I sounded rough on Peter, but I loved Zero to One. It's one of the best non-fiction books I've read in years. I think he's right on most things. I still sympat

I sounded rough on Peter, but I loved Zero to One. It's one of the best non-fiction books I've read in years. I think he's right on most things. I still sympathize with the end goal of libertarianism: a society in which force and fraud are relegated to history. The problem is that we are nowhere even close to that. Our world is still absolutely ruled by force and deception. Governments are basically large gangs of people with big guns and their authority and power comes from their willingness to use them. When you pluck isolated ideas out of some future moral utopia and try to apply them here and now, you run into problems around unintended consequences. Getting from here to there requires deeper thinking that takes context into account. We have to chart a course from our current state of affairs to one that is more civilized. In more concrete terms: when you take a world that's ultimately run by violent gangsters and then take away compensatory "hacks" like wealth redistribution and regulation and public goods expenditures, what you end up with is actually a step back from the kind of future humanistic libertarianism actually envisions. It's basically unilateral disarmament. The gangsters are now free to get more powerful, and they will not return the favor.