The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

About The Volokh Conspiracy Editorial Independence Who we are Books Volokh Daily Email Archives Search DMCA RSS

Democracy

Libertarianism and Democracy

Matt Zwolinski is right to emphasize that democracy is generally superior to authoritarianism, but wrong to suggest it should be a central libertarian commitment. Moreover, recent events highlight the validity and importance of longstanding libertarian critiques of democracy's weaknesses.

Ilya Somin | 10.4.2026 4:46 PM

NA

In an insightful recent article on the Liberalism.Org website, prominent libertarian political philosopher Matt Zwolinski argues that libertarians should place a higher value on democracy:

Ask someone what a classical liberal believes, and you'll get a familiar list. Classical liberals stand for private property. They stand for free markets and limited government. They believe in the rule of law, free trade, free speech, and religious toleration. Give or take an item or two, you'll find something like this list in any textbook summary, or on the "about" page of most classical liberal think tanks. And it's a good list, as far as it goes. Each of those commitments has a long history in the tradition, and each has been defended by some of its best minds.

The problem with the list is what's not on it: democracy. It's not that classical liberals oppose democracy, exactly. Most of us don't. And almost none of us would trade it for any of the alternatives actually on offer. But democracy isn't what classical liberals are known for. It's not part of the brand. Indeed, if you spend much time in classical liberal circles, you're much more likely to hear about democracy's defects than about its accomplishments. We might tolerate democracy, but we rarely sing its praises.

My goal in this essay is to argue that democracy belongs on the list, and that it belongs there for the same reason the other items do: because it is a way of keeping power in check. Democracy's distinctive function is to keep power contestable, so that the people who hold it can be removed without violence.

I agree in part, but also differ on some key points. Libertarians should generally prefer democracy to other forms of government. But democracy should not be a first-order libertarian priority. And recent events make  libertarian critiques of democracy even more important and timely than in the past. There is also a question of comparative advantage. Most libertarian scholars and policy analysts are better-positioned to do the work of explaining why democracy needs to be constrained than to extol its virtues relative to authoritarianism. Others can do the latter task as well or better than we can.

To avoid terminological confusion, I should note that I prefer to use "libertarian," whereas Zwolinski uses "classical liberal" to denote essentially the same ideology. But nothing of significance hinges on this terminological difference. Elsewhere, I have argued that there is no meaningful distinction between "libertarian" and "classical liberal"; I prefer the former for largely esthetic reasons. But I have no beef with people who prefer "classical liberal." My reservations about Zwolinski's position lie elsewhere.

Why Democracy is (Generally) Better than Authoritarianism

First, some points of agreement. Overwhelming empirical evidence shows that people living under democratic governments are generally freer........

© Reason.com