The Source for Freedom and Self-Reliant Information[1]
Thomas Jefferson defined rightful liberty as “unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others—I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
Utopian Fallacies – Socialism and Libertarianism
In the pursuit of a perfect society, few ideologies promise much—and deliver as little—as socialism and libertarianism. These philosophical poles, while fundamentally at odds, share one striking commonality: an unwavering belief in idealized systems that, when stripped of nuance and real-world complexity, veer into the realm of utopian fantasy.
Socialism envisions a cooperative paradise where inequality is erased and the community thrives, while libertarianism imagines an unfettered landscape of personal liberty and minimal influence by government. Both offer seductive blueprints that appeal to our hopes, frustrations and moral convictions. Yet in practice, they falter—not due to lack of passion, but because of their tendency to dismiss the messy realities of human behavior, economic unpredictability, and governance. While socialism has been tried and failed enumerable times throughout recorded history—see blog post dated July 17, 2025, What is Democratic Socialism?—libertarianism has been a philosophical and intellectual movement, not a governing system.
I consider myself to be a Jeffersonian Libertarian in that I believe in America’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, as given to us by our Founders/Framers, not as presently misinterpreted. The Libertarian Spark occurred in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, penned primarily by Thomas Jefferson, which proclaimed that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed and exist to secure unalienable rights like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or property. These ideas are deeply libertarian in spirit. However, the government that followed—especially under the Constitution—was a compromise between competing visions, including federalist and republican models. So, while 1776 lit the torch, it was not a full flame and didn’t fully carry it into a libertarian system.
In early America there was minimal government and strong property rights, especially in some frontier regions. During the 1800s under classical liberalism, there was an emphasis on free markets and limited state intervention. Today, the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction towards socialism. President Trump, after only six-months in office, has started to reverse course, swinging the pendulum slowly back towards individual liberty, private property rights, and a much smaller government.
This article was inspired by The Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) Daily, in which they criticized Dr. Milton Friedman; and have opposed President Trump’s policies and ideas to reverse course from socialism to a much more limited government, with less regulation and ultimately, the elimination of the federal income tax, replacing it with tariffs.
The FFF has been around for over 35-years and since their inception in 1989, their unwavering support of only libertarian ideals has not persuaded enough people to vote for politicians who believe in individual freedom and respect for private property rights. On the contrary, because of their complete distaste for government and their inability to compromise, either their following stays home and does not vote, or they vote for the Libertarian Candidate resulting in legislative victory for the Democratic Socialists.
In the Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) Daily post, dated July 16, 2025, Jacob Hornberger wrote a piece titled, Why Do Some Libertarians Support Socialism? He wrote, “For the life of me, I have never been able to understand why some libertarians support school vouchers. . . Libertarianism is about freedom and free markets. It is the opposite of socialism. Every libertarian is devoted to freedom and free markets and opposes socialism and socialist measures.”
Hornberger continues, “the question naturally arises: Why do some libertarians, who on the one hand support a free society, simultaneously support a program that is the opposite of a free society? How does that even make sense?”
“One possibility,” according to Hornberger, “is that such libertarians have convinced themselves that school vouchers will lead to the genuine libertarian position, which is the separation of school and state—that is, the end of all governmental involvement in education.” He then goes on to say, “That was the position of the libertarian Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006),” when in 1990, Dr. Friedman criticized Hornberger “for opposing school vouchers.”
Dr. Friedman’s response to Hornberger’s “utopian solution” was profound:
“Jacob Hornberger wrote, ‘What is the answer to socialism in public schools? Freedom.’ Correct. But how do we get from here to there? Is that somebody else’s problem? Is that a purely practical problem that we can dismiss? The ultimate goal we would like to get to is a society in which people are responsible for themselves and for their children’s schooling. And in which you do not have a governmental system. But am I a statist, as I have been labeled by a number of libertarians, because some thirty years ago I suggested the use of educational vouchers as a way of easing the transition? Is that, and I quote Hornberger again, ‘simply a futile attempt to make socialism work more efficiently’? I don’t believe that you can simply say what the ideal is. This is what I mean by the utopian strand in libertarianism. You cannot simply describe the utopian solution, and leave it to somebody else how we get from here to there. That’s not only a practical problem. It’s a problem of the responsibilities that we have.”
Hornberger then decided to put words in Dr. Friedman’s mouth—since he is no longer alive to rebut them: Friedman “obviously assumed that the adoption of school vouchers was the only way to achieve the libertarian goal of separating school and state.” Hornberger continued, “What he obviously failed to recognize is that there is another way, more direct way to achieve the separation of school and state—simply by repealing school taxes and compulsory—attendance laws and closing down the state’s educational facilities. Even better, separating school and state can be achieved by either a federal or state constitutional amendment modeled after the First Amendment: No law shall be enacted respecting the establishment of education or abridging the free exercise thereof.”
Let’s unpack Hornberger’s utopian solutions—which I strongly believe Dr. Friedman did NOT fail to recognize, since I’ve read many of his writings and used one of his books as the primary text in a Master of Economics class. Hornberger wrote, “simply” repeal school taxes, get rid of compulsory-attendance laws, and close public schools. Unbelievably naïve… “simply” repeal, get rid of and close… the political leaders at the federal, state, and local levels would never come together to repeal school taxes, get rid of compulsory-attendance laws and close the public schools, based upon the influence of their constituents to include teachers, unions, support staff, and parents of children attending public schools.
After Hornberger suggested that it would be simple to just repeal school taxes, get rid of compulsory-attendance laws and close public schools, he wrote, “Even better, separating school and state can be achieved by. . . a constitutional amendment…”
Hornberger insinuated that Dr. Friedman was unaware that a constitutional amendment was an even better option; again, a very naïve utopian view of realty or, as Dr. Friedman put it, “I don’t believe that you can simply say what the ideal solution is. . . You cannot simply describe the utopian solution, and leave [out] . . . how we get from here to there.” The most recent amendment to the U.S. Constitution—the Twenty-seventh Amendment—was proposed in 1789 by James Madison and ratified on May 7, 1992. You read that right; it took over 202 years to be officially adopted by 38 states! Hornberger’s solution of a constitutional amendment, although ideal, was not practical 35-years ago, nor is it practical today.
Of course, Hornberger was not finished with his criticism: “Friedman was wrong in his assumption that school vouchers would lead to the end of state involvement in education. School vouchers actually do the opposite—they more deeply involve the state in education.” To prove his point, he cites the city of Milwaukee, that has had a voucher program for more than 35 years and “the city still has an extremely robust public-school system.”
Libertarians, like Jacob Hornberger and his FFF organization, appear naïve and lack understanding of human nature and have not learned The Lessons of History. I, like Dr. Friedman, would relish the idea of eliminating our “government system” of schooling. But that is not reality in today’s environment and may never completely happen. What we can hope for is that parents gain greater control over their children’s education, which appears to be happening today. Dr. Friedman’s suggestion of educational vouchers was a great idea!
As of mid-2025, 15 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. have approved school voucher programs; 18 U.S. states offer Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), which are programs that allow families to use public funds for approved private education expenses like tuition, tutoring, and curriculum. Some states offer education choice credits or education tax scholarships. In total, 29 states have some form of educational assistance to help parents get their children out of failing public schools.
More importantly, homeschooling is available in all 50 states. In 2020, approximately 2.65 million students were homeschooled, jumping to 3.7 million in 2021 and reaching 4.3 million students in 2022. That’s a 63% increase from 2020-to-2022—an unprecedented surge driven largely by the COVID-19 pandemic. The reasons cited by families that decided to homeschool were: (1) Concerns about school safety and bullying; (2) a desire for customized education; (3) dissatisfaction with academic quality; and (4) increased flexibility and family time.
Homeschooling has evolved from a niche alternative to a mainstream educational choice and combined with educational vouchers and its equivalent, government-controlled schooling will have much less impact on our children as time goes on. It cannot be all or nothing as Hornberger proposes under his utopian philosophy, we must use these alternatives “as a way of easing the transition” towards more parental control with the ultimate goal of separating education from the State.
Hornberger concludes, “Libertarianism is the greatest philosophy ever conceived by man. It holds the key to extricating America from the many woes in which our nation is mired. To lead America to freedom, libertarians should be making the case for liberty, not the case for socialism.” Unfortunately, the libertarian philosophy is just that, it is an ideology that has never been put into practice because it won’t work due to human nature. Dr. Will Durant, who wrote 11 volumes on “The History of Civilization” explained that the nature of man has not changed since recorded time:
“. . . known history shows little alteration in the conduct of mankind. The Greeks of Plato’s time behaved very much like the French of modern centuries; and, the Romans behaved like the English. Means and instrumentalities changed, motives and ends remain the same.”
“Since we have admitted no substantial change in man’s nature during historic times, all technological advances will have to be written off as merely means of achieving old ends—the acquisition of goods, the pursuit of one sex by another (or by the same), the overcoming of competition, the fighting of wars. One of the discouraging discoveries of our disillusioning century is that science is neutral; it will kill for us as readily as it will heal, and will destroy for us more readily than it can build.”
Because of their resolute libertarian views, Jacob Hornberger and the Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) are against everything that President Trump and his Administration are doing. For example, they are for open borders and no tariffs.
Contrary to the open border policy promoted by FFF, Dr. Friedman famously said, “You cannot simultaneously have free immigration and a welfare state.” This reflects his concern that open borders, when combined with generous government benefits, could create unsustainable fiscal pressures. Dr. Friedman believed that in a welfare state, unrestricted immigration could lead to an influx of people seeking benefits rather than opportunities.
Another reason why an open border policy is detrimental was on full display during four years of the Biden Administration, e.g., drugs, child and female sex-trafficking, indentured servitude, criminals, gangs, and terrorists were let into our country.
The FFF is for free trade and is vehemently against Trump’s tariff policy. In a perfect world, free trade between Nations is ideal and everyone prospers. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world where American businesses have unlimited access to foreign markets. China and the European Union, along with almost every other country, impose tariffs. In addition, we now have a national security interest in bringing back manufacturing to the United States and not having to rely on other countries that want to replace us as an economic world power.
Socialism is a failed utopian philosophy that has been implemented enumerable times throughout history and has failed every time, resulting in compulsion, slavery and poverty for the masses, while the political leaders and their friends live like Kings. The opposite of Socialism is Libertarianism, the utopian belief in freedom and free markets for all, which has never existed throughout recorded history.
The closest we have come to adopting the libertarian philosophy occurred in 1776, with the Declaration of Independence where the Founders announced to the world “that all Men are created equal” and have “certain unalienable Rights” that include “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” And such rights pre-exist government and cannot be legitimately legislated away. These pre-existing rights were later enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments).
The Founders by no means were perfect and some owned slaves. However, they should be judged based upon their time in history and what they accomplished. From ancient times up through the founding of the United States, slavery and involuntary servitude were the norm; and it existed throughout the entire world. Unfortunately, even today, slavery is still very much prevalent in many parts of the world, including the United States, especially in poor neighborhoods run by criminal gangs, and the exploitation of illegal aliens.
Despite this ancient belief that certain people have a right to enslave others through government, the Founders put Americans on the right path towards freedom and the respect for private property rights. For the first 137 years of our existence, we continued to make progress towards more freedom for all. However, by 1913, with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, granting Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes on incomes,” along with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, taking away the appointment power of U.S. Senators by State legislatures, and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act (12/23/1913), creating the Central Bank of the United States, the experiment in individual freedom and respect for private property rights began its decline.
Socialism and Libertarianism are two opposite utopian fallacies. We are currently on a trajectory towards socialism which has historically resulted in “compulsion, slavery, and poverty” for the masses, while the Leaders live like Kings.
Libertarianism sounds elegant in theory, but the road to implementation is strewn with real-world friction. Here’s why:
1. Human Interdependence is Messy: Libertarianism assumes people will naturally organize themselves efficiently through voluntary interactions and markets. But real life isn’t purely transactional:
· People rely on public goods like roads, clean water, and education.
· Emergencies—like natural disasters—often demand swift, coordinated responses that decentralized systems struggle to provide.
· Free markets don’t always ensure fairness or protect vulnerable populations.
2. Conflicting Values Within Society: Most societies are pluralistic, with competing visions of the “good life:”
· Some value personal liberty above all else; others prioritize community, equity, or tradition.
· Implementing libertarianism requires sidelining many of these values in favor of strict individualism, which rarely satisfies everyone.
3. Power Dynamics Don’t Disappear: Libertarianism argues for minimal government, but that doesn’t mean no power:
· Economic inequality can concentrate influence in private hands—sometimes even more intensely than in centralized governments.
· Without regulations, monopolies can flourish, reducing actual freedom for consumers and workers.
Libertarianism also thrives on the premise that free individuals will self-regulate; due to human nature, many people will attempt to take advantage of any situation to benefit themselves at the expense of others.
Libertarianism is a utopian fallacy, an ideal without a practical solution. It has never been implemented because of human nature. Libertarians, like Jacob Hornberger and the FFF, by their rejection of every solution presented by President Trump, as “simply a futile attempt to make socialism work more efficiently,” are pushing us more quickly towards complete socialism and ultimately, communism.
Common sense would suggest that Libertarians should support the lowering of taxes, reducing regulations, reducing federal aid to foreign countries, eliminating the Deep State, and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse within government. In addition, Libertarian organizations, like FFF, should encourage their followers to support the majority political party, the Republicans, to stop the Democrats from implementing their socialist policies. FFF should support President Trump in his efforts to roll-back socialism!
Dum Spiro Spero—While I breathe, I hope.
Slàinte mhath,
Robert (Mike) G. Beard Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL.M.
[1] Each Jeffersonian Group, LLC (www.jeffersoniangroup.com) publication is intended solely for information purposes and is not intended nor does it purport to provide legal, tax, individual investment advice, estate planning advice, medical advice, insurance, or business advice. In addition, information and analysis is compiled from sources believed to be reliable but such accuracy cannot be guaranteed. Readers should do their own research and consult with expert medical, legal, tax, insurance, business, and financial counsel before taking any action. Copyright © 2025 Jeffersonian Group, LLC