Send us a text

What if the most subversive libertarian of the twentieth century wasn’t Hayek or Nozick, but Michel Foucault? In this episode, Rasheed and Mark Pennington dismantle the worn-out cliché of Foucault as the Left’s philosopher of suspicion and instead expose how his late work aligns disturbingly well with the libertarian project. Forget the caricature of Foucault as the theorist of discipline and surveillance. In this episode he appears as the radical voice warning that freedom erodes not just under authoritarian violence but under the bureaucrat’s file, the planner’s map, and the expert’s soothing discourse of “safety.”

By pairing Hayek’s critique of the “pretense of knowledge” with Foucault’s genealogy of “regimes of truth,” the conversation makes an explosive claim: both thinkers diagnose social engineering as a theological fantasy, a bid for God-like authority over human complexity. And if Hayek valorizes entrepreneurial discovery, Foucault demands a relentless critique of the categories that normalize us into docile bodies. The convergence? Freedom is not a polite legal boundary but a restless act of self-creation: always experimental, always at risk, and always opposed to those who claim to know better.

This episode pushes further: into Milei’s Argentina, where Foucault is suddenly a touchstone for right-wing politicians; into the culture wars, where “identity” becomes just another disciplinary cage; into Judith Butler, recast as an unwitting libertarian entrepreneur of the self. The provocation is clear: maybe libertarians abandoned Foucault too quickly, and maybe Foucauldians ignored how close their master was to undermining their own collectivist pieties. What if the true scandal is that Foucault, at his most dangerous, was never the enemy of liberalism — but its most radical ally?

Follow on Twitter

Rasheed Griffith

Mark Pennington | Mark Pennington @ King’s College

Send us a text

Rasheed sits down with IE Law Professor Adrián Rubio to unpack the complex relationship between European Union law, market liberalization, and the resulting concentration of power in Brussels. Rubio shines light on how EU law has historically opened markets across the continent, but notes the centralization of power set in motion by today’s regulatory machinery at the expense of key economic and individual freedoms.

EU Law: the Great Liberator - sectors like telecoms, airlines, and energy have benefitted greatly from reforms, but today much of that power is centralized in Brussels, raising concerns about freedom.

EU Technocracy vs. EU Democracy - while technocrats can help push through pro-market reforms, the European Parliament’s growing power has often fueled regulation and politicization instead of economic liberty.

Tool of last resort? - libertarians and conservatives rarely use EU legal procedures to defend freedom, leaving regulatory and environmentalist groups to dominate litigation.

Follow on Twitter

Adrián Rubio
https://x.com/_adrubio

Rasheed Griffith
https://x.com/rasheedguo

Send us a text

Spain’s fiscal architecture is more than a ledger‑sheet debate; it is, as economist Jesús Fernández‑Villaverde, the Howard Marks Presidential Professor of Economics at the University of Pennsylvania, reminds us, the very skeleton of the modern state. Drawing on Schumpeter’s maxim that “the state is taxation and taxation is the state,” Fernández‑Villaverde opens the conversation by weaving the American and French revolutions into a wider argument: when you refashion a nation’s tax machinery, you refashion the nation itself. That lens frames Catalonia’s renewed demand for a new financing model, not as a routine budget negotiation but as an existential redesign of the Spanish state.

Jesús details how Spain already operates one of the most decentralized fiscal systems in the world, “more latitude than most U.S. states,” he notes, yet Catalonia now seeks the bespoke privileges long enjoyed by the Basque Country and Navarra. The Regional Authority Index rates how much self‑rule and shared rule each country’s sub‑national governments actually wield. In its last update the index places Spain as the most decentralized unitary state in the sample and fourth overall among 96 countries.

Those northern provinces collect every euro on their own soil and forward a modest remittance to the central treasury, a setup that Fernández‑Villaverde brands “a Confederate relic.” Extending it to Catalonia, he argues, would hollow out Spain’s common‑pool finances, deepen inter‑regional resentment and erode the principle of equal citizenship, while turning the national revenue service into little more than a mailbox for provincial checks.

Politics, of course, is the solvent in which these principles dissolve. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s coalition leans heavily on Catalan and Basque votes; hence, the Jesús says, the Socialist leader flirts with a reform that his own party barons fear will be “the kiss of death”. Layer onto that an opaque, labyrinthine funding formula, ripe for local demagogues to blame Madrid or the neighbors, and Spain’s fiscal question becomes not merely who pays, but what kind of country the Spanish want to be.