Maybe it’s being on Reddit but I feel that a good number of Libertarians have a hard time liking the United States. I want to start to say that I can understand as there are a number of things you can point to: the current administration’s failure to do almost anything it has promised and kowtowing to a foreign government, to the vast regulatory state, to overthrowing democracies in the name of democracy, to the Banana Wars, to the Fed, etc… There is probably little you can surprise me with as I am an avid student of American history and, to me, the mere existence of any state is criminal. However, despite all of this, I am proud to be an American. The good this country has brought to this world far outweighs the bad. It is no coincidence that Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” came out the same year as the Declaration of Independence and the nation’s early embrace of free markets and minimal regulation in the 19th and early twentieth centuries led to an unprecedented growth of wealth globally. Simply put, the modern world could not exist without American ideals and values. Even as late as the nineties, the lack of regulation in Silicon Valley made digital innovation possible (it’s hard to fathom that today) leading to the internet that we know today for better and for worse.

The American Revolution inspired the overthrow of many monarchies and decolonization throughout the world to the point that constitutional democracy is almost the de facto government around the world. Despite what so many online say about “freedom” and other nations, you are hard pressed to find any other nation on earth who has as much free speech as Americans do (I am sorry, but any country that has a hate speech law does not have free speech). The truth is that we live in one of, if or the greatest era in human history in terms of poverty, hunger, and safety and this has mainly been due to American economic principles from its foundation and the “Pax Americana” that has existed since 1945.

Sure, is our government illegitimate just like every other government on earth? Yes, but at least it was founded on the principle that it is illegitimate and that citizens need protection. So, grab a beer and give a toast to some of the most consequential 250 years in human history. Happy Birthday America !

Imagine three equally capable people in 2008.

The first spends one free hour every day promoting libertarianism: reading theory, writing posts, arguing online, persuading people, and fighting against the state.

The second simply focuses on his career and business.

The third cooperates with the state: he joins the political or bureaucratic establishment, receives government contracts, licenses, connections, privileged information, cheap capital, and access to protected markets. He may even actively oppose libertarian reforms because they threaten his position.

Over eighteen years, the first person invests roughly 6,000 hours in an idea.

The second and third invest those same hours in money, property, and influence.

Now consider the two possible outcomes.

The state survives

The libertarian activist loses.

He spent thousands of hours fighting for a reform that never happened.

The ordinary entrepreneur accumulated capital.

The political insider accumulated capital, connections, assets, and political influence. He earned the highest return precisely because he cooperated with the system and helped prevent it from changing.

Libertarianism wins

It may seem that the activist has finally won.

But the new system does not reset the game.

The money, real estate, companies, connections, information, and managerial experience accumulated under the state do not disappear.

The political establishment enters the new market economy not as a defeated class, but as a wealthy one.

Its members can buy privatized infrastructure, land, companies, housing, media outlets, arbitration services, and private security.

Their networks will not disappear either. Former officials, bankers, government contractors, and owners of state-protected monopolies already know one another and already know how to coordinate.

And what does the person who spent eighteen years fighting for libertarianism receive?

He is not entitled to any share of the new society.

Nobody compensates him for his 6,000 hours.

Nobody gives him an advantage over the people who fought against his ideas.

He is simply told:

>

And he must compete against people who accumulated capital while he was building a free market for them at no cost.

He may even end up working for a former government contractor who spent decades opposing libertarianism, but then used money earned through the state to buy assets in the new libertarian society.

The payoff matrix therefore looks like this:

Strategy	The state survives	Libertarianism wins
Promote libertarianism	Wasted time	Freedom without capital
Accumulate capital	Greater wealth	Greater opportunity
Cooperate with the state and resist reform	Maximum rent and influence	Capital and networks carry over into the new system

Even fighting against libertarianism may be more profitable than fighting for it.

If the state survives, the political establishment keeps its rents.

If libertarians win, the political establishment enters their society with money, property, connections, and organizational superiority.

It can lose politically and still win economically.

The libertarian activist can win politically and still lose economically.

This is not merely a free-rider problem. The system rewards the counter-player: the person who exploited the state, resisted reform, and then captured a large part of the benefits created by someone else’s victory.

The incentive structure of socialist activism is different.

A union, party, or cooperative can reward its participants before any final political victory: with higher wages, legal protection, financial assistance, bargaining power, jobs, positions, or a stake in a collective institution.

The stronger the socialist movement becomes, the more resources it can potentially distribute among the people who helped build it.

A libertarian movement, by contrast, effectively dissolves its own coalition after victory:

>

Socialism at least attempts to reward cooperation.

Libertarianism rewards the accumulation of private capital—even when that capital was accumulated through state privilege and through active resistance to libertarianism itself.

The rational strategy is therefore:

>

So who has a commercial incentive to promote libertarianism at all?

Why should a rational person spend eighteen years building a system in which the main prize goes to the people who exploited the state, fought against reform, and accumulated capital while he was arguing on Reddit?

Libertarians build the free market. Their opponents accumulate the money required to buy it after the libertarians win.

In the end, those who fought against freedom inherit it as owners.

Those who fought for freedom inherit it as employees.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about 7-OH itself, I'm more interested in the regulatory process. Two months ago the administration was talking about approving natural 7-OH and now the DEA is proposing Schedule I. Do you think emergency scheduling is the right approach, or would a framework based on quality standards, labeling, age restrictions, and enforcement against unsafe products be more appropriate?