This is an odd, but in some ways interesting, post.

The oddities include:

• He thinks that Nazism was “caused” by “severe deflation,” and that was the fault of markets.  Um…that would be severe INflation, as in a hyperinflation.  Which was in turn caused by government policies involving currency devaluation in an attempt to overspend.    Which was caused by the impossibly draconian terms imposed on Germany at Versaille, at the Armistice Treaty ending WWI.   Bad state actions all the way down, like turtles.
• He thinks Nazism is the same as free markets.  Wow….just….wow.  You do realize that Nazi is a shortening of Nationalsozialismus , or National Socialism, right?

Nonetheless, there are parts of this that sound like my own Hayekian socialism, as I outlined here.  (None of which is orginal with me, of course.  None.)

Most importantly, his central point is a good one.  “We” “should” (both in scare quotes, because there are problems with defining each of those terms) be in FAVOR OF LIBERTY, not just reflexively OPPOSED TO GOVERNMENT.  He’s right about that.  Well played.   Of course, that means we would actually have to think about stuff, issue by issue, and that empirical claims about consequences would have a central place in the debate.  I’m an economist, and so that makes sense to me.  For my Austrian colleagues, who “know the state is always bad, because of [insert deservedly obscure quote by Mises],” that’s not very satisfactory.

Hmmmm….must think now.

So, here’s the thing:  In principle, and in some instances, it is possible that the State is useful for advancing liberty.  Blanket dismissal of that possibility is no better than the blanket endorsement of the state, which we decry in our opponents.  If we start by saying what we are for (as I have argued elsewhere) we might find it easier to attract people who mistrust concentrations of power in any setting, whether corporate or governmental.  And those should be our people.