Reading the Liberal Manifesto

Reading and commenting on the Liberal Manifesto - May 2025

Project Liberal has proclaimed the Liberal Manifesto as a major reference point of its ideology. Noted here that I am generally an enthusiastic supporter of the movement. Nevertheless, here I come with substantial critique.

Much of the manifesto is great. It clarifies the meaning of "liberal" and is doing a great job delineating the current political confrontation between liberalism and authoritarianism.

However, on first or second reading, I disagree with one section, titled: TRUTH EXISTS AND IT MATTERS, - especially on "one unifying truth" - where I see danger of committing liberalism to the philosophy of natural law. Also there are certain glaring omissions in the whole text.

The section in question reads:

We reject the vicious lie told by pseudo-intellectuals and
the conspiracy-deranged that academics, scientists, and
journalists are the enemy. We know well that our true foe
lies not in those dedicated to the pursuit of truth but
rather in those who seek to contort reality to further their
own agenda. We also strongly oppose the relativistic
notion that the world is not bound together by facts and
that all things are merely "matters of opinion." We believe
in one unifying truth and commit ourselves to its impartial
and rigorous pursuit, even when its nuances clash with our
preconceived notions.

This should be the place in the manifesto to relate the liberalism ideology to philosophy, but without committing it to any particular philosophical outlook. The manifesto seems to place the roots of liberalism in John Locke and Adam Smith (in separate quotes) - and their ideas about natural law with whom many can disagree - but JS Mill and his utilitarianism remain unmentioned.

There is no place where the phrase "free speech" is uttered - the quote from Frederick Douglass comes close. Free speech is actually championed by JS Mill (in 19th century) who would be defending expression of opinions that are not aimed at truth. His defense is based on consequentialist principles of good outcomes of human actions rather than on quest for "one unifying truth."

It is not that I want to use JS Mill's (or Bentham's) utilitarian philosophy as the basis of liberalism, but I want to defend the freedom of speech of the  knowledge workers - academics, scientists, journalists - and also filmmakers, artists, philosophers, spiritual leaders, etc - whose work serves us all in clarifying the mystery of our existence.

I do not oppose the "relativistic notion" mentioned above - but only the application in political undertakings of ideas not based on objective knowledge. That is so because I wish that the liberal system will also protect the many things that are "merely matters of opinion" - that is - principally leave them outside the reach of the state. Conversely, these flimsy "matters of opinion" should be disabled of direct impact on politics.

As it stands, the Liberal Manifesto seems to embrace the doctrine of natural law and even anathemize the many potential adherents who would disagree with the quest for the "one unifying truth." That would include the fans of JS Mill and Ludwig von Mises.

I would rewrite this section as:

Objective outlook and freedom of speech matter.

Liberal politics requires that we have an objective view of facts of the world and objective understanding of the rules and laws governing them. The liberal state will cultivate and prioritize pursuit of knowledge based on the rigors of science and engineering, business, economics, as well as objective studies in humanities - of the law, religion, history, literature and art. In other words, the liberal state prioritizes evidence-based knowledge and permits its application in political decision making. However, the liberal state should protect the "freedom of speech" - which also includes expression of ideas which do not require objectivity and do not demand direct political influence. Such protection applies even when such ideas exert substantial cultural influence or meet with widespread public disapproval because freedom of speech and expression is part of the general individual liberty.

Further omissions include the lack of mention of these important concepts:

• tolerance
• limited government

The support for tolerance for differing views and lifestyle choices should be strongly spoken for in the manifesto. This is the core of the liberalism of JS Mill.

Limited government should be mentioned as it is well within the natural law conception of the sources of individual freedom as well as part of the libertarian political outlook, closely related to liberalism. JS Mill's work also covers this idea being inspired by "continental" (!) work of Wilhelm von Humboldt on limits of state power. The liberal belief is that most problems human beings confront are best solved by their own initiative and without use of the coercive powers of the government.

At some point reading and re-reading I felt the need to protest the section titled - ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL. In my view it should be rewritten under the title - ALL PEOPLE HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. And so I was led to conclude that the whole manifesto should be modernized - making it a presumed beginning of Modern Liberalism.

A modernized Liberal Manifesto should include notions such as these:

• equality - people are not created equal - they are born and they are born unequal. But all humans have equal human rights - among them rights to life, property, action and thought - the "three liberties"
• human rights come from the dignity that human being possesses on account of his courage in confronting the world while being aware of his finite existence - this is existentialist rather than "natural law" perspective and is independent of religious belief
• all just (ethical) politics (and especially liberal politics) must defend and protect human rights.
• individual human rights are the foundation of ethical politics - along with their derivatives such as rights of human collectives.
• human rights derive from the dignity based on subjectivity: our self-awareness of the finitude of existence. Equality is based on our equal prospect of death and the courage of each individual to face the life given to him.
• tolerance for nonconforming ideas and conduct - JS Mill, Popper, Bergson??
• tolerance for nonconforming noetic activities (knowledge production): science, religion, art and media
• limited government of doing no harm, deferring to individual choice, - JS Mill and W von Humboldt, von Mises?
• status of truth: the goal of politics is NOT truth. The purpose - (τέλος - télos) - of politics is justice and peace
• the basis of positive political action (policy) is objective knowledge (aka truth)
• the basis of negative political action (resistance, protest) is subjective knowledge (aka desire)

I understand that the American success with forging a nation largely reflecting the liberal principles is making it difficult to depart from the founding ideas of the 17th and 18th centuries. That is why liberals tend to see themselves as classic liberals.

However, much has taken place in human ideas since the time of American founding and classic liberalism is insufficient or inappropriate. It would be hard to defend liberal ideology in debate with other competing America ideologies like Christian conservatism or left-wing liberalism where there is either an awkward shared archaic foundation or a missing element of modern thinking.

In my view, many newer ideas should be incorporated into the Modern Liberalism - as indicated briefly above. It is time to move liberalism into modernity.

Trump changing sides

Situation has changed since my last "Trump calm" post before his inauguration.
 

I am outraged and embarrassed by the conduct of the US foreign policy under President Trump - mainly in regard to alliance with European countries and war in Ukraine. Here is my letter to Alaska Republican senators who might inject some reason into the White House process.

Honorable Senator,
I am extremely disturbed by the twists and turns recently taken by President Trump in the direction of US foreign policy. He is leading our country toward very horrible and dishonorable outcomes where we forsake long-term friends and allies with whom we share ideological liberal outlook for alliances with unsavory dictatorships bent on increasing the radius of their domination and bullying.

The disturbing events started rolling out of the White House the weekend of the Munich Security Conference. While I agreed with JD Vance's frank criticism of European repressive handling of freedom of speech, I could not stomach the repudiation of benefits of the NATO alliance that started emanating from White House and Trumpist events (CPAC) afterwards. While Europeans have their problems, they share the liberal outlook that is foundational to the US political freedom and they can process criticisms and address their problems in the way we, Americans, would.

Europe understands the danger of Russian imperialism well because of its history of imposing itself on Western Europe since the times of Napoleon. Russia was stopped briefly during the Crimean war in 1850s by Britain and France acting jointly. The door to further Russian expansion in Europe was thrown open once again by decisions of US President Franklin Roosevelt at Yalta in 1945 by allowing for the Soviet Russia sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. Now, Europe is much more united than at the time of WWII and has created the European Union - a political alliance of liberal countries.
Russia has the ambition of dismembering the EU and dominating major portions of it, just like the Soviet Union dominated Eastern Europe. Russia is an illiberal monster of political entity that is a threat to Europe - and to America too, although to lesser degree. Europe must act now to deal with this threat. The opportunity is that Russia blundered into the invasion of Ukraine and can be defeated by increasing the support to the invaded country. This is both ethical and politically effective. Russia can be brought to negotiations as a defeated power.

At this point the US president undercuts the effort of Europe and Ukraine by siding with Russia and throwing them a lifeline. Unconscionably, the US President makes excuses for Russian aggression. This is deeply unethical and drives the US away from its NATO partners and toward a treacherous political cooperation with Russia - bordering on an alliance. This may lead not only to disintegration of NATO, which means losing the loyalty and support of Europeans, but even toward a perception of the US as the adversary to Europe. This is all appalling and dangerous.

I ask you, Senators, to take necessary action in US Congress to prevent President Trump from following through with his pro-Russian folly. This is a course of action which was not implied, or discussed, in his campaign and is not well thought through as a strategic geopolitical change of course for America. Even if such change were somehow advantageous to the US, we would have to grapple with the ethical ramifications of allying with a deformed version of imperial Russia against liberal Europe.

I am a resident of the state of Washington, but wish to appeal to Republican lawmakers who might have more influence on President Trump. Especially, the Alaska congressional delegation might be sensitive to the issue of US stance vis-à-vis Russia. Being a native to Poland, and naturalized American, this issue touches me deeply.

Trump Comes Back

Thesis: Trump's second ascension to US presidency, and even Trump's persona, all seem quite reasonable after the excesses of the Biden administration.

After the election in 2020, we all thought that we have seen the end to the anomalous Trump presidency. Especially, after the lawsuits and the failed "coup" or "insurrection" of January 6. On January 20 2021, Trump walked out of the White House quite unceremoniously and was gone.

Now we have a surprising come back - and it feels surprisingly normal and sane. Why?

The first Trump elevation to the office of president was met with hysterical protests from the left. The Women's march using the pink "pussy hat" as its main token reminiscent of the revolutionary bonnets of the French Revolution was the opening salvo of the "resistance." The opposition Democratic party had then unfurled its Leftist phalanx as its main force. Their vocabulary included accusations of fascism, nazism, misogyny, racism, Islamophobia, transphobia, etc. Trump administration was accused by them of damaging democracy in America and its constitutional order. The inconsistency there was that Leftism is actually desirous of specifically that - of dismantling and destroying the free-market capitalism supported by the liberal order.

The four years of Trump - 2017-2020 - were the years of media lies about Trump. To be sure, Trump did lie too - and he broke the law almost every day. The Trump watch during his presidency was an entertaining discussion of the constitutionality and legality of Trump's daily actions. Nevertheless, the main stream media were on a mission of framing anything said or done by Trump or his presumed supporters in a negative, biased and contorted way. The chief example is the clip where Trump utters the words "very fine people" in a press conference. He took pains to explain that he did not consider Nazis to be "very fine people" whereas the media took all measures to proclaim that he asserted the abhorrent opposite. This media lie originated in August 2017 and was still used in attacks on Trump before his election last year - by none other than Barack Obama.

Similar media support extended to the Leftist ideologies - now embraced by the Democratic party - which are a long list of novel social ideas such as equity, antiracism, social justice, trans ideology, defunding the police, - and to new social grievances such as white supremacy, toxic masculinity, relitigating legacy of slavery, etc.

The 2020 election of replacements for Trump was encumbered with additional two big problems which became fodder for the anti-Trump media. One was the Covid-19 pandemic that required genuinely authoritative actions from all levels of government. The other was the death of an arrestee in police custody that was framed by the media as racist police brutality and effectively murder. Trump's administration could hardly avoid being criticized for any decisions regarding Covid - including travel restrictions, restrictions on public gatherings and business - which were made with limited knowledge. Much was left to be decided by local authorities - mostly on the basis of guidance coming in from the CDC which is a federal agency staffed with career medical technologists hired long before Trump's first term. Any ideas about dealing with Covid coming from other sources than the CDC were ridiculed in the media - to remind you of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine which became toxic words even when recommended by doctors actually treating patients. Also any talk about methods of boosting autoimmune system using standard vitamin supplements and sharing experience treating Covid patients became toxic. The so-called "murder" of a black man in police custody in Minneapolis gave impulse to protests and riots boosting the BLM "Black Lives Matter" movement. Due to Leftist media activism and framing BLM became a world-wide movement.

The Biden administration emerged in the fog of 2020. Many constitutionalist anti-Trumpers, myself included, reluctantly preferred a second Trump term. I thought that Trump would be needed to stem the tide of Leftism that gained support with the Democratic party during 4-year anti-Trump campaign - especially in the last year burdened with the pandemic and BLM riots. But then I could not articulate how that would happen. How would Trump be a bulwark against Leftism if all they see in him is just the antithesis of all their insane ideas? Now I understand that back in 2020 Trump, elected for second term, would only enrage the Left. Biden sedated them.

Now I think the other anti-Trumpers were right back in 2020 that the Democrats taking the helm of power in the US would stem the tide of Leftism. Unexpectedly to me, they had a sedative effect on the Left. The Leftists got the message that the adults were in control and they could return to their typical cheering for the government or nonsensical protests for "climate justice." The old man was at the wheel of the car and the children could safely sleep in the back seat. Not surprisingly "patriarchy" has a calming effect. It was not immediate, it was not about damming the tide but draining it gradually. By the end of 2024 the Leftist energy is drained as much as is Biden's life energy. The Left handcuffed itself to the arm of an expiring man and went down with the blessings of an unremarkable woman who could only champion "abortion access" as the only surviving item of their agenda.

Trump's strength is in his popular support and his ability to commandeer the Republican party but his return is prepared by his opponents who proved to be feeble after all. The politically motivated lawsuits, the media portrayals of "convicted felon", "literally Hitler", "democracy is on the ballot" - all to no avail. He even "resisted" assassination attempts.

In the election of 2024 I thought we had two very bad candidates. Both Trump and Kamala Harris were not the caliber of person who should be the chief executive of the US. Kamala Harris seemed to be in her place as an accidental politician. Her career is one of advancing upwards opportunistically. Trump is a businessman seeking deals and profits - not a material for a politician who should care to support the country's institutions. My pals at ProjectLiberal were rooting for Kamala while preparing to strongly criticize her eventual presidency for any expected anti-liberal (typically Leftist) policies and decisions. Now they ought to go back to anti-Trumpism - and check Trump for illiberal policies. Not an easy switch.

I am finding myself relieved that Trump will take the helm. I do not fear for the integrity of US institutions under Trump. I think we will see a very active executive, operating within constitutional limits but venturing into new terrain. We have seen a preview in the foreign policy area - with proposals of territorial expansion of the US toward the Arctic. This, the looming use of tariffs in international trade, immigration policy, are definitely prerogatives of the presidency, but ones which can have a big impact on the country.

There is calm on Left - the Biden sedative still in effect. I suppose also the sense of Trump being the inevitability.

Political Theory - Main Concepts

Concepts, characterizations, ethical judgments

1. Individual rights are foundational - the chief one is liberty

2. Individuals create communities of purpose:
- sexual: families - to control procreation and other sexual bonds
- economic: corporations - aim to control material production and consumption
- political: nations - aim to establish the law and its enforcement - the State
- noetic: science, religion, art, media - aim to control systems of knowledge production

3. Communities have rights derived from individual rights - and can come into mutual conflict

3a. The purpose - (τέλος - télos) - of politics is justice and peace

3b. The method - (μέθοδος - méthodos) or (τέχνη - tékhnē) - of politics is to exercise the law and authority

4. The purpose of the law is to arbitrate between the rights of communities and individuals

5. Libertarianism wishes that only individual rights exists

6. Liberalism aims to arbitrate all of the rights at all levels

7. Totalitarianism aims to fuse all communities of purpose into one

8. Authoritarians wish to subjugate the economic, sexual and noetic to the political authority

8a. Socialists wish to subordinate individual rights to the rights of the community

9. Fascism subordinates individual rights to the political authority

10. Wokeness postulates additional rights based on degree of oppression and sets them above individual rights

11. Any political ethics must protect rights at all levels

12. Methods of politics - who gets to exercise power - ie to rule:
- mob rule - leaders of a popular movement
- democracy - officials elected by the people
- aristocracy - the best of character, the nobles - possibly emerging in a public process
- technocracy - scientists, technologists and business people
- oligarchy - the richest
- nomenklatura - officials appointed by officials

13. Forms of government - ie the relationship of the rulers to the governed, status of the rulers
- republic - officials, office holders
- feudal lordship - lords, mafia dons, party bosses
- monarchy - king, the chief protector

Barbies and Kens - a Spoiler

The movie "Barbie" is a disquisition on gender, which is the semantic layer of sexuality, especially, on the mystery of feminine gender.

On the biological level there is the obvious sexual difference in the bodies being variedly adapted to producing and exchanging sperm and egg. There is a biological male and female. However, as beings that have evolved language we produce a difference on the semantic level where we signal our sexuality, by emitting and receiving signifiers, to and from other subjects. That semantic level of sex is called gender.

It appears there could be more variety in gender than in biological sex, constrained to a binary structure by nature. Since the gender signaling is motivated by prospects of sexual success then the structure of gender roughly reproduces the biological binary. Yet gender tends to multiply beyond that because it is the semantic part that we enjoy while sex is a goalpost planted somewhere in reality - beyond the reach of signifiers. Without language we would just produce and act on simple provocations - like animal female in heat calling to all males.

Barbie and her Barbieland presents a version of the world where gender is detached from its sexual moorings and floats freely in the semantic space. So it is gender in its pure state. Ken wants to stay over in Barbie house but is not sure what they would do. Barbie has no vagina and Ken has only an unsightly bulge.

Barbies in Barbieland have unlimited access to power. They can be anything - lawyers, pilots, presidents, construction workers. It is not important how or by whom that power is provided, but it matters that Barbies can easily avail themselves of it. In the center of Barbie life is a home - that specially is in the scope of life of the stereotypical Barbie.

Ken's realm in Barbieland is the beach. Ken and Kens approach the Barbies with admiration and solicitation - trying to get closer to them with vague attempts at intimacy - vague because the sex part has been taken out. Kens are anxious about their purpose in Barbieland.

On a trip to the real world (only so real as a typical city center filled with corporate buildings) Ken and Barbie discover new things. Barbie finds her manufactured gender and Ken - the patriarchy, which he immediately imports into Barbieland. Barbie stays on in the real world a little longer to better inform herself about the mystery of femininity. When she returns to Barbieland she finds it replaced by the patriarchy of "Kendom" where anxious Barbies serve the needs of Kens who have become their pimps.

But Barbie, the stereotypical Barbie traveling the real world, has now found out some new secrets about the patriarchy and its deeper motivations. She will start a revolution to abolish the Kendom with the help of the already institutionalized but sidelined Barbies: the lawyer, president, engineer, etc. Barbies are united in their feminist activism which also aims at getting the Kens to fight among themselves. Peace, and justice presumably, returns to Barbieland and to what relief for the intervening Mattel Board of Directors which is the real world patriarchy! Another intervention comes from the female inventor of Barbie -- an old woman hidden in the bowels of Mattel corporate headquarters. Her insights, shared with the stereotypical Barbie, allow us to hang out the chief question of feminine gender, expressed by the haunting musical theme: "What was I made for?" All the while when Ken has no such question since he is not yet made - he has to make himself.

To Russian Friends

Around 200 years ago, Russia experienced an uprising against despotism. Less an uprising than a gentle protest, a request for the kind of freedoms that Europe has been clamoring for in the aftermath of the Age of Enlightenment. The leaders were harshly punished — some with death, some with humiliating forced labor in remote Siberia. The Decemberist uprising of 1825 was one of the few times when voices were raised in Russia calling for a Russia respectful of human rights and aspirations rather than Russia despotic and brutally crushing any threat to its security. It is the Decemberists who inspired the idea of freedom as a shared pursuit — "For our freedom and yours" — later embraced by the Polish insurrection of November 1830.

 

By Unknown from Poland - Image taken by User:Mathiasrex Maciej Szczepańczyk, CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1864374

This moment is one of the few in history that allow us to admire Russian greatness. Russians living with us in the West love to revel in a much broader narrative of Russian greatness, referring to massive outpouring of creativity in the arts, literature and music starting at the beginning of the 1800s. The fact of the Russian creativity is undeniable and remarkable — yet still it occurs against a backdrop of political system of aggressive despotism begun way before Enlightenment and spanning multiple ideologies from the idea of the Tsardom of All Russia, through the Russian Empire morphing into the Soviet Union, to the present Putinist dictatorship. With few exceptional moments in history, Russia has always been a despotic, soul crushing, brutally aggressive, autocracy, since its beginning, as the principality of Muscovy, in the late 1400s.

Those who are of Russia and wish to praise and take pride in its greatness need to stop and consider its despotic and murderous legacy. Why is it that so many Russian greats resident in the country have taken to apologies for despotism while so many prominent emigrés became aloof cosmopolitans? Perhaps because they all think the despotic system is unreformable? Perhaps because they understand that the Russian mentality cannot be shifted away from the habit of bending to despotic authority?
And finally understand that the greatness is likewise a product of the despotic system.

The world stands still in admiration of Russian greatness — and is muted in expressing it. Of course, this is due to the appalling aggression in Ukraine. I am, as many in the West, revolted to hear about Russian greatness — even from well-meaning Russian friends. Russian people, Russian elites, need to re-earn their standing in the world, similarly to Germans after World War II. I urge you to begin — and begin with humility.

I am writing this missive thinking about the poetic address by Mickiewicz in 1832 — "To my Muscovy friends  (Do przyjaciół Moskali)" — mourning his former friends who had taken the side of the Tsarist regime or had been punished by it. Being an emigré Pole, I know that on foreign ground in the US we are friendly and actually like each other as people. We connect by the common experience of the underground culture opposed to Communist oppression, like Vysotsky and Okudzhava. It is a sort of Decemberist connection which aims at shared aspiration to freedom — but abhors Imperial Russia.

 

Libertarianism and its problems

Four years ago I wrote about how to apply the libertarian principles to appeal to both left and right wing ideologies and bring them together in a sort of Americanist centrism.

http://venedi.blogspot.com/2017/08/libertarianism-as-centrist-ideology.html

My view has changed.

The libertarian ideology should be rather seen as what it is: it is a fantasy of a political system based on freely interacting property-owning individuals. It can be contrasted with the other fringe: socialism (or communism) - which is a fantasy of a system where individuals are constrained by communal property and communal goals.

This can be wonderfully shown on a 2x2 diagram where I overlaid some markup on a pertinent internet meme:

This view obviously represents the intersection of two scales - each of them ranging between two extremes. The vertical axis represents the answer to the question "who controls who you are" or "who controls your identity". The answer ranges from top=community to bottom=individual. Community can answer the question of identity in various ways: American, Protestant, atheist, white, Irish, gay. The individual answers this sort of question in a manner related to what they do: businessman, writer, podcaster, - or in a private, subjective and spiritual mode of expression. The horizontal axis is the representation of agency in the real world - it answers "who has the authority to control the material world" and the answer is again ranging from left=community to right=individual. So on the left, community is typically the authority to create and set goals for an enterprise and subordinate the activities and resources of the individuals to those goals. In socialist and fascist state the community tends to a hierarchy and the state becomes the ultimate community.  On the right end of the horizontal axis we have the individual entrepreneur bringing their product to the market as well as setting up enterprises with voluntary participation of others.

Libertarianism, being placed at the extreme of individual determination, looks very much right-wing, however, the real right and left wings of American politics, and politics in other Western liberal countries, are between the left and right liberal who alternately want to assign the control of agency and identity to the community.

The last two years contain the development of the COVID pandemic and the convulsive end of the Trump presidency in the US.

These events took place against the backdrop of an immense growth of authoritarian sentiment among the citizens of the free world. People are begging to be ruled. Begging the governments to curb economic growth to deal with climate change, begging to control people's behavior to deal with the pandemic, begging to censor speech in order to stamp out lies and misinformation in the media, begging to enforce conformity in order to be safe from racism, sexism and other varieties of perceived vice. The list goes on.

Moreover, this is happening the historic peak of unprecedented success of majority of the population of the globe where 80% of people basically live in prosperity as compared to 90% living in poverty 200 years ago. The context of historic success accentuates the enormity of the authoritarian appetite - the desire to be ruled over. This is very disturbing. It appears that about 70-75% of any given population - also of the US population in the "the land of the free and the home of the brave" - is authoritarian. That means they prefer to be ruled in most aspects of their life by a sort of external authority - in most situations, a role readily filled by government.

The pursuit of liberty has a problem in a democracy: the authoritarian majority will not support liberty-minded policies. In this situation the goal of liberty-minded people is not to convert authoritarians into libertarians but to persuade them into supporting liberty-minded policies.

Libertarians should stop painting a picture of a stateless utopia of self-governing individuals, but produce examples and methods where application of libertarian principles leads to just and socially desirable outcomes. They should demonstrate how authority organically arises among individuals.

Another approach is necessary to such "winning hearts and minds" - it is the cultural angle.

Libertarianism needs to make itself attractive, needs to humor, and even trick and seduce authoritarians into supporting liberty-minded solutions not only because they are good and moral - but because they are attractive. For example, the left-liberal single-payer health care system is presented as attractive because you don't have to pay. Libertarianism should present "being able to pay" in a market system as a more attractive goal.

Beyond economics, on the cultural front, libertarianism is hopelessly lost.

The "don't tread on me" slogan promotes - in addition to the laudable principle of individual liberty - an unwillingness to show any sort of face to the fellow human being and just points to the fence designating "my" property - fence instead of face. The property will often harbor a family and an intense intimate life within it - but the libertarian does not make that life present socially in a significant way. Libertarian guards the private from escaping into the social sphere whereas the leftist famously makes the private into political.

Libertarianism must solve its cultural problem.

One way to engage authoritarians is to enter and inhabit what many of them desire - civilization. While liberty gives you the right to bear arms for your own protection, civilization is being safe without bearing arms. Civilization is the foundational safe space. America has a strong impulse for liberty but its civilization is young and rather immature. That is why it appears to so many that the only way to civilization is through a state authority.

Libertarians ought to show publicly and socially how an internally cultivated authority is a civilizing influence.

The internal authority does not have to be a national or religious identity, which comes from external sources, - but an authority of significant personal and subjective experience - revealed in personal relations and works of art.

An important cultural front would be to socialize (but not politicize) the personal. Libertarians should be comfortable to talk openly about their personal lives, which contain many quirks and oddities, and assert the freedom from government intrusion in their lives which might be otherwise laid open. This would include talking about sexual and drug practices - which might be currently illegal or highly socially objectionable. It would lead to a certain reckoning among the libertarians as well as authoritarians who would all be made to look in the mirror.

In principle, the process of socializing the personal is made safe by civilization which allows vulnerable individuals to reveal themselves in public - as is the case with artists and free thinkers. The current punitive influence of "cancel culture" on public life would require heroic courage for such overtures.

I am not optimistic.