The Libertarian Trojan Horse
Beware of political pushes that will try to integrate libertarian ideas.
Mark Zuckerberg has entered his "libertarian era." That's how Business Insider puts it in a headline dedicated to Meta's CEO, explaining that Zuckerberg now identifies as a libertarian. According to Business Insider, the idea is to convince the Republican public that Meta is truly "nonpartisan" and that Zuckerberg is tired of Democratic politics characterized by censorship and limitations on freedom.
This revelation follows a public apology letter in which Zuckerberg, admitting his mistakes, apologized for how Meta (Facebook and Instagram) carried out a massive campaign of censorship and information control between 2020 and 2021. Back in 2021, then-President Trump, reacting to Twitter’s ban in Nigeria, publicly stated that more countries should follow this example and ban both Twitter and Facebook. Shortly thereafter, Trump himself was banned from both platforms.
The events of that period were later revisited by various journalists (myself included) through the analysis of the “Twitter Files.” Today, with Trump potentially winning the next election (unless they get him on the third attempt), Zuckerberg seems ready to be a friend of freedom. Not as a Republican, but as a Libertarian—an important distinction.
Before continuing, leave a like!
The move is strategic: in the United States, libertarian and Republican positions often overlap, but by identifying as a libertarian, Zuckerberg keeps the door open to Democratic opinions as well. It’s the modern, chic third way. The key, like any self-respecting libertarian, is for the State to leave his property (Meta) alone and not interfere too much with the free market (i.e., the one controlled by Meta & Friends).
Zuckerberg isn’t the only one suddenly struck by libertarianism. Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Steve Jobs (another former free-market monopolist), also recently claimed to be a capitalist who believes in the free market. Laurene Jobs has always been one of the most prominent supporters of Kamala Harris’s rise. Even Trump has attempted to make overtures to the American Libertarian Party in recent months, although with questionable results.
The Libertarian Party itself has nominated a candidate for the 2024 presidential elections who, for some conservative libertarians (the majority), is rather controversial: Chase Oliver, a former supporter of Barack Obama in 2008 and an ex-Democrat. Chase Oliver has his ideas, as one would expect; some are progressive (regarding LGBT issues, for example), while others are more conservative.
Then there's Javier Milei, who in December 2023 was elected as the world’s first libertarian president in Argentina, and today is more or less praised by everyone on the right. Milei is the darling of libertarians worldwide, much like Trump is for conservatives. He's the one who made it through with chainsaws, extremely clear speeches on the virtues of the free market, and Gadsden flags: “Don’t tread on me,” reads the motto on the yellow-and-black flag. And indeed, a libertarian bows to nothing and no one, more or less.
Libertarianism, which apparently is quite in vogue today, is a very interesting political doctrine. I myself was enchanted by it for a long time, thanks to its anarchic spirit combined with the capitalist perspective of the free market and the reasonable principle of "non-aggression."
Although I believe some core concepts are worthy (as they are for many other political philosophies), today I find myself in a phase of disenchantment. Not just for philosophical reasons, but also practical ones. Critical thinking also means this: being able to criticize oneself and not fall in love with one’s ideas. Everything evolves.
For several months now, I’ve thought that to evolve as individuals and as a society, it's necessary to reject any pre-established political and cultural framework, particularly those born from the Enlightenment, like the philosophies upon which libertarianism bases its raison d'être.
This idea was reinforced when I began to notice that the libertarian philosophy, which in theory should be anti-system, is increasingly accepted and openly discussed by those who are, in fact, the system. Javier Milei himself, by accepting the role of President of Argentina, has become part of the system. The Achilles' heel of libertarian philosophy lies precisely in this: once integrated into the system, it becomes an empty box that ends up justifying any political stance, as long as it is seen not as government imposition but as a free market choice (which today is anything but free).
My view is this: soon, the libertarian doctrine will be used by the “system” precisely to ensure its survival. A well-constructed Trojan horse. The doctrine will, of course, be purged of all the most subversive elements, integrating conservative and liberal positions more aligned with libertarian freedom, the "free market" kind.
In this sense, libertarianism for normies will work wonders. If Trump wins the elections, it’s easy to imagine the beginning of a process of deregulation of the federal government, which the European Union might also take inspiration from. The Draghi report already hints at it: “there are too many laws, we need more market.”
Thus, libertarianism could effectively become the new “third way” to calm spirits and carry forward the globalist project. Not through imposition and violence, but with gentle psychological, economic, and fiscal nudging. After all, libertarianism or not: the plan must go on. While Israel simultaneously bombs four different nations, Russia and Ukraine are still at odds, and the West is heading towards controlled demolition, the “system” needs order and quiet, not chaos.
As the State recedes, the free market will advance, though it’s not truly free. On a systemic level, the world is entirely controlled and subjugated by international finance and a handful of technocratic monopolists, among whom we can count the newly libertarian Mark Zuckerberg.
The libertarian doctrine could, therefore, become a Trojan horse to consolidate the already existing structure of globalist neo-feudalism, which I’ve already discussed on these pages.
There's not even a need to dismantle the nation-state because it hasn't existed for a long time. Of what it was at its peak (last century), only the skeleton and parasitic bureaucratic structures exploited by those at the top of the pyramid remain.
Anyone who has read “Anatomy of the State” by Rothbard, which I showcase on my bookshelf, will have a very specific idea of the State. In the essay, Rothbard defines the State as a coercive institution that holds the monopoly of force in a given geographical area. It exists by exploiting the wealth produced by citizens through taxation and uses violence (or the threat of it) to maintain its power and legitimize its actions.
However, I believe that today, the use of coercion is no longer necessary.
Why use force when you can pay for targeted advertising and reach hundreds of millions of people regardless of geographical and political boundaries? Why try to force people to behave in a certain way when all it takes is control of information and of the public opinion?
Even wars today are fought first on social media—in the psyche of the masses—than on battlefields. Remember: it is first and foremost your neighbor who wants you dead or silent; the nation-state is just a big fiction we still tell ourselves; a relic of the Industrial Era—like representative democracy (which will soon be hacked).
In the essay “The Sovereign Individual,” the authors predict that the Digital Era will bring about the disappearance of the nation-state. I am absolutely convinced of this, but not in the libertarian sense. There will be no mass libertarian revolution, but a natural contraction and transformation of the idea of the state, inevitable after a prolonged period of expansion. Power entities will always exist: man is a social animal and naturally tends to aggregate around common interests.
The conclusion of this brief reflection is this: beware of political pushes that will seek to integrate libertarian ideas and don’t fall in love with your own ideas, but let them flow and evolve.
The Digital Era demands eschatological reflections before political ones.
The promised Kingdom is that of crypto-anarchy, but there must first be an intellectual, spiritual, and technological revolution. The political form is irrelevant and will always and only reflect the spirit of the times (i.e., the collective psyche).
Help me grow the community: forward this article to your friends!