The uncertainties resulting from the interplay of the forces of history unsettle certain ‘firmly established’ notions of ‘normal’ human existence, more often than not. A crisis is usually accompanied by (initially) unnoticed opportunities: it ultimately helps us to revisit certain hegemonic thinking and restructure the society accordingly.Though the COVID-19 pandemic seems to be reinforcing certain interrelated democratic values, like greater transparency in (and democratic scrutiny of) public policy, accountability of the rulers, and the right to information, it offers us the opportunity to revisitcertain sociopolitical ideals that appear natural and, therefore, normal. In the following lines, I focus on one ofthe popular ‘commonsense’ political ideals, neoliberalism, whichneeds to be reexaminedand problematized, particularlyin the wake of the havoc caused by the pandemic. Neoliberalism is a newer version of liberalism, thus neo. Liberals believe that the sole purpose of instituting the state is to protect human life, liberty and property. The neoliberals, however, lay greater emphasis on the right to private property and the freedom of market from state intervention. Given their emphasis on the primacy of market, the neoliberals are also sometimes dubbed as market fundamentalists. They believe that,like other rights, the right to private property is natural and, therefore, sacrosanct. They argue that given the private property’s instrumentality for human liberty and socioeconomic development, individuals have the natural right to own and utilize it ad libitum, provided they do not threaten the equal liberty of others during the process. Therefore, thestate should abstain from undue interference in market. The neoliberals would grant the state only as much freedom to interfere in market as is necessary for the performance of its functions – policing and adjudication, so that market-participants do not violate the basic principles of individual liberty and equality of opportunities for everyone. Neoliberals use the metaphor of ‘the invisible hand’ for the market variables, supply and demand, which, according to them, regulatemarket processes and relations. The market maintains itself self-reflexively, if left to itself. Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), an Austrian-British economist, uses the term ‘spontaneous order’ to highlight the evolution of the institution of (free)market. He believes that market is one of the several other spontaneous orders, such as language, Common Law, religion and culture, which emerge spontaneously out of the voluntary actions of profit-maximizing agents interacting with one another in a situation of which an individual actor has little understanding. Hence,spontaneous orders are not a product of aconsciously thought-out and deliberately coordinated effort.Moreover, a spontaneous orderregulates itself endogenously, and, therefore, isstable and predictable if not disturbed by some outside force – precisely, the state. Effective regulation of and participation in spontaneous orders require local knowledge. Central (state) control of spontaneous orders is ‘unnatural’ and ‘undesirable’. Neoliberals use the metaphor of ‘the invisible hand’ for the market variables, supply and demand, which, according to them, regulate market processes and relations The neoliberal argument in favor of laisses faireeconomy is as much a semantic ingenuity as it seems a ‘Truth’. In fact, the neoliberalsmake economic sphere (market) appear ‘depersonalized and automatized’, by discursively separating and insulating it from the political sphere (state). The neoliberal depoliticization of the economy might be serving the ends of a few but cannot be ‘just’against the backdrop of widespread destitution emanating from (and maintained by) capital-driven public policy.In order to understand how capitalists, after establishing monopoly over market, control and direct public policy, one needs to understand the concept of ‘crony capitalism’, Horkheimer and Adorno’s ‘racket theory’ and Schumpeter’s ‘unfettered capitalism’. Contrary to what neoliberals say,the ‘economic sphere’ and ‘the political sphere’ are inseparable. Concretesocial agents, with definite political ends and identities, can (and do) temperthe neoliberal ideal of ‘free competition’.What appear to be the ‘natural’and ‘self-reinforcing’ laws of demand and supplycan be (and are frequently) manipulated through political maneuvering. Likewise, the rational, profit-maximizing agents frequentlylobbyin the corridors of power to maximize their share in public policy outcomes, besides financing political campaign of candidates for various public offices. It goes without saying that the predatory tendencies of unfettered capitalism undermine the very fundamental ideals of liberalism – individual liberty and equal opportunities to secure the means of a contented, dignified life – for the many, indeed. Put it this way: given the instrumental nature of private economic monopolies in influencing the public sphere, concentration of wealth in the hands of the few diminishes, for the many,the prospects of agood life – a life free of the anxiety of not having (or losing) the prospects of (secure) life. In the last instance, the neoliberal economics obscures and overwhelms various democratic ideals, like the rule of law, freedoms of thought and expression, and the right to contest for public office in free, fair and regular elections. While acknowledging the need (and human urge) for institutionalized private property, the relevance and worth of free competition, and the (not-unquestioned) validity of the laws of demand and supply, we need to (re)consider some equally not-invalid and not-irrelevant claims of ‘the Left’ too, which expose the exploitative, unjust appropriation and distribution of surplus labor, and theillegitimate practices of cronyism and racketeering that violate the high liberal ideals of liberty and equality, both in economic and political spheres. Hence, we need to reconcile the political (thinking) being propounded by (neo)liberals with Marx’s labor being, a schema that results ina social democratic state. I believe that social democracy ultimately results in an equitable distribution of surplus labor on the one hand, and democratic rights, including the right to own property, on the other. Social democracies, characterized by progressive taxation, price and quality control, subsidization of low- and medium-income business ventures, safeguards against predatory and deceitful profiteering, are better equipped to fight widespread destitution and to enable the impoverished manyto effectively participate in the public arena. Hence, along with formal recognition of political freedoms, we need the state to establish a reasonably extensive social security net (SSN), maximum possible spending on public health, education and development infrastructure,and a decrease in the defense and non-developmental expenses to the minimum possible. After all, threats to human life and tosocioeconomic liberties and prosperity of individuals emanate not only fromour fellow human beings, but from non-human entities too (which are probably more pervasive): such threats include (but are not limited to) environmental degradation and depletion of resources, malnutrition, diseases, and pandemics. Non-human threats to a peaceful and prosperous human existence requires a different, non-police and non-military, kind of response – the institution ofa strong democratic welfare state. The writer is a PhD in Political Science (anda Fulbright alumnus), currently teaching at the Department of Gender Studies, University of Peshawar