Recently, I critiqued the work of Matt Zwolinski, a professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego. Here’s the article that sparked the debate.
My critique was pretty acerbic, which readers might recall.
I admitted in the comments of this article that:
I was in the mood to wrestle when I wrote this and, in terms of tone, I was harsh. Matt Zwolinski is a lovely person and a gentleman. While I still don't disagree with all of his piece, I treated him as an avatar for so much of contemporary libertarianism, especially libertarians working in higher education and the Beltway.
Instead of writing something equally acerbic, Zwolinski reached out in the spirit of good discourse and said, “Let’s talk!”
“Okay! Wanna talk on my new podcast?” I replied.
He agreed.
In a wide-ranging discussion, libertarian philosopher Matt Zwolinski and political theorist Max Borders tackle a fundamental question that has divided the movement for human freedom:
How should advocates of limited government approach the practical task of rolling back the state?
The Core Disagreement
The debate centers on whether freedom advocates should embrace rapid, "chainsaw" approaches to cutting government or pursue more measured, theoretically grounded strategies.
Borders advocates for seizing political windows when they open, even if the cuts appear "willy-nilly," arguing that the state grows through well-understood processes explained, in great measure, by public choice analysis.
Zwolinski counters that how we shrink government matters as much as whether we shrink it, warning against approaches that could undermine the rule of law or concentrate power.
DOGE vs. Milei: A Tale of Two Approaches
The conversation highlights stark differences between Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Argentina's proposed reforms by Javier Milei. Zwolinski expresses skepticism about DOGE, viewing it as partisan theater rather than genuine libertarian reform. He contrasts this with Milei, whom he sees as a committed libertarian economist with both the knowledge and authority to implement systematic changes.
"DOGE was never really a libertarian reform movement," Zwolinski argues. "It was never about fundamentally shrinking the state."
He criticizes the focus on waste, fraud, and abuse, noting that while $100 billion in faulty Medicaid payments sounds significant, such inefficiencies represent a small fraction of total government spending and don't address broader regulatory overreach.
The Problem of Selective Enforcement
A central tension emerges around the question of equal treatment under law. Borders uses a vivid metaphor: if someone is "covered in ticks and leeches," why object to removing only the ticks while leaving the leeches? He argues that partial victories are better than no progress at all.
Zwolinski acknowledges this pragmatic point but raises concerns about "arbitrary or selective enforcement" that could undermine the rule of law. He distinguishes between normal political selectivity—Republicans prioritizing tax cuts, Democrats favoring environmental legislation—and more troubling patterns that appear designed to consolidate power or target political opponents.
State Capacity and the Minarchist Dilemma
The discussion reveals Zwolinski's evolution toward valuing "state capacity"—the idea that if government has legitimate functions, it must be capable of performing them well. This creates a dilemma for libertarians: simply "stripping functions from the state willy-nilly" might undermine its ability to perform essential tasks like policing or national defense.
This perspective puts Zwolinski at odds with more anarchist-leaning thinkers, such as Borders, who advocates for "asymptotic anarchy"—gradually subjecting government functions to market competition rather than maintaining monopolistic state provision.
The Challenge of Reasonable Expectations
Perhaps the most complex issue the duo discuss is how to handle programs like Social Security, where people have been forced to pay in for decades and have built retirement plans around the expected benefits. Zwolinski's concept of "reasonable expectations" suggests that abruptly ending such programs, even if they violate classical liberal principles, creates moral complications that pure rights-based analysis might miss.
Borders pushes back on this framework, arguing it creates endless justifications for maintaining the status quo. He contends that those who benefit from rights violations shouldn't have their expectations privileged over the rights of those being violated.
The Political Reality Problem
Both participants grapple with the harsh realities of political change. Borders argues that moments for significant reform are rare and must be seized aggressively, even imperfectly. The alternative—waiting for ideal conditions or perfect theoretical frameworks—may mean never achieving meaningful change.
Zwolinski doesn’t entirely disagree but emphasizes that sustained reform requires more than just cutting programs. It requires building systems that resist the natural tendency toward government growth that public choice theorists like Mancur Olson have documented.
Moving Forward
Despite their disagreement about the means, both thinkers share fundamental goals: reducing government overreach, protecting individual liberty, and creating more flourishing societies. Their debate highlights the ongoing challenge within classical liberal circles of balancing principled idealism with pragmatic politics.
The conversation suggests that effective state reduction might require multiple approaches: seizing opportunities when they arise while also building theoretical frameworks and institutional safeguards that make reforms durable. Whether through Milei-style "chainsaw" methods or more gradual approaches, the urgent question remains how to reverse what both see as the inexorable growth of government power.
