The Libertarian Suicide Pact

Reason's Love Affair with Lawlessness

As I sat in my hotel room, having just been evacuated from the Principles First Summit due to a bomb threat, I found myself reading Reason Magazine's recent article, by Christian Britschgi —“The Sunny Side of Donald Trump's Power Grabs.” The juxtaposition was jarring.

Moments earlier, I had been part of a gathering of anti-Trump conservatives forced to flee what organizers called a “credible bomb threat.” Initially, the threat was attributed to Enrique Tarrio, former leader of the Proud Boys. However, organizers quickly clarified that the threat came from an account “claiming” to represent Tarrio, with the email signed “Enrique T.” They emphasized that they couldn't confirm the email's true origin.

This uncertainty only added to the tension of the moment. In our current political climate, the line between real threats and provocative hoaxes has become dangerously blurred. Both serve to disrupt and intimidate, creating an atmosphere of fear and instability. But I'm sure Kash Patel and Pam Bondi are all over these threats of political violence.

The bitter irony of that last thought wasn't lost on me. Here we were, targets of political intimidation, while those tasked with law enforcement under the current administration seem more interested in settling political scores than protecting democratic discourse.

With the adrenaline of evacuation still coursing through me, I turned to Reason's piece. Its attempt to find a “silver lining” in Trump's assault on democratic institutions struck me as not just misguided, but dangerously out of touch with the gravity of our situation.

The threat that emptied our conference rooms wasn't an abstraction, regardless of its true source. It was a visceral reminder of the stakes we face. Yet here was Reason, blithely suggesting that Trump's autocratic tendencies might accidentally usher in some libertarian utopia in the form of smaller government.

Britschgi's piece in Reason is a masterclass in intellectual dishonesty, a veritable smorgasbord of false equivalences and willful ignorance that would make even the most ardent apologist for tyranny blush with embarrassment.

Let's start with his breathtaking equation of lawlessness with reduced government. One wonders if Britschgi has ever cracked open a history book, or if he simply prefers to marinate in his own ignorance. The distinction between principled small government and autocratic power grabs is not merely academic—it's the difference between a functioning democracy and a banana republic. But perhaps Britschgi finds the latter more appealing, provided it comes wrapped in a libertarian bow.

His blithe disregard for long-term consequences is nothing short of staggering. Britschgi seems to believe that the precedents being set by Trump and Musk will magically evaporate once they've served their purpose. One imagines a child who, having set fire to the house, expects praise for reducing the family's heating bills.

Britschgi's understanding of bureaucracy appears to have been gleaned from the back of a cereal box. The notion that replacing career civil servants with political sycophants will result in smaller government is so naive it borders on the criminally stupid. It's not a recipe for efficiency; it's a blueprint for personal fiefdoms and cronyism on a scale that would make Louis XIV blush.

But it's Britschgi's casual dismissal of constitutional violations as mere “proceduralism” that truly takes the cake. One wonders if he would be equally sanguine if it were his rights being trampled under the jackboots of expediency. The rule of law, it seems, is just another inconvenience to be swept aside in the grand march towards his libertarian fantasyland.

The false dichotomy Britschgi presents between inefficient bureaucracy and autocratic control is a rhetorical sleight of hand so clumsy it would embarrass a third-rate magician. The possibility of responsible reform within democratic norms apparently never occurred to our intrepid analyst. Perhaps nuance, like ethics, is not his strong suit.

His celebration of expanded executive power at the expense of congressional authority is nothing short of constitutional vandalism. Britschgi cheers on the dismantling of checks and balances with all the wisdom of a man sawing off the branch he's sitting on.

The naive view that fewer government employees will lead to less enforcement is so detached from reality one wonders if Britschgi has ever set foot outside his ivory tower. The potential for selective, politically motivated enforcement apparently escapes him—or perhaps he simply doesn't care, so long as it's his team doing the enforcing.

Britschgi's casual disregard for individual rights—particularly those of immigrants and birthright citizens—is not just concerning, it's morally repugnant. One wonders if he believes rights are merely privileges to be dispensed at the whim of whoever holds power.

His fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional design would be comical if it weren't so dangerous. The framers' vision of congressional supremacy isn't some quaint historical footnote—it's the bedrock of our system of governance. But perhaps Britschgi finds autocracy more efficient. After all, why bother with the messy business of democracy when a strong man can make the trains run on time?

Finally, Britschgi's myopic focus on short-term policy wins at the expense of long-term democratic norms is the intellectual equivalent of selling the farm to buy a cow. It's not just short-sighted; it's a betrayal of the very principles he claims to uphold.

In sum, Britschgi's article isn't just wrong—it's a dangerous capitulation to autocracy dressed up in libertarian drag. It's the kind of intellectual bankruptcy that gives comfort to tyrants and despair to defenders of liberty. If this is the best Reason can offer, one shudders to think what Unreason might look like.

One wonders, indeed, why I don't take libertarians seriously. Perhaps it's because pieces like Britschgi's reveal a movement so enamored with its own theoretical purity that it's willing to embrace autocracy, so long as it comes wrapped in the promise of smaller government. It's as if they've decided that the best way to protect the village is to burn it to the ground.

This brand of libertarianism isn't just misguided—it's actively dangerous. It provides intellectual cover for authoritarians while pretending to champion freedom. It's a philosophy that, in its zeal to liberate us from the tyranny of bureaucracy, would deliver us into the arms of actual tyrants.

So why don't I take libertarians seriously? Perhaps because when faced with unprecedented lawlessness from the executive branch, their response is to applaud the collateral damage while offering tepid objections to the rest. Consider Britschgi's own words:

“Trump's efforts to cut government all by himself certainly do violate the spirit of the Constitution, regardless of whether courts determine this or that action violates the letter... What we're left with is Trump breaking what he can while he can.”

And yet, after this perfunctory acknowledgment, Britschgi has the gall to conclude:

“If I were to hazard a prediction anyway about where this roller-coaster ride is headed, it'd be that we end up with a president who looms supreme over a more lawless but much-diminished federal government... It's not great or perfectly libertarian, but it's better than the alternative of ever-growing government.”

This isn't principled analysis; it's intellectual acrobatics of the most craven sort. Britschgi and his ilk are so fixated on their goal of smaller government that they're willing to cheer on constitutional violations and the decimation of democratic norms to achieve it. They're not defenders of liberty; they're opportunists, ready to embrace autocracy so long as it shrinks the state.

While I'm being evacuated due to bomb threats—a stark reminder of the real-world consequences of political instability—Reason is publishing paeans to lawlessness, dressed up as clear-eyed pragmatism. It's not just morally bankrupt; it's dangerous. They've become so obsessed with their theoretical endgame that they're blind to the very real threats to liberty unfolding before our eyes.

I don't take libertarians seriously because when the moment came to stand firm against executive overreach and defend the rule of law, they chose instead to celebrate the destruction of governmental capacity as a win for freedom. It's a betrayal of everything they claim to stand for, and it reveals them as nothing more than faux-intellectual cheerleaders for autocracy in libertarian drag.

In the end, Britschgi and his fellow travelers at Reason have accomplished something truly remarkable: they've managed to make Ayn Rand look like a paragon of moral philosophy and practical governance. Their cheerleading for Trump's lawlessness isn't just misguided—it's a spectacular own goal, a self-immolation of principles so complete it would be comical if it weren't so dangerous.

These self-styled defenders of liberty have revealed themselves to be nothing more than intellectual arsonists, gleefully pouring gasoline on the fire of autocracy while congratulating themselves on reducing the size of the fire department. They've become so obsessed with their theoretical hatred of government that they've lost all sense of why we have a government in the first place.

One is reminded of Orwell's observation that some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them. But Britschgi and Reason have outdone themselves—they've embraced ideas so catastrophically foolish that even most intellectuals would blush to entertain them.

So no, I don't take libertarians seriously. Not when their response to creeping authoritarianism is to check whether it's wearing a “small government” badge before deciding if it's a threat. Not when they're willing to trade the rule of law for a mess of pottage and call it a victory for freedom. And certainly not when they're penning love letters to lawlessness while some of us are dealing with bomb threats for the crime of defending democracy.

In their eagerness to shrink the state, they've instead succeeded in shrinking only their own relevance and respectability. They've become the useful idiots of authoritarianism, court jesters capering at the feet of would-be tyrants. History, I suspect, will not be kind to them. Nor, for that matter, will I.