11. “Two Constructions of Libertarianism”
by Chandran Kukathas
Abstract: The libertarian first principle–a belief in individual freedom–can lead to two different and not necessarily acceptable societies from the standpoint of liberty. One is the “Union of Liberty,” in which communities, associations, and intermediate bodies are held to rigorous standards of voluntariness (and thus face sharp limits on their internal associational freedom because of the knowledge that children will be born into them). In the other, the “Federation of Liberty,” they are not (thereby allowing children to be born into locally unfree environments).
While in any free society individuals may voluntarily join together and waive some of their rights (in institutions such as contract or marriage, for example), hard questions arise when nonconsenting children are born into restrictive environments that their parents may have voluntarily created. An adult who gives up all of his or her property to a communal religious body upon conversion has made a voluntary choice, but what about the child born into that religious community later on? Thus, the Federation of Liberty can, in theory, turn out to contain no communities that actually value or respect liberty; and even slavery might have a lawful place within it. The Union of Liberty, on the other hand, can, in principle turn out to be society ruled by a strong authority with little respect for dissenting moral traditions, including some self-styled libertarian moral traditions.
Libertarians face a stark choice between these “two constructions of libertarianism”; there is no third way, theoretically speaking. Libertarians must choose one of them. Given the necessity to choose one of these constructions, the Federation of Liberty is arguably preferable to the Union of Liberty.
{ 5 comments }
I have long been of the view that human beings must choose between two poles: freedom and servitude or shall we say, liberalism or collectivism. I too, have never acknowledged a third choice. I have never however thought of libertarianism as a choice between two poles. While I cant say that I’m with you entirely, you’ve given me something to consider.
I’m not sure that a ‘Federation of Liberty’ would be a problem. Over time, the Federations that respect individual liberty more would tend to be more successful. Creating pressure and options for people in other federations.
In fact, consider a scenario where you pluck 10000 people from an unfree 3rd world country, stick them on a ship where they have no such restrictions, and then find that the increased wealth and liberty created by that action is enough to pay for the cost of that ship and their living. Then do it over, and over, and over, and over.
With ship sizes increasing, the information age, and human productivity increasing, and a large 3rd world. This is exactly the next great economic boom that I see happening (after the information age, and concurrent with the ‘replication’ age in the next few decades). With educated populations at first, but eventually hundreds of thousands of communities will populate the sea, the sky?, dominate the world, and then even populate space and the solar system.
Perhaps that’s so yet Thomas Moore’s Hythloday, made much the same argument in Utopia. In a general sense I could see a situation in which such a communal order could satisfy the demands of liberty while simultaneously meeting the demands of collectivism. But the real world offers consequences which can at times be fatal. The history of “federations†of this sort has not been all too appetizing from my vantage point.
The “federation of liberty” idea works okay if you assume that each of these communities is fairly self-contained. But if one of them turns into a haven for people who, following their coercive philosophy, go out to damage or take from people in other communities, you have a problem.
If law is viewed as a market process, it is subject to the law of one price. A situation that does not follow that law is in disequilibrium; and the working out of that equilibrium tends to involved armed conflict.
In a sense, it seems to me that this was the issue of the Civil War: was the United States a federation where some enclaves could follow their own unfree rules, or was it a union that could impose the abolition of slavery on all its member enclaves?
The article presents a false choice. There is a 3rd option, where it is recognized that everybody has the right to stop initiations of force wherever they occur and where there is no central “authority” trying to enforce libertarian law. If a libertarian is aware that somebody is holding somebody on their property against their will, they have the right to enter the aggressor’s property and remove the victim, with force if necessary. A person who is born into a non-libertarian family (this is where most “Federation of Liberty” rights violations occur) must always have the right to leave the property they were born on and to move elsewhere. Provided that the choice to leave is always available, a person is not being aggressed against. Where libertarians have probable cause to believe that people are being held against their will, they have the right to invade the property of the aggressors to free the victims.
Comments on this entry are closed.