At first glance, libertarianism appears to be a particularly thriving school of thought in the United States today. However, this excessively American-centric vision of this school of thought obscures part of its history. Could you return to the transatlantic history of libertarianism?
JOHN TOMASI
While postwar American libertarians such as Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard have significantly influenced modern perceptions of libertarianism, a closer look at its origins reveals a distinctly European genesis for the doctrine. This transatlantic journey highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of the historical development of libertarianism.
Libertarianism, often seen through the American lens as a philosophy defending individual freedom, has deeper roots that go beyond the context of the United States alone. Its conceptualization, contrary to popular belief, was not born in America, but in Western Europe. Herbert Spencer in England, Frédéric Bastiat in France, and Gustave de Molinari, a Belgian who worked mainly in France, were central figures of this period. They developed and radicalized the principles of classical liberalism, as defended by Adam Smith and John Locke, into a more ideologically rigorous and logically coherent school of thought. This transformation occurred in the middle of the 19th century, when Europe was experiencing a new revolutionary upsurge, socialism was emerging as a political-moral ideal and a clear statist tendency was asserting itself.
In 1849, Gustave de Molinari published the landmark On the Production of Security . It was an innovative text in that it proposed that markets could efficiently produce government services. For him, to the extent that markets were capable of producing everyday consumer goods such as soap or food, they could also manage services traditionally monopolized by the state, such as security, policing and judicial functions. Molinari’s hypothesis, radical in its implications, suggested a shift toward market provision of essential societal functions, paving the way for what he envisioned as a form of “anarchic capitalism.” This concept has since then been a recurring theme in libertarian thought, illustrating the evolution of its philosophy and its break with classical liberalism.
Libertarianism emerged in the middle of the 19th century, when Europe was experiencing a new revolutionary upsurge, socialism was emerging as a political-moral ideal and a clear statist tendency was asserting itself. JOHN TOMASI
We must therefore keep in mind that emblematic libertarians like Ayn Rand, whose novels defend individual freedom and self-interest, or Milton Friedman, who promoted the market economy on his television show, have well shaped the American conception of libertarianism, but that this conception is relatively recent and above all anchored in the Cold War era. In fact, the roots of libertarianism are firmly anchored in the intellectual soil of 19th century Europe.
Contemporary libertarianism also stems from the immigration of European thinkers to the United States, such as Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand. To what extent have they reshaped American libertarianism? What did their experience of history — and in particular of the European traumas of the first half of the 20th century — bring to the libertarian project?
MATT ZWOLINSKI
The transformative impact of European intellectual immigration on American libertarianism cannot be overemphasized, particularly through figures such as Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand. This influence was exerted both directly, through the arrival of European thinkers on American soil, and indirectly, through the dissemination of their ideas in books, translations and articles.
In reality, the phenomenon did not emerge in the 1930s. By the end of the 19th century, American libertarianism, represented by figures such as Benjamin Tucker and his Liberty magazine ( 1881-1908), was already absorbing European ideas. Apparently surprisingly, Proudhon’s philosophy profoundly influenced Tucker, as evidenced by Tucker’s adoption of Proudhon’s perspective that order is a consequence, not a cause, of social dynamics. Additionally, Max Stirner, the German philosopher of dialectical egoism, also had a significant impact on this early libertarian cohort.
The transformative impact of European intellectual immigration on American libertarianism cannot be overemphasized.MATT ZWOLINSKI
This infusion of European thought laid the foundation for more radical change in the 20th century. The arrival of thinkers like Hayek, Rand, and Ludwig von Mises brought direct experience of state socialism, a relatively little-known phenomenon in the United States. Their experiences and thoughts reshaped the American libertarian perspective, particularly regarding the perception of socialism.
Indeed, before this turning point, early American libertarians did not view state socialism as a major threat to liberty. Some even defined themselves as socialists. They believed in a form of socialism that emphasized community sharing and voluntary association, unlike state-driven models. During the 20th century, the direction of American libertarianism shifted dramatically in response to the rise of large-scale, state-controlled socialism. This shift resulted in a significant reorientation of libertarian priorities, from a broad range of issues such as the abolition of slavery, anti-imperialism, women’s rights, and religious freedom, to opposition focused on socialism.
As a result, the political orientation of libertarianism underwent a notable transformation. While 19th-century American libertarianism was a progressive and radical ideology, the 20th century saw it increasingly align with political conservatism, primarily due to its anti-socialist stance. This alignment was not only ideological, but also influenced by the evolving relationships between libertarianism and various institutional structures, think tanks, and funding agencies. The need to adapt one’s message to remain relevant and attractive in changing institutional environments has played a crucial role in shaping modern libertarian discourse.
JOHN TOMASI
When examining the place of Europe in American libertarian thought, it is essential to return to the mid-19th century, the period of formation of libertarian ideas in the United States. American libertarians of this era were deeply influenced by the philosophy of John Locke, particularly his views on individual ownership and property rights. They vehemently opposed slavery, which they saw as a profound violation of individual freedom.
These libertarians were not only anti-slavery, they also critically examined the nature of wage labor and capitalism, which they saw as oppressive. Their skepticism extended to the very structure of capitalist society and they even experimented with forms of voluntary communism. Proudhon’s influence on the development of the early libertarian moment in the United States, particularly in his critical stance toward state socialism and unbridled capitalism, is an important, and often underappreciated, aspect of the libertarian history.
In its radicalism, libertarianism sometimes has more in common with anarchism than with classical liberalism, even if it is partly derived from the latter. This raises a fundamental question: how can we move beyond the pursuit of the minarchist utopia to actually begin to realize the libertarian project?
MATT ZWOLINSKI
The intersection between libertarianism and radical ideologies, particularly anarchism, was the subject of intense debate among contributors to Liberty magazine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These thinkers, closer to social anarchists like Emma Goldman than to mainstream political parties, strove to move from utopian ideals to the practical implementation of libertarian principles. The moral position towards the state was at the heart of these debates. Many early American libertarians, close to anarchism, strongly opposed any cooperation with the state, which they saw as inherently violent and oppressive. This opposition extended to the act of voting, which they considered immoral because it implicitly endorsed state authority and violence.
Faced with this philosophical position, these libertarians have largely rejected the notion of change through violence or revolution. Instead, they focused on education and long-term cultural reform as viable ways forward. They devoted themselves to publishing articles and debating, although the tangible results of these efforts were limited.
The intersection between libertarianism and radical ideologies, particularly anarchism, was the subject of intense debate in the 19th century. MATT ZWOLINSKI
However, this non-violent approach had one major exception: the fight against slavery. Despite their principled opposition to the state, many libertarians were deeply committed to the abolitionist movement. Recognizing the profound injustice of slavery, they believed in the moral imperative to actively resist and dismantle this institution, sometimes advocating armed resistance. Prominent libertarians played important roles in underground movements that provided weapons to enslaved people and supported violent rebellions against slavery. This implication highlights a complex dynamic within libertarian thought: the tension between a principled, long-term strategy and the immediate moral obligation to confront grave injustices. Radical American libertarians of the 19th century were not only theoretical proponents of abolitionism, which they aligned with constitutional principles, but they also engaged in more radical actions, advocating armed resistance against slaveholders.
The evolution of libertarianism, particularly in its transition from 19th-century radicalism to 20th-century conservatism, raises profound questions about the practical realization of libertarian ideals. Nineteenth-century libertarians faced the immense challenge of bridging the gap between their utopian vision and the social realities of their time. This struggle paved the way for a significant transformation of libertarian thought and strategy at the dawn of the 20th century. Part of this transformation has involved a strategic insertion of libertarianism into mainstream institutions and a deliberate effort to influence public policy both in the United States and internationally. A notable manifestation of this strategy was the emergence of figures like Milton Friedman and the influential role of the Chicago School of Economics and the Mont Pèlerin Society, co-founded by Friedrich Hayek. These entities played an essential role in shaping public and elite opinion, notably by advocating policies aligned with libertarian principles.
The influence of the Mont-Pèlerin Society, particularly in neoliberal circles, has been considerable. Neoliberalism, as a term, captures well the ethics emerging from this society, with key proponents such as Hayek and Friedman at the helm. Angus Burgin’s The Great Persuasion looks at the evolution of these ideas and their profound impact on global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These institutions have been instrumental in promoting trade liberalization and reforms around the world, sometimes in opposition to local public opinion.
This form of libertarianism, which overlaps with neoliberalism, represents a less radical variant and more anchored in the institutional structures of the ideology. She lacks the utopian aspirations of her more radical predecessor, but has a greater capacity to bring about substantial political change. This development highlights the ongoing tension between classical liberalism and libertarianism, highlighting the complex interplay between ideological purity and pragmatic institutional commitment.
From classical liberals to neoliberals, we find this tenacious idea that constitutions and laws have no meaning in themselves and are only inert objects; it is the customs of a people and the consent of the social body that can give them life. This analytical emphasis on “mores” – to use a Tocquevillian concept – weighs heavily in a liberal thought which links the possibility of the establishment of freedom to the attention paid to the world as it is. Hayek, a cornerstone of libertarian thought, advocates a similar idea: in Law, Legislation and Liberty , he rejects the Cartesian tradition that social institutions must be deliberately designed to be effective (defending the idea that societies must evolve naturally) . How can we reconcile this defense of a spontaneous order with the desire for radical and brutal change that drives libertarians?
JOHN TOMASI
The essence of libertarian thought, as you rightly identify, is deeply linked to respect for the spontaneous and organic order of a society, also eloquently defended by Hayek. This perspective, rooted in the Scottish Enlightenment, emphasizes humility in the face of the complexity of the world, recognizing our limited capacity to understand and control the complex web of social interactions.
This humility is one of the essential components of libertarian philosophy, which advocates a cautious approach to social change. Hayek, among others, metaphorically compares social intervention to hammering a dented plate: each attempt to rectify one problem may inadvertently cause another. This view, which emphasizes our limited understanding of all social dynamics, argues for a moderate approach to legislative and institutional changes.
The essence of libertarian thought is deeply linked to respect for the spontaneous and organic order of a society.JOHN TOMASI
Conversely, there is a more assertive current, which could be described as “inflexible”, within libertarianism. This perspective is based on two postures: moral certainty and logical rigor. It defends the idea that certain principles can be known and must be defended without compromise. For example, Molinari’s argument for the extension of market principles to all aspects of society, including functions traditionally managed by the state, contributes to this inflexible position. It posits that if markets are efficient in producing certain goods, they should, in theory, be able to manage all of society’s needs, which would negate the need for the state.
Another example is Murray Rothbard’s non-aggression axiom, a fundamental libertarian principle that affirms the immorality of using force against others. According to this axiom, aggression, whether committed by an individual or a state actor, is intrinsically evil, which reinforces the high moral standard of libertarian thought.
This question can even extend to international affairs, take the example of Richard Cobden, an important figure in mid-19th century England. Cobden fervently opposed the Corn Laws, which imposed high tariffs on grain imports, thereby raising the price of bread and benefiting the aristocracy. His advocacy of total free trade and the abolition of tariffs exemplifies the libertarian commitment to economic freedom and opposition to state-imposed market distortions.
Libertarianism navigates between these two streams: the stream of humility, which advocates a cautious approach recognizing our limited understanding of the complexities of society, and the stream of intransigence, which emphasizes moral clarity and strict application of libertarian principles, even in the face of uncertainty. This duality is a reflection of the ongoing challenge facing libertarians to reconcile the desire for radical change with the recognition of the spontaneous order inherent in the evolution of society.
MATT ZWOLINSKI
This divergence within libertarianism reflects the dichotomy that Thomas Sowell presents in A Conflict of Visions (William Morrow, 1987), between what he calls the constrained and the unconstrained view of humanity. Although a libertarian, Sowell takes a more moderate stance, criticizing the radical libertarian perspective. His analysis of William Godwin’s anarchism highlights a radical epistemological position: if an institution cannot withstand rational justification, it must be dismantled and replaced by one that can.
On the other hand, Hayek’s approach, in resonance with traditional conservatism as manifested in Edmund Burke or Michael Oakeshott, calls for caution. According to this view, failure to understand the rationale for an institution need not result in its destruction. Hayek advocates humility in the face of old institutions, recognizing that they may have evolved to serve purposes that are not immediately apparent, and therefore should not be hastily discarded.
JOHN TOMASI
Conversely, the intransigent branch of libertarianism finds a historical analogy in the French Revolution. This approach is based on the idea that social structures can be radically changed and that the behaviors and beliefs of individuals can be fundamentally transformed. The French Revolution embodied this view, advocating a complete overhaul of existing systems and traditions. Revolutionaries sought to reinvent society from the ground up, rejecting traditional structures and norms in favor of a new, ostensibly improved order.
The intransigent branch of libertarianism finds a historical analogy in the French Revolution. JOHN TOMASI
This resolute current of libertarianism, which is similar to the ethics of the French Revolution, postulates that significant and radical changes are not only possible, but also desirable. It is embodied by figures like Murray Rothbard, who represent a radical libertarian approach, advocating significant changes to the status quo in pursuit of a political ideal.
In summary, the American and French revolutions serve as historical points of comparison to grasp this internal debate within libertarianism. On the one hand, the American model reflects a more limited and evolutionary approach. On the other hand, the French model represents a revolutionary perspective without constraints. This dichotomy highlights the ongoing philosophical struggle within libertarian thought: the balance between respect for established institutions and the desire for radical, global change.
Murray Rothbard argued that there should be no “foreign policy” because there should be no state. This maximalist posture aside, is there a truly libertarian geopolitics?
MATT ZWOLINSKI
Personally, I discovered libertarianism around the age of 16, when I was sitting with my mother in our car at a stop sign and a truck was parked in front of us. It was New Hampshire, a state known for its libertarian leanings, and I noticed a simple sticker on a truck that caught my eye: “Free Trade, Free Migration, and Peace.” peace). This succinct message summarizes the key libertarian principles in geopolitical matters.
Libertarianism, inherently skeptical of the state, advocates reducing barriers between individuals and businesses on a global scale. It champions free trade as a means to promote economic freedom, supports free migration as a fundamental human right, and promotes peace by opposing militarism and violent conflict often initiated by states. These principles, derived from a libertarian perspective on statelessness, highlight a distinctive approach to global interactions.
However, the libertarian tradition is not monolithic and encompasses a variety of viewpoints. Ludwig von Mises, also an immigrant from Europe and a libertarian thinker based in New York during the Cold War, offers a different perspective in his book Liberalismus, published in 1927. He proposed the idea of a world state, believing that the Eliminating borders and trade barriers requires a global authority that ensures the freedom of every individual. This vision suggests that paradoxically the dismantling of the State should lead to the formation of a global State.
Originally, libertarianism defended free trade as a means to promote economic freedom, supported free migration as a fundamental human right, and promoted peace by opposing militarism and violent conflicts often initiated by states.MATT ZWOLINSKI
Libertarian geopolitics is both diverse and contradictory. Libertarians, in their own unique and often unorthodox way, continually engage in new explorations and debates regarding the role of the state, individual liberty, and global interactions.
These contradictions seem to have worsened since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the common enemy of all libertarians, which contributed to the dispersion of libertarian factions. How would you describe the intellectual landscape of the movement today?
MATT ZWOLINSKI
The unifying threat of socialism, as a political ideology and practice, was a defining factor for libertarianism for most of the 20th century. This common enemy has masked underlying disagreements between libertarians and conservatives, but also within the different libertarian factions.
Initially, the consensus was to prioritize the eradication of socialism, postponing other ideological debates. Among these deferred debates are the role of moral virtue in political theory, the importance of character and responsibility, and the potential role of the state in encouraging or preserving these character traits. A conservative wing of libertarianism emphasized issues of character, contrasting with a more radical and pluralist wing that warned against state enforcement of specific moral standards.
Foreign policy is another area of controversy, particularly the appropriate degree of non-interventionism. The dilemma is whether a libertarian society should actively promote freedom internationally or adopt a strictly non-interventionist stance. This debate has recently intensified, particularly in the context of global events such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Libertarians universally oppose military aggression, but are divided on how third parties should respond to international conflicts.
During the Cold War, the consensus was to prioritize the eradication of socialism, postponing other ideological debates.MATT ZWOLINSKI
These internal divisions are evident within the Libertarian Party USA, currently dominated by the Mises Caucus. Named after Ludwig von Mises, these intellectual inspirations are more likely to be found in the paleo-libertarian and paleo-conservative positions of Murray Rothbard, this group aligned itself with populist and conservative social positions. He moderated some traditionally radical libertarian positions on issues such as immigration, sexual freedom, and individual autonomy. Recently, the party’s rhetoric has undergone a notable shift, with increased attention paid to debates over transgender and gay rights, which were previously considered unimportant issues within libertarianism. This conservative trend within the party is not universally accepted, however.
It is important to note that focusing solely on the Libertarian Party risks having a truncated view of libertarianism in the United States. If the paleo-conservative tendency is predominant within the party, libertarian thought is much more diverse. Many libertarians embrace a more cosmopolitan worldview, emphasizing principles such as free trade, free migration, peace, and individual autonomy. Others, like me, align with what has been called “bleeding heart libertarianism,” which seeks to reconcile the principles of free markets and limited government with progressive ideals of social justice. This current of libertarianism even considers that concepts such as universal basic income are compatible with libertarian values.
Argentina has just elected an outspoken admirer of Murray Rothbard, who also defends ultraconservative positions on most social issues. Across the American continent, the alignment between libertarianism and certain far-right movements seems to be increasing in the United States. How can we explain it, if not by their rejection of social justice? Likewise, the case of Christopher Cantwell, Nazi-libertarian, does not seem to make sense: could you tell us how he reconciles these two tendencies?
Christopher Cantwell’s intellectual journey illustrates a perplexing change within libertarian circles. Initially a supporter of libertarian figures such as Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Cantwell has since abandoned libertarianism to embrace fascism outright. This mutation, although singular, is not entirely isolated within the libertarian movement.
A few years ago, an article introduced the idea that there was a pipeline between libertarians and the alt-right, a phenomenon that is perplexing given the stark ideological differences between the individualism of libertarianism and the collectivist nature and statist of fascism. This pathway may in part result from historical overlap between libertarian and conservative groups, which share platforms at conferences and social events. These interactions may have contributed to modifying the ideological constitution of certain libertarian platforms.
Another explanation lies in the attraction of certain individuals to radical ideologies. A personality drawn to challenging dominant narratives might initially align with libertarianism when the narrative is focused on the status quo. However, when the mainstream adopts progressive positions on issues such as racial equality or sexual rights, that same figure may rebel against those views, not because of an intellectual connection to libertarianism, but as a means of rejecting the dominant perspective.
The case of Rand Paul is revealing. Many people who identified as libertarians during his presidential campaigns later supported Donald Trump, despite deep political differences. This phenomenon suggests an attraction to populist and anti-establishment figures rather than a strict adherence to libertarian policies.
The current overlap between libertarianism and the populist ideologies of the alt-right deeply concerns me. It represents a significant deviation from the cosmopolitan ideals traditionally associated with libertarianism, a trend that I believe betrays the fundamental principles of the movement. Nonetheless, this intersection is a reality in today’s libertarian landscape.
The emergence of Javier Milei as a political figure in Argentina illustrates this complexity. Over the past two decades, no one, except perhaps Ron Paul, no libertarian has had as much influence as Milei. His rise marks arguably the most significant development in libertarian political practice since the mid-20th century.
Milei’s political personality is somewhat enigmatic. His style, which is similar to that of Donald Trump, is characterized by a sense of performance which finds a strong public response . But unlike Trump, and even Ron Paul, Milei has a formidable intellectual background as a trained economist. His wide-ranging knowledge, evidenced by quotes ranging from Jeremy Bentham and Friedrich Hayek to Antonio Gramsci, underscores a certain intellectual depth. His admiration for leaders such as Trump and Bolsonaro appears to stem not from their nationalist or anti-immigration positions, but from what he perceives as their opposition to socialism. Milei’s radical antisocialism is the lynchpin of his political philosophy.
Milei’s rise marks arguably the most significant development in libertarian political practice since the mid-20th century. MATT ZWOLINSKI
In the context of Argentina, where socialist discourse remains very present, Milei’s libertarianism is undoubtedly influenced by local dynamics. He appears to be a true libertarian, but one who tailors his interpretation of libertarian principles to appeal to both a conservative and populist base.
Some Silicon Valley figures, notably Peter Thiel , have openly expressed their fascination with a form of libertarianism that, in their case, tends toward aristocratism. Does the digital revolution mark a new era in the history of libertarian thought ?
MATT ZWOLINSKI
In our research, we particularly looked at social Darwinism, as defined by Herbert Spencer. In this case, the concept of “social Darwinism” can be somewhat misleading in the libertarian context. While they universally condemn the use of violence except in self-defense, they do not endorse the type of social Darwinism that justified imperialist colonialism in the 19th century—a position to which Spencer himself endorsed. firmly opposed.
Nevertheless, libertarian thought is characterized by an important anti-egalitarian thread. Many libertarians believe in descriptive inequality among human beings: variations in intelligence, productivity, honesty, etc. This perspective does not challenge the belief that all individuals have the same moral rights, regardless of their abilities or productivity. However, it leads to a certain skepticism towards policies aimed at equalizing results or distributing wealth. Libertarians who hold this view may also question society’s egalitarian norms, particularly those that attribute income or education disparities between racial groups solely to discrimination.
Libertarian thought is characterized by an important anti-egalitarian thread.MATT ZWOLINSKI
This anti-egalitarian stance has led some libertarians to align with groups that oppose egalitarianism, although these groups may not share libertarianism’s commitment to equal rights. An important current of libertarianism, embodied notably by thinkers like Herbert Spencer, Murray Rothbard and others, considers it not only as a framework for respecting individual rights, but also as a means for the most capable individuals in society to flourish. This elitist perspective celebrates the “great heroes of industry” and posits that a libertarian society allows the best elements of humanity to flourish.
The anti-egalitarian strand of libertarian thought, as we have already mentioned, is echoed in the work of figures such as Ayn Rand. Rand’s early writings are marked by a strong Nietzschean influence, particularly in his approach to social and political issues. This aspect of its philosophy aligns with the idea that libertarianism must not only safeguard individual rights, but also create an environment where the most exceptional individuals can flourish. Rand’s perspective highlights a form of libertarian elitism, emphasizing the importance of freedom not only as a principle of universal rights, but also as a prerequisite for the emergence of excellence from the best elements of humanity .
This search for an environment conducive to the development of the “best” is a recurring theme in certain libertarian circles. It reflects a belief in the inherent inequality of human capabilities and the consequent role of freedom in enabling the most talented and capable individuals to reach their full potential. In this light, libertarianism is seen as a means of teaching the “right” way to live, celebrating individual rather than collective excellence.
Rand’s early writings are marked by a strong Nietzschean influence, particularly in his approach to social and political issues. MATT ZWOLINSKI
However, this perspective contrasts with a more egalitarian line within libertarianism, dating back to Adam Smith. The latter emphasized the role of the institutional environment in the training of individuals, suggesting that disparities in intellectual abilities are more the result of circumstances than of innate differences. This school of thought advocates institutional changes to reshape the environment, thereby transforming human nature and addressing social ills. Early American anarchists, influenced by this view, believed that societal problems such as crime and prostitution were due not to inherent human depravity, but to the corrupting influence of existing institutions.
This egalitarian line of libertarianism, which advocates transformative change in institutions to improve human conditions, has unfortunately lost its importance, but remains an essential aspect of libertarian thought, ripe for revival.
When we look at the United States today: marijuana is legal in a growing number of states; the neoconservatives were completely defeated and the country has probably never been more anti-interventionist; same-sex marriage is now legal in all states. So, on a number of key elements, it seems that libertarian ideas are in a much better position and much better accepted today than they were 20 years ago. Do you think that, in some ways, libertarians have been able to advance their agenda more than any other political movement in the last 20 years?
It is possible to make an argument along these lines. If we compare the United States today to the United States 40 years ago, or even 50 years ago, in terms of human freedom, how free are we today compared to what was were they at the time? I think the obvious answer is that we are much freer in a number of areas. Sexual freedom has seen remarkable progress; Attitudes and legal positions toward same-sex relationships and marriage have evolved dramatically since the 1990s, when opposition was still widespread. Racial equality has also increased, with different groups now having more freedoms and opportunities.
Significant policy changes such as the abolition of the draft represent major victories from a libertarian perspective. Likewise, the deregulation of industries such as airlines and interstate trucking in the late 1970s and 1980s marked significant advances. These changes, coupled with a broader social shift toward tolerance and acceptance of diverse lifestyles, have helped create a landscape in which Americans enjoy considerably greater freedom than in the past.
Figures like Milton Friedman played a crucial role in the political changes that took place during the seventies and eighties. His ideas have permeated public policies, often adopted by decision-makers in times of crisis. This indirect influence suggests that the libertarian strategy of spreading ideas within society has been quite effective.