Cite articles as: Author, “Title,” Libertarian Papers [volume #], [article number] (year). Example: Jan Narveson, “Present Payments, Past Wrongs: Correcting Loose Talk about Nozick and Rectification,” Libertarian Papers 1, 1 (2009).
11. “Two Constructions of Libertarianism”
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.
![[RSS Feed]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/rss.gif "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Site Feed")
![[iTunes]](http://libertarianpapers.org/wp-content/themes/journalist/images/itunes.png "Subscribe to the Libertarian Papers Podcast with iTunes")
![[Mises Institute]](http://mises.org/Community/resized-image.ashx/__size/500x400/__key/CommunityServer.Components.PostAttachments/00.00.08.00.78/80x15.png)
![[CC Attribution 3.0]](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/us/80x15.png)
The abstract errs in the assumption that our belief in individual freedom necessarily leads to any defined social structure beyond pure freedom and personal choice.
I know of neither “Union of Liberty” nor “Federation of Liberty”. I am now age 70; our 4 children grew up with neither force nor brainwashing as to “social organization”. We expressed our belief in true freedom by example rather than by mandate. By their own volition, they chose their own individual paths to morality, which serves well.
Today all are well grounded and successful, two agnostic, one Zen Buddist and one who married into Catholic which was set aside after divorce.
No “stark choice” is necessary.
The abstract is just a description of the article’s argument. I assume you mean that you disagree with the article’s argument. Probably safer to do this from consulting the article itself rather than its abstract.
Mr. Kukathas writes an analysis in my thoughts for many years, but I don’t agree with his conclusion (i.e., Federation instead of Union). I think a Federation is based on the premise that there will be no aggression between communities. If a community is willing to ignore libertarian principles within it’s borders, then why would we expect that it will respect these principles outside it’s borders. When this aggressor community begins aggressing against other communities, then by what principle will it be stopped? More practically, how will individuals stop the aggression of a likely more powerful community bent on dominating and absorbing them?
I think as long as you recognize the fact that there will always be individuals that do not accept the principles of libertarianism, then the best you can hope for is a Union that has an unattainable goal of Federation. Until you have unanimous agreement in perpetuity for libertarian principles, you will never achieve a Federation that will last. You are striving for utopia, or heaven, and have wandered into the realm of religion.
This paper was very timely for me. I just had an argument with a non-libertarian who said the government was necessary to protect girls born in to small religious communities. Brainwashed into marrying by 13 or 14, they end up in polygamous marriages and can’t get out.
I found myself taking the “Federation of Liberty” tack in the argument – the effort to save these girls must be made through non-coercive persuasion, not government. Outsiders who care would take this education upon their shoulders, somehow connecting with these girls and talking them into leaving.
The person was exasperated with my argument though, kind of like “is that the best your system you can do?” This jives with Kukathas’s conclusion favoring the “federation of liberty”:
“The choice is not, in the end, a happy one. But philosophical choices often are of this nature, since
theory frequently leads us to reductios which are, if not absurd, unhappy or repugnant.”
I would argue that it is possible to see these two ‘alternative’ descriptions of a possible libertarian society as ’stages’ rather than alternatives. Just as I perceive a minarchist state as a precursor to full-blown anarcho-capitalism where even the minimal state has been replaced by property rights so, I would argue, the ‘Union’ model best describes conditions within a minarchist state whereas the ‘Federation’ model describes those of anarcho-capitalism…
Re: two points made by “geoih”:
1) “I think a Federation is based on the premise that there will be no aggression between communities”
2) How a federated construct might deal with the communities “…bent on dominating and absorbing…” others.
The aggression issue, above almost all others, has been the biggest thorn in my side when contemplating different libertarian societal constructs. I have no doubt that the aggression cited by geoih would be one inevitable by-product of a federation, but I also have no doubt that the very libertarian principles that provide the breeding grounds for this also offer possible solutions. I therefore think geoih’s conclusion of “…a Union that has an unattainable goal of Federation.” as “the best you [we] can hope for” is unduly pessimistic. I think that a federation with an occasional sub-union when necessary to counter aggression is a more realistic view. Allow me to explain:
First, I did not interpret anything from the subject article which implied that a federated construct is or would be BASED on a premise of none aggression between communities. I think that such aggression would be an inevitable by-product of any society that allows true freedom of association. The benefit to a federation in this regard though, is that any aggression could only come from a sub-union of likeminded individuals / communities vice under the pseudo sanction of a central authority as would be possible (even likely) in a union.
Just as freedom of association allows for such an aggressive community, it also allows for important checks against such behavior. This is not to imply that some aggression by a well organized community would not be successful initially, from the perspective of the aggressor, but at some point in the aggressors’ “campaign” an association of communities and individuals would stand up to, or be so obviously prepared to meet, such aggressive force that further aggression would be dissuaded or defeated, and either way, effectively halted.
There are other, maybe less obvious measures available to those individuals and communities that suffer from any initial “success” by the aggressor community; subversion and revolt. We of libertarian mind believe strongly in the power of ideas. The ideas that “absorbed” individuals (I think abducted seems more apt) would invariably spread throughout the aggressor community would have an eroding effect on the machinery of empire and quite possibly provide a force multiplier to any exterior, defensive force. These methods are also consistent with the idea of defensive force, since the abducted (by definition) have been taken and are being held against their will, and as such any force applied by them to regain and ensure their freedom would be appropriate.
Tom Sullivan
Good article, in that it is the first article I’ve read that attacks some of the issues that lie at that region where libertarianism (map) meets the real world (territory). There are other problems as well, and although I promote libertarian ideals, I no longer call myself libertarian. The latter is due to the fact that libertarians will not face these fundamental issues, and libertarianism thereby becomes a belief system with all of the basic traits and characteristics of such.
[...] well as from established libertarian intellectuals such as Narveson, Higgs, van Dun, Salin, Kukathas, Block, and Machan. And, astoundingly, in our first half year we have published five previously [...]
My observation to this and other libertarian school comes down to this: although I thoroughly agree with the Voluntarism positions and Stateless Society ideas, I also recognize they could only be entered into and accomplished by the free wills of everybody within the confines of that community — and that would also include children born and reared therein, who seem to have a natural tendency to at some point in their lives rebel against Mom and Dad.
I am a Sovereign State. I understand that I live within “occupied territory”. I also understand I must be vigilant against intrusion by even non-government criminals (although those are the easy kind with which to contend). I would welcome Sovereigns to move in next door and across the alley. But I also recognize there is no possible way for me to make any attempt to coerce them to become Voluntarists or Stateless through any kind of force of arms or any other means.
They might, by seeing and desiring my freedom. And they might not. If I flaunt my freedom too flamboyantly they might even make overt attempts to “show me” by making me see I really wasn’t as “sovereign” as I bragged. They might even have the power to manipulate me into being cross-wise with employees of civil government.
Walk quietly. Cary a big stick. Regards,
Samarami