{"id":197331,"date":"2026-07-04T22:45:35","date_gmt":"2026-07-05T06:45:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=197331"},"modified":"2026-07-04T16:55:59","modified_gmt":"2026-07-05T00:55:59","slug":"george-gilders-individualist-delusion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=197331","title":{"rendered":"George Gilder’s Individualist Delusion"},"content":{"rendered":"

If John J. Mearsheimer\u2019s anthropology<\/a> were applied to the work of George Gilder, it would frame Gilder as a quintessential embodiment of the “liberal delusion” that Mearsheimer critiques in his broader body of work.
\nAt the core of Mearsheimer\u2019s anthropology is the belief that humans are “social beings at their core,” born into collectivities that shape their identities and command their deepest loyalties. He argues that political liberalism\u2019s tendency to treat people as “atomistic actors” with “inalienable rights” is a fundamental misreading of human nature. George Gilder\u2019s work, conversely, is deeply rooted in the liberal-capitalist tradition of radical individualism. Gilder argues that the “crucial knowledge in economies originated in individual human minds” and emphasizes the “free acts” of individuals as the primary driver of progress. From Mearsheimer\u2019s perspective, Gilder\u2019s reliance on the “innovating entrepreneur” as the central figure of the economic system ignores the reality that these individuals operate within, and are fundamentally conditioned by, the nation-state and tribal social groups.
\nGilder posits that capitalism is essentially an “information system” defined by “surprise” and that economic life is driven by the free will of individuals. He views government and “elite institutions” as centripetal forces that seek to “quell human diversity and impose order”. Mearsheimer would likely view this as a misunderstanding of the relationship between the individual and the collective.
\nMearsheimer argues that liberalism (and by extension, Gilder\u2019s brand of free-market capitalism) “must always coexist with nationalism” because it is impossible to have a functioning state that is not a nation-state. Gilder\u2019s hope to “transcend” political conflicts through an economics of “disruption” ignores Mearsheimer\u2019s premise that the nation-state remains the “highest-level social group of real significance” for most people.
\nGilder critiques those who focus on the redistribution of “static things” and emphasizes “ideas, attitudes, moral codes, and mental disciplines” as the true source of wealth. While Mearsheimer would agree that “moral codes” are vital, he would argue that they are products of socialization within a tribe or nation, rather than the byproduct of entrepreneurial “giving” in a globalized marketplace.
\nIf Mearsheimer is correct, Gilder is an architect of the “liberal dream”\u2014a vision of the world where individual creativity and market information are the primary forces, and where social, tribal, and nationalist instincts can be sidelined. Mearsheimer would contend that this vision is a “fool’s guide” because it fails to account for the fact that humans are not primarily utility-maximizing individuals, but tribal creatures who prioritize survival and group loyalty above individual economic freedom.
\nMearsheimer would likely argue that Gilder\u2019s “techno-utopian” vision assumes an abstract, unanchored human nature that does not exist, and that in any real-world clash, the “tribal” and “nationalist” realities identified by Mearsheimer will invariably constrain or override the “free will” and “disruption” that Gilder prizes. <\/p>\n

Larissa MacFarquhar writes in the May 22, 2000 New Yorker<\/a>: <\/p>\n

Gilder was one of the first writers to foresee the potential of the Internet: as early as 1990, in his book \u201cLife After Television,\u201d he wrote about \u201ca crystalline web of glass and light,\u201d and \u201ctelecomputers in every home attached to a global fiber network\u201d Perhaps one of the reasons his writing about technology has found such a wide audience is that, to him, technology\u2019s appeal is ultimately spiritual. In his forthcoming book, \u201cTelecosm,\u201d Gilder writes, \u201cFuturists falter because they belittle the power of religious paradigms, deeming them either too literal or too fantastic. Yet futures are apprehended only in the prophetic mode of the inspired historian. The ability to communicate\u2014readily, at great distances, in robes of light\u2014is so crucial and coveted that in the Bible it is embodied only in angels.\u201d…<\/p>\n

His voice sounded strained and whiny, as though he were struggling to be heard without a microphone…<\/p>\n

In his celebration of the entrepreneurial leap, Gilder can sound like Ayn Rand, but there is an important difference between them: religion. Rand believed in the glory of selfishness; Gilder believes that capitalism properly understood is altruistic and dependent upon faith in God. (Rand was so disgusted by what she took to be Gilder\u2019s perverted sentimentality on this point that she devoted the last public speech of her life to denouncing him.) Gilder\u2019s explanation for his thesis is that, because an entrepreneur can never be sure of a return on his investment, starting up a business is like offering a gift to the world, in the hope, but never the certainty, that the gift will be reciprocated…<\/p>\n

Although he is often treated as a guru, Gilder does not have a guru personality. It is not in his nature to cultivate an aura of gravitas and infallibility; instead, he dances twitchily about, fists flailing, glancing warily around him, clinging to his own anxiety as a sign that he is vital\u2014that he has not yet surrendered to smug venerability…<\/p>\n

Despite his relentless pursuits, Gilder never really attracted the sort of female attention he craved until the early seventies, when he discovered his vocation as an anti-feminist. In those days, he was living in Cambridge, editing the Ripon Forum, a magazine put out by the progressive-Republican Ripon Society, when he wrote and published a defense of Nixon\u2019s veto of the Mondale-Javits day-care bill, on the ground that, now that welfare had driven away inner-city fathers by rendering them superfluous, day care would deprive poor children of their mothers as well. The female members of the Ripon Society were outraged, and he was fired from his position almost immediately. It was Gilder\u2019s first taste of controversy, and he discovered that he liked it. It was fun being the object of attack. After one debate, on PBS, he remembers that \u201cwhat seemed like hundreds\u201d of women rushed forward onto the stage to argue with him. Since he had spent most of his youth looking for ways to arouse female passion, he reckoned he had found his calling. The aftermath of the day-care brouhaha, though, was not so exciting.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If John J. Mearsheimer\u2019s anthropology were applied to the work of George Gilder, it would frame Gilder as a quintessential embodiment of the “liberal delusion” that Mearsheimer critiques in his broader body of work. At the core of Mearsheimer\u2019s anthropology … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[17027],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-george-gilder"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t