America 47, Inc.

Robert Nozick gained fame for Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Unlike most American philosophy books, it achieved both academic and popular success, even appearing in a scene of The Sopranos.

John Rawls's A Theory of Justice proved even more successful. It outsold Nozick's work, and even neoliberal power couple Bill and Hillary Clinton read it together during their Yale law school years.

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The debate between these American political philosophers distilled the American political landscape since Carter. Government wasn't viewed as primary; instead, discussions began with the individual. Government restrictions could only be justified when serving individual freedom, not public welfare.

Nozick remained liberal in the broad sense. Philosophical libertarianism begins from similar premises but argues that only an extremely limited government can be justified.

Rawls pushed further, arguing that a more expansive view of freedom requires government to regulate "public goods" more extensively.

Both philosophers harbored doubts about their arguments. Rawls showed greater insecurity about his position, while Nozick eventually softened his stance, distancing himself from his earlier strictness.

American politics over the last fifty years played out this debate, instability and all. In their book Abundance, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson frame this dichotomy as government's responsibility to increase either demand or supply. Republicans aimed to cut taxes, regulations, and government scope, believing this would naturally produce good outcomes. Democrats favored subsidization, viewing the problem as one of demand rather than supply, resulting in subsidized housing, healthcare, education, and food.

John Gray challenges the neoliberal view that this represents humanity's final form. In The New Leviathans, he argues that the last fifty years increasingly look like an aberration rather than the new norm.

Once such fanciful notions are set aside, there is no reason to expect one mode of government to displace all others. There will be monarchies and republics, nations and empires, tyrannies and theocracies, along with many mixed regimes and stateless zones where there is no government at all. The world of the future will be like that of the past, with disparate regimes interacting with one another in a condition of global anarchy."

With the neoliberal regime's apparent death, what remains?

For Trump, the answer seems to be running America like a business.

Howard Lutnick, for example, claims there would be no Nvidia without U.S. courts. He's right. Global shipping depends on the U.S. Navy. Americans join the Navy and some face their only combat defending shipping containers from Houthis.

Yet this security isn't adequately priced into goods, nowhere near reflecting its true value.

If the U.S. and U.K. navies charged a security fee or simply stopped defending shipping containers, what would happen to goods prices? Would global shipping even continue?

This forms the core of the Trump regime's grievance. According to them, the neoliberal establishment knowingly "sold out" the government for immediate profits, accepting poor deals that harmed ordinary Americans' long-term prospects. Had Americans read Rousseau, they'd understand that representative government creates a gap between the interests of the elected and the electors.

The Trump worldview resurrects Hobbes' vision of government, modernized for our era. Without government, Hobbes argued, society collapses into chaos—no value, no rights, no freedoms, no arts or culture, and no chance for human flourishing. Citizens hold minimal claims against the Leviathan, who maintains order in an otherwise chaotic world. The state earns its legitimacy simply by preventing the "war of all against all" - any measure promoting security and prosperity becomes justified. Trump's administration implicitly embraces this bargain: accept strong executive authority in exchange for protection against perceived threats, whether economic, cultural, or physical. This represents a fundamental departure from the neoliberal focus on limiting government power, returning instead to government as the essential foundation of all social good.

The Trump administration anchors its entire governing philosophy in the business distinction between value and price—what something is truly worth versus what people currently pay for it.

Trade deals, NATO, the UN, and immigration policy now form the battleground for realigning value to shareholders.

The Trump Card costs $5 million because that's what they believe American citizenship is worth.

Where did this $5 million figure originate? Consider this calculation, what we might call "Trump math."

Value of American assets (courts, infrastructure, security, location, natural resources, universities, law enforcement, legal system) - $4 quadrillion

American population - approximately 350 million

Value of American assets per citizen = $11,428,571.43

Howard Lutnick values American assets at roughly $500 trillion, which equals $1,428,571.42 per citizen.

For a more realistic estimate, using Lutnick's figure as a lower bound: at $1 quadrillion, each citizenship equals $2,857,142.85.

Economic analysts typically measure America's economic health through GDP, unemployment rates, CPI, PPI, stock indices, housing indicators, retail sales, industrial production, consumer confidence, and trade balance.

But Lutnick argues on his "All-In" podcast that we overlook market capitalization—the total value of all American assets.

As of March 2025, Nvidia's trailing price-to-earnings ratio is about 40, with a forward ratio of 26.

If America, Inc. had similar ratios, it would be worth between $780 trillion and $1.2 quadrillion.

This calculation drives the Trump administration's policies.

They attack immigration, not as such, because they see themselves as defending company value against unauthorized hires or low performers. They view the border as if people could simply walk into Nvidia, grab laptops, and start working.

They challenge NATO, the UN, and neighbors because they believe previous administrations struck unfavorable deals, like Nvidia selling GPUs to AWS at one-tenth their value. Trump positions himself as the tough CEO threatening to tear up contracts unless partners pay fair market value.

They aim to cut government employment by 50-80% because they view these jobs as GDP drags, believing the money would yield greater returns in defense contracting, factory jobs, semiconductor manufacturing, etc.

They champion "drill baby drill" because they see unused assets that could increase GDP, lower costs, and enhance American independence and value.

They accept short-term economic pain because they view it as necessary reorganization. New leadership, like Musk at Twitter, typically dismisses early critics as underperformers and obstacles to progress, viewing their resistance as proof they cannot adapt to better methods. Unlike companies, America can't deport citizens, but green card holders and "vandals" remain fair game.

This explains why Trump and his wealthy supporters remain bullish on America, much as Buffett and Munger recognized an undervalued Coca-Cola. They see an undervalued asset they can revitalize. This embodies the MAGA ethos—a once-great company undermined by weak leadership. Populist MAGA supporters will likely be disappointed, but they prefer this vision to whatever neoliberals offer.

Neoliberals, despite their flaws, recognized the fundamental distinction between democracy and business. Unlike corporations, democratic governments derive legitimacy from citizens, not shareholders. What elevated Rawls and Nozick's philosophies was their nuanced attempt to balance individual liberty with collective welfare—a balance the Trump approach rejects. The MAGA vision implicitly favors permanent executive authority, following the corporate model where successful CEOs remain until they choose to depart, not when term limits dictate.