Like Lynx deodorant, wet dreams and the comedian Jimmy Carr, libertarianism is meant to be a phase men grow out of by at least their late teens. Elon Musk, however, appears to be growing more adolescent as he ages.
His “small government” ideology is obviously blinkered, conveniently skating over the billions in taxpayer loans and contracts he has received. Nonetheless, it is increasingly central to both his political and business decisions. Indeed, he is emerging as the leader of an extreme libertarian faction within US President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team.
Can DOGE save some coin?
All Republican factions seem to agree on reducing immigration and “wokeness”. But whereas the “national conservatives” led by Vice President-elect JD Vance are invigorated by economic protectionism, Musk appears more excited about deregulation and slashing public service jobs. His intellectual influences appear to be arch free-marketeer Milton Friedman and President of Argentina Javier Milei, who is famous for taking a literal chainsaw to government spending.
This would merely be sad, if Musk weren’t edging closer to real political power. On one hand, Musk’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is a sham “department”, a made-up office without congressional oversight. It has no defined powers, in contrast to the real departments being led by the national conservative set.
However, Musk seems to have genuinely influenced Trump’s recent thinking, along with DOGE co-leader and fellow austerity enthusiast Vivek Ramaswamy. “These two wonderful Americans,” Trump recently said, “will pave the way for my administration to dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies.”
Trump may, as he is wont to do, lose interest in DOGE. But if he takes up even a fraction of Musk and Ramaswamy’s agenda, the results could be catastrophic.
The dynamic duo outlined their initial plan in the Wall Street Journal last week, to cut “$500 billion plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorised by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended”. They claim the president can do this unilaterally, though this would likely be legally contested if pursued. This is merely a downpayment on the $2 trillion (of an annual $6.7 trillion in government outlays) that Musk thinks he can cut.
The vast bulk of US government spending is on social security and healthcare, and the vast majority of “expired” spending is on veterans’ health care. Despite being extreme on other measures, Trump dialled down Republicans’ austerity talk in his first term, reassuring pensioners and veterans their benefits wouldn’t be targeted. Trump is either about to adopt a much harsher (and less popular) “fend for yourself” posture towards middle America, or his buddies’ lofty targets will be forgotten and DOGE will devolve into small-scale witch hunts over so-called “woke” spending. Watch this space.
Death by a thousand cuts
There is no doubt that Elon himself would prefer a full-scale “slash and burn” approach, as it was the approach he himself adopted upon purchasing Twitter. He fired 6,500 people – about 80% of his workforce, by his own reckoning. He later attempted to rehire some of those very same former employees after acknowledging some “babies” were “thrown out [with the bathwater]”. Particularly affected by redundancies were those working on curation, risk and integrity — namely, those reducing misinformation, defamation and harmful content on the platform, and promoting reputable sources.
His leadership of Twitter, now rebranded X, reveals an unresolved tension at the heart of his (and all) libertarianism — the emphasis on freedom ends where his company begins. As CEO, Musk led X in a dictatorial fashion, according to former executives. He told remaining employees to submit to an “extremely hardcore” regime of long working hours or leave the company. As Elizabeth Anderson memorably pointed out, such dictatorial company structures are depressingly common and give the lie to many spruiking “freedom” in other domains.
Even after stepping down as CEO, Musk clearly continues to exert god-like influence. He reportedly made a team of 80 engineers tweak X’s algorithm in 2023 to boost his own posts. Australian academics Timothy Graham and Mark Andrejevic investigated whether he had repeated such meddling this year, and found a “statistically anomalous boost” in engagement on Musk’s account since July.
Such antics are alienating many users. But no-one is powerful enough to stop Musk internally. So naturally, users’ only avenue is to leave.
Bluer skies ahead?
“Network effects” (i.e. everyone else being on the platform, and not being elsewhere) have prevented a critical mass of users leaving X… until now. New rival platform Bluesky has blown up in recent weeks, as X users jump ship. The platform just hit 22 million users. That’s still far fewer than X in total, but Bluesky is currently adding more than 1 million users per day, including some of the most high-profile users.
Bluesky now up to 22 million users and still growing strong
— Benjamin Clark (@benjamin-clark.bsky.social) November 25, 2024 at 7:11 AM
[image or embed]
Albert Hirschman famously suggested three ways a consumer could influence an institution:
- “Voice”: try to influence the organisation’s decision-making through speaking up, including via coordinated efforts;
- “Loyalty”: try to stick things out and hope things get better;
- “Exit”: leave.
Musk is impervious to the voices of others, and many of X’s users are tiring of loyalty. Their only option is to exit. Libertarians like Musk typically emphasise exit as their preferred means of exercising freedom (“don’t like it? Leave”). There is a delicious irony in users now saying, “OK, bye”.
No social media platform will ever be perfect. But Bluesky’s foundations are better than most. It is based on an open protocol, meaning anyone with the technical know-how can set up their own sister network and bring their data across. Users can curate their own feeds to a greater extent. This provides users with some “voice” and “exit” possibilities, inviting them in as co-creators of the platform rather than force-feeding them slop.
Musk will, of course, be just fine if X descends into a Star Wars cantina of fascists and spam bots. He’s still the richest man in the world, after all. But Trump likes winners. The more we can make Musk seem like a loser, the less chance his austerity package has of decimating what’s left of the American welfare state. Bluesky is also just a nicer place to be right now.
So join me, X users, in the great X-odus. Let’s show Musk what real freedom looks like.
Have something to say about this article? Write to us at letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
