Speech starts off with a pretty good summary of the state and specifically its role in the 20th century, but sadly Lew seemed way too optimistic about liberty’s prospects. 9/11 really threw a monkey wrench in there. We have seen two bubbles pop since then as well. One thing that I think has improved is the number of people genuinely interested in really learning about liberty.
I wasn’t really around then, in terms of being in touch with the pulse in the libertarian community, or the political community in general.
Should we have more reason for optimism now than in 1997? Seems like a much simpler time (although I feel like people always say that about the past)
Revolutions are strange events. People are very bad at predicting them. I think its because if a bubbling revolution became obvious, the powers would do something to stop it. I remember J Tucker talking about how after the collapse of communist russia, all the other eastern euro countries were about to go up in flames too. So the elites actually voluntarily returned some power to themarket to avoid a regime change.
I don’t think we should sit around trying to predict a revolution. Some random event will precipitate it, like another 9-11 or another financial bubble. We just need to be ready for something when it happens. And it may not be good…
The only planned social change I can think of is seasteading. Hopefully that gets off the table and we can just outcompete the state.