portugal / Uganda. June 27, 2026
DOWNLOAD THE FULL ESSAY (PARTS 1-4) AS FREE PDF
The following essay reflects exactly the strengths and weaknesses that it explores in libertarianism, which is regrettable, inevitable and yet, per se consistent. Libertarianism is strongly based in economic knowledge, which makes it hard and sometimes downright impossible to follow for many if not most people. Libertarianism is also often counter intuitive in its consequent rationality, it argues for giving opponents the same rights as oneself demands, which doesn’t appeal to the more emotional characters who prefer to silence, disarm and disadvantage the opposition as “undeserving”. It’s even more counterintuitive not to solve all problems through intervention but deregulation instead: fighting misinformation through freedom of speech, fighting narcotraffic through legalization of drugs and crime through legalization of firearms are concepts that seem paradoxical.
Yet, one can hardly deny the far more than 5000 years of statist and authoritarian failure, which leave Libertarianism as the currently best solution to prevent further economic disasters and devastating wars.
PART 1
When we reach the point in life where we realize just how important freedom is, and that it works only both ways — by not just demanding it for oneself but by granting it to others, even and especially when we disagree with them — we become “libertarians”. Which often involves not even knowing the terminology let alone the theory behind it.
Not only is Libertarianism a rare mindset but also notoriously hard to define and much obfuscated by those who oppose it – namely media, education and the many collectivist organizations in charge.
In a nutshell, Libertarianism has two poles with blurred lines between them: Classic Libertarianism, and Anarcho Capitalism.
Classic Libertarianism (think Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell) supports a small government and sees it necessary as a third party to provide 1) the legal system and 2) societal safety. So, courts, police and military — and all with as little bureaucracy as possible. Classical Libertarians are “minarchists” in the literal sense of the word — from the Latin “minimal” and the Greek “archein,” to rule.
Anarcho Capitalists, or Aparactonomists, go further because they agree with Libertarians that free markets are far more efficient than government, as established by Austrian economists and empirically proven, but find the idea that government should provide legal systems and protection contradictory — because government fails at everything it tries and does, so why let it handle anything, let alone such greatly important aspects. Instead they suggest a private law society (Rothbard, Hoppe), or a stateless nation (Kayser), based on free market organization.
With that we see that the common denominator is less a political stance and more of an economic insight: free markets work better than centralization and regulation. That economic insight includes consequentially free speech and private property.
Today, “free market” is deemed a “capitalist” scheme to exploit and betray workers, customers and competitors. Capitalism, it is said, is what wiped out the middle class and undermined democracy. Such polemics are factually wrong and willfully misleading but reached their aim: utter confusion of what means what. Therefore, we prefer to call the free market system Eleuthagorism, its opposite, regulated markets, Archgagorism and a stateless eleuthagorist society an Aparactonomy, what Rothbard, Hoppe and others called Anarcho Capitalism. By using that terminology we hope to circumvent the purposeful obfuscation and semantic sleight of hand.
“Life, liberty and property” are therefore the short formula that all libertarians agree on; these three are mutually conditional. The moment you limit one, the other two are in grave danger.
This is where Libertarians have two problems: firstly, the two poles disagree on to what point one can compromise. Secondly, and more importantly, that line of thinking is a tough sell because you have no scapegoat, no enemy, which is the best if not the only way to unite people! Without an easily understood cause you can’t mobilize a majority, which is why “Statists” and “Collectivists” always win. Who cares about freedom of speech when “the rich abuse the system and exploit the poor” or “the foreigners steal our jobs”? Those are comprehensive arguments with alarming claims that seem quite true at first glance and do imply that the solution is right there — just “tax the enemy” and/or “kick out the enemy”. Furthermore, as much as it pains one to admit, these simple solutions do work but here’s the catch: in the short term and there only. In the long run such actions backfire badly, as all libertarians know and point out over and over again, they ruin entrepreneurship and economy and rob society of what it truly needs to thrive – inequality. Yes, indeed! Inequality, as in “diversity” but the real meaning, not the DEI bastardized version.
Organization, also known as “division1 of labor”, is based in inequality, which means different talents, skills and capabilities. Working together requires matching different skill sets to improve efficiency. In some sports, e.g., tug-o-war or relay race, the team members share the same crucial skill, but in most sports that isn’t the case. Be it American Football or soccer, defense and offense players have vastly different skills for their vastly different tasks, and that absolutely applies to economy and society. If an entire society consists of nothing but tailors, who will build the houses, do the plumbing, raise the cattle, treat patients or transport goods? Which brings us back to what unifies libertarians: knowing and understanding that an economy can run perfectly without bureaucrats as they are not in the slightest essential and worse, slow down market mechanisms. That means, public servants and civil officers rarely add anything of value but instead hinder those who actually do. Bureaucrats make everything inefficient and expensive, while claiming to be necessary for law and order.
What makes the entire discussion interesting and necessary culminates therefore in understanding that “left” and “right” are not political opposites but parallels that aim at full state control (meaning limiting life, liberty and property) while the actual opposite is Libertarianism as it seeks to protect the freedom of the individual. Left and right are barely distinguishable Collectivists and Statists. Libertarians, and especially the aparactonomists among them, are the exact opposite demanding as little state and authoritarianism as possible, which is why they and only they demand freedom of speech and private property. There is no private property in a fascist or socialist country, and neither do they allow freedom of expression in any shape or form. The much propagated idea that the difference of left and right was “private vs state owned means of production” doesn’t really hold up with National Socialism and Maoism, two systems that are only geographically far while ideologically built on the same principles and with extremely similar outcomes of murder and devastation. Also Argentina’s Peronism is famously hard to categorize as left or right.
Now, when has an authoritarian country ever reversed course and allowed MORE instead of less freedom? When has taxation ever been decreased instead of increased – long term? When has a bureaucracy ever been reduced instead of consistently grown?
These things happened rarely and when then only for a short while, which is baffling considering how well it ALWAYS worked while it lasted (Victorian England, Germany under Ludwig Erhard, US under Reagan, Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, Hong Kong, UAE and Switzerland until recently). Instead, government doesn’t continue and amplify what empirically works but rather amplifies itself, its regulations and its taxation.
That is because of the law of accumulation, also known as the Matthew Effect, with momentum comes growth and increase, until it collapses.
Statism is the idea that human leaders can regulate reality to reach desired market outcomes, the idea that the infinite complexity of interconnected systems can be dominated by humans. Is it just wishful thinking, or borderline ridiculous arrogance? Rarely ever could three referees command 22 soccer players for 90 minutes without serious disagreements but a couple of eloquent charmers without any expertise can run entire economies 24/7 for four years straight, directing and regulating climate, agriculture, education, production, manufacturing, research and development, patents, innovation, global influences, balancing technological disruptions and their influences on global scales, wars, violent conflicts between groups and communities, medical necessities and threats, criminal intent and enterprise, organized crime and fraud, corporate greed, monopolies and lobbyist interference, industrial espionage, foreign infiltration, destabilizing tactics of unknown agents… etc, etc… seriously?
The only thing governments can do is redistribute wealth and grow harmful bureaucracies that increase poverty and state dependence, inevitably minimizing motivation to work and innovate. Government, the bigger it gets, the more anti-meritocratic it becomes, is based on a systemic flaw and utterly wrong beliefs and the solution is not a magic pill but freedom and self reliance – hard work. So, a tough sell.
1 Both ‘diversity’ and ‘division’ derive from the Latin dividere, meaning ‘to divide’
