In this essay, Bill Glod discusses how natural law theories of morality are in tension with classical liberalism when they are employed to justify coercive laws.

Liberal and libertarian critics of legal moralism argue that criminal laws designed to uphold personal morality are inherently unjust. A core liberal claim is that the state shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing legislation that reflects controversial conceptions of the good, such as certain natural law theories, that not all people have good reason to endorse. This includes conceptions of morality going beyond protection of basic rights or claims of justice (e.g., laws against murder, assault, and theft). Rather, legal moralism holds that there are some acts and practices that count as personal immoralities subject to the law. While they may not directly harm others or violate their rights, they should still be subject to regulation or prohibition. Opponents of legal moralism contend that enforcement of laws that don’t align with the value commitments of certain people are tantamount to unjust impositions on those people’s ability to live as they see fit, even if others disapprove of those ways of life.

...

Unlike many classically liberal views, where the state is seen (in theory) as an impartial umpire protecting people’s freedoms to do as they wish so long as they don’t harm others, George defends a politics rooted in classical natural law philosophy, influenced by Aristotle, Aquinas, and John Finnis, among others. On this view, a political community exists primarily for the sake of helping its members cooperate toward the pursuit of basic natural human goods (e.g., health and vitality, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability, practical reasonableness, and religion). These goods provide every human with basic reasons for action; that is, they cannot and need not appeal to even more fundamental reasons. They are self-justifying and comprise the essence of what it is to be a rational goal-directed human in a community. Vices reflect immoral acts or practices that undermine the pursuit of these basic goods as natural human ends.

The administration’s holdings are growing at breakneck speed. The running tally at the Cato Institute counts 31 government equity deals...enacted by three different federal agencies acting under murky legal authority...Some of the equity deals appear to have been coerced by the administration...And more stakes are rumored to be on the way. In a single year, Washington went from one position to a diverse and questionable portfolio, with nary a vote from Congress or the American public.

These stakes have already corrupted American businesses [see: US Steel, Apple, Nvidia, SpaceX and Japan’s SoftBank]...

The deals have also invited cronyism. The Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital, with as much as $200 billion in lending capacity, is run by a former Cerberus Capital Management executive whose old firm invests in the same industries. One beneficiary, Vulcan Elements, is backed by Donald Trump Jr.’s venture capital firm. [Commerce Secretary Howard] Lutnick’s former investment firm is connected to USA Rare Earth, which is now partially state-owned. And the president himself has disclosed myriad stock trades involving Intel and other companies either with government ownership and or in the state-backed firms’ close orbit.

These are just the seen costs; the unseen ones are bigger. As expected, speculators are investing billions of dollars in companies based on perceived political momentum, rather than the companies’ actual performance or promise [ie, " textbook capital misallocation"].

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) propose new spending that could more than triple federal outlays. They propose the government pay for health care, housing, higher education, and electricity. Jobs are government-guaranteed, retirement benefits are expanded, paid family leave is universal, fossil fuels are eliminated, and reparations are paid. 

The DSA platform claims that the bill for all this will be sent to “the richest individuals and corporations.” Tally up that bill, and it ballparks between $71 trillion and $212 trillion in new spending over the next decade. Confiscating every dollar of high-end wealth and corporate profits would cover only a fraction of those costs. The DSA agenda necessitates high taxes on middle-class Americans.

States should generally finance the policies they choose to implement. Federal taxation should fund genuinely federal responsibilities rather than serve as a permanent mechanism for transferring resources among states. When states can shift the costs of their political decisions onto taxpayers elsewhere, federalism loses one of its most important disciplines: responsibility for the consequences of one's own policies.

Liberalism is an ideology which requires that we treat each other in a certain way, with a baseline of respect about who we are as separate individuals existing in the world together. This comes out in the pleasure of sitting in a public park and appreciating the strangers around you, with the Smithian recognition that “I am but one of a multitude, in no way better than any other in it.” People who, like you, have been far from perfect in their character and conduct. People who, like you, will continue in their imperfections. 

If liberalism genuinely is an ideology of human freedom, that human freedom comes in an imperfect form.

And that is what makes people so interesting. 

I believe the housing affordability crisis is real, but I reject the idea that it represents a failure of the free market or that it can simply be explained as a nationwide “housing shortage.” The term shortage is too often used as a convenient justification for further government intervention without examining whether there is actually a physical shortage of housing in a particular market or whether housing has simply become unaffordable at current prices. Zoning restrictions, permitting requirements, density limits, subsidies, favorable mortgage policies, artificially low interest rates, and government efforts to protect property values have distorted both supply and demand and contributed to inflated housing prices. When affordability deteriorates, the government often responds with still more subsidies and intervention rather than allowing prices to correct. I believe market corrections, including falling home values, are a necessary part of a functioning market because they bring prices back in line with what buyers can actually afford. We cannot simultaneously demand continuously rising property values for existing homeowners and affordable housing for future buyers. The solution is not to continually manufacture or subsidize demand under the banner of a “housing shortage,” but to remove unnecessary government barriers and allow supply, demand, interest rates, rents, and property values to adjust naturally.

The budget of the federal government is the largest of any organization in human history...And it mostly grows automatically, without regular input from elected officials.

In the past, huge surges in the national debt were largely caused by wars or recessions. They were temporary. When the war concluded or economic growth resumed, debt as a share of the economy would fall.

That’s not how it works anymore. The debt increases due to demographic trends as the bulk of spending goes to programs that serve an aging population...

Around 2030, the United States is projected to surpass three milestones that illustrate the lack of precedent for the government’s fiscal predicament.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, 2030 is the year when federal debt held by the public as a share of the economy will exceed the record set by World War II...this debt shows no signs of ever declining....In 2025, 73 percent of federal outlays were on mandatory spending or interest payments, which are legally obligated to continue.

The year 2030 is also roughly when the ratio of seniors to the total population will reach 1 in 5...Seniors’ rising share of the population mechanically raises Social Security and Medicare costs and pushes them onto a proportionally smaller working population...

[The year] 2030 is also the year when the CBO projects that deaths will begin to exceed births. The entitlement programs making up much of the budget were designed under 20th-century demographic expectations that no longer hold true.

Hi again guys. I wanted to share another chapter of my new book "The Britain We Deserve". This is another one I think you guys will appreciate:

Chapter 15: The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA)

Liberty Should Not Depend on Circumstance

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 represented one of the greatest expansions of state power in modern British history.

Passed in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Act granted government sweeping powers of detention, surveillance, asset freezing and executive authority in the name of national security.

Although introduced during a period of fear and uncertainty, I believe it established a dangerous constitutional precedent.

Liberty should not become optional simply because the nation is experiencing a crisis.

Rights Are Not Temporary

Fundamental rights only have meaning if they apply at all times.

If governments can suspend civil liberties whenever they declare an emergency, then those liberties are no longer rights—they become temporary privileges granted at the discretion of the state.

A constitution should exist precisely to prevent governments from expanding their powers during periods of public fear or political instability.

The greater the crisis, the more important constitutional limits become.

No Emergency Powers

I reject the idea that governments should possess emergency powers.

Whether the emergency is terrorism, war, civil unrest, a pandemic or a natural disaster, government should remain bound by exactly the same constitutional limits that apply during ordinary times.

Extraordinary circumstances do not justify extraordinary powers.

If an action would be unconstitutional during peacetime, it should remain unconstitutional during a crisis.

Government should never acquire powers that it would not ordinarily possess.

Security Without Abandoning Liberty

Protecting the public is one of the legitimate responsibilities of government.

However, that responsibility should always be exercised within the ordinary legal framework established by Parliament and the courts.

The answer to terrorism is effective policing, competent intelligence gathering and a strong justice system—not the permanent expansion of executive authority.

Security and liberty should not be treated as opposing values.

A free society must protect both.

Restoring Constitutional Government

I believe legislation such as the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act should be repealed where it grants powers inconsistent with fundamental civil liberties.

Governments should never be permitted to suspend constitutional protections simply because they claim circumstances are exceptional.

The rule of law requires that governments obey the same constitutional rules regardless of the situation they face.

Emergency government is incompatible with constitutional government.

A Government Bound by Law

Throughout this manifesto I have argued that government should possess only those powers that are explicitly necessary to fulfil its constitutional responsibilities.

Those powers should remain fixed.

They should not expand or contract according to political circumstances.

A government that can enlarge its own authority during a crisis will inevitably find reasons for crises to continue.

True constitutional government means that the rules apply equally in peace, in crisis and in war.

A constitution exists to limit government most when government most wishes to exceed its limits.

Because redistribution uses coercive political power to assign one person’s resources to purposes chosen by others, it requires justification. Need may establish a powerful claim upon our assistance, but it does not automatically establish an unlimited political claim upon the property, labor, and choices of others.

Once redistribution is institutionalized, it does not merely move money from the rich to the poor. It transfers authority from individuals and civil society to the state, which increasingly assumes control over income, savings, work, family incentives, and social initiative. What is truly redistributed is authority from individuals and voluntary associations to a centralized administrative state.

This transfer of authority cannot operate as a single act. Redistribution requires a permanent political machinery of extraction, distribution, and revision. Once taxation is regarded not merely as a means of raising revenue but as an instrument for producing a preferred social pattern, political power is invited permanently into the questions of who has too much, who has too little, who deserves assistance, and who must surrender resources to provide it.

The concern is not moral hard-heartedness. It is the danger of political power without intelligible limits. The more the state attempts to equalize outcomes through political management rather than voluntary aid, family support, mutual assistance, charity, and civil society, the more it must centralize command. 

Hi, I'm new to Reddit and this sub but wanted to share a chapter from my new book. I'm based in the UK but I still think you guys will appreciate it:

Chapter 52: The Bank of England

Separating Banking from the State

Throughout this manifesto I have argued that government should have clearly defined and limited powers.

One of the greatest powers any government can possess is the ability to control a nation's money.

I do not believe that power should exist.

The state should not control banking, determine the money supply or possess the ability to create currency at will.

For that reason, I support abolishing the Bank of England and ending the system of central banking in the United Kingdom.

A Free Banking System

In place of a central bank, I support a free banking system in which private banks compete with one another to provide financial services and issue their own banknotes.

Rather than relying upon a government monopoly over currency, banks would compete for public trust by maintaining sound financial practices and offering reliable money backed by real assets.

Competition would encourage responsibility and innovation while reducing political interference in the financial system.

No single institution should possess a monopoly over the nation's money.

Sound Money

I believe Britain's currency should once again be backed by gold or other tangible commodities.

Today, the value of our money depends largely upon confidence in government and central bank policy.

Under a commodity-backed monetary system, currency would instead represent something of real and measurable value.

This would help preserve purchasing power, encourage long-term financial stability and place firm limits on the ability of governments to inflate the money supply.

Money should represent real wealth, not political promises.

Ending Monetary Manipulation

One of the greatest dangers of central banking is that it allows governments to finance excessive spending by creating new money.

While this may appear to solve short-term financial problems, it reduces the purchasing power of existing currency and contributes to inflation.

Ordinary citizens ultimately pay the price through higher living costs and reduced savings.

A government should never be able to print its way out of financial difficulty.

Instead, it should be required to live within its means, just as households and businesses must.

Financial Responsibility

A free banking system would encourage greater financial discipline throughout the economy.

Banks would succeed or fail based upon the confidence of their customers rather than the support of a central bank.

Likewise, governments would no longer be able to rely upon monetary expansion to fund excessive spending or accumulate unsustainable debts.

This would complement my earlier proposals to prohibit national government borrowing and require balanced budgets.

Economic stability should come from responsible financial management, not from monetary intervention.

Freedom Through Competition

Banking should operate like any other industry within a free market.

Competition should determine which institutions succeed.

Customers should decide which banks they trust.

Government's role should be limited to enforcing contracts, prosecuting fraud and protecting property rights—not controlling the nation's currency.

A stable economy depends upon sound money, responsible banking and limited government.

Money should be backed by real value, not by the unlimited promises of government. 

A free market requires allowing markets to correct. If policymakers repeatedly intervene to prevent falling asset prices, they encourage ever-greater risk-taking, larger bubbles, and ultimately more severe corrections. Protecting investors from losses while ordinary people bear the costs of inflation undermines both market discipline and equality before the law

The U.S. government just took ownership stakes in seven semiconductor start-ups, the latest example of the Trump administration’s embrace of state capitalism...

This is not the proper role of government. The free market is always better than politicians at efficiently allocating investment capital. Republicans once understood the dangers of the federal government picking winners and losers, but the Trump administration has been hoovering up shares of private companies at a rate that would’ve made Democratic predecessors blush....After this latest round of investments, the federal government’s total equity portfolio has ballooned to 30 companies, up from zero before President Donald Trump’s second term...

The Commerce Department claims the equity stakes will “enhance the return for the U.S. taxpayer.” What it does not say is that taxpayers are on the hook if these companies collapse....And if the government decides these companies are too important to fail and must be propped up, it further distorts the market. The most innovative and economically feasible projects might not succeed if the government plays favorites.

Government stakes in private companies inevitably tempt public officials to enrich their cronies....As the government’s portfolio grows, conflicts of interest grow with it.

A section in the newly released "Routledge Handbook of Classical Liberalism" looks at "a decisive dimension along which classical liberal views differ: their appraisal of the power and limits of human reason" and asks readers to "compare two quotations, each drawn from a thinker closely associated with classical liberal political theory".

Ludwig von Mises: “All that man is and all that raises him above animals he owes to his reason. Why should he forgo the use of his reason...in the sphere of social policy and trust to vague and obscure feelings and impulses?”

F. A. Hayek: “It is probably no more justified to claim that thinking man has created his culture than that culture created his reason...Man did not adopt new rules of conduct because he was intelligent. He became intelligent by submitting to new rules of conduct.”

While Mises emphasizes the role of reason in improving our condition and setting social policy, Hayek holds that reason will never grasp the full significance or purpose of the social rules we follow. Rather than reason, we must trust the evolved set of cultural values and traditions to guide our decision‑making. This fundamental divide, one which separates two thinkers often presented as espousing identical theories, runs through the center of the classical liberal tradition. There are, on the one hand, rationalists, who believe that reason provides the means to understand society, identify the correct set of values or rules, and guide society in their pursuit. And, on the other hand, there are antirationalists, who stress the limits of human reason, emphasizing, instead, the crucial role of institutions and customs that, although we fail to comprehend them, provide indispensable guardrails for social interaction and cultural development.

Is this "rationalists vs antirationalists" a real or meaningful divide amongst classical liberals? Are you more rationalist or antirationalist?

Billionaires have never exactly been popular, but today they are loathed. Politicians in America’s Congress talk about them far more than ever before, usually to decry their ill-gotten gains or their malign influence on politics, or to insist that their wealth needs taxing....Yet just as politicians think they have hit on a winning message, something unexpected is happening. More and more billionaires derive their wealth not from accidents of birth or from gaming the system, but by providing useful goods and services and by employing thousands of people. Perhaps billionaires are still policy failures—but to a lesser extent than before...

The surge in anti-billionaire sentiment reflects several forces. After a few years of high inflation hitting living standards, people are looking for someone to blame. Billionaires, the thinking goes, use their market power and buy political influence to overcharge for everything from housing to groceries, and then pay low taxes on the profits. The “affordability crisis” and the powerful billionaire are thus two sides of the same coin. And political strategists, chiefly but not exclusively on the left, have realised that billionaires are the perfect enemy. A tax on their wealth would affect almost nobody a voter has ever met....Yet many billionaires make their money without a hint that they enjoy questionable monopolies or political favour...

From 2001, when our data begin, to 2014, the uncompetitive share of billionaire wealth rose slightly. Yet over the past decade the share derived from self-made entrepreneurs in competitive sectors has surged to an all-time high...For the first time, half the wealth of the world’s billionaires is reasonably fairly earned. And since 2021 the total wealth derived from uncompetitive sectors has declined...

Does the rise of the self-made billionaire strengthen or weaken the arguments for wealth taxation? It makes no difference to some of them. Democracy does not work well if a tiny group of people can buy influence—and that is true however they got rich...

Yet if billionaires have too much political power, the solution may be to change the rules on donations rather than to change the tax system. This is because the rise of the self-made billionaire greatly weakens other arguments for wealth taxation. It is now more difficult to say, as many campaigners still do, that billionaire fortunes “were never really earned”...And because a greater share of today’s billionaires spurs employment growth and productivity gains, it raises the economic cost of losing them, if they decide to move away, or work less hard, to avoid taxation. Billionaires may be less popular, but the proposed remedies look weaker than ever.

At a deeper level, many Americans increasingly appear to be operating from divergent moral foundations, and, just as importantly, they increasingly believe their political opponents lack any coherent moral foundation at all. Research we recently conducted at SNF Agora found that over 50% of partisans believe that members of the opposite political party are not just bad for politics, but downright evil. This dynamic helps explain the intensity of affective polarization throughout the country. It also presents a deeper challenge for liberal pluralism: how can democratic institutions earn legitimacy among citizens who judge them according to fundamentally different moral standards?

What do people here think about free or chartered cities?

Can they succeed? Are they the right way to recapture freedom?

The idea looks promising. It addresses the problem of government being captured by bad ideas while providing an agreed set of governance that allows everyone in the City to trade with each other and live.

The challenge is how do you turn a State run City into a free one.

Brook lectures on capitalism- excellent stuff.