Reason
features a debate this month:
Libertarians traditionally have viewed coercion, especially
when institutionalized in the form of government, as the main threat to
freedom. But cultural pressures outside the state also can restrict people’s
ability to live as they please. Is that another limit on liberty worth
criticizing, or is it a function of voluntary choices?
Kerry Howley argues, yes, “freedom is about more than just
the absence of government.” Todd
Seavey answers, no, “Freedom’s Just Another Word for Kerry Howley’s
Preferences,” and Daniel McCarthy contends that, “Tolerance is important but
difficult to define and easily subverted.”
This is a debate that Howley and Seavey have been engaged in
for years. See, for example, here, here,
here and
here.
As Howley summed
up her position in one of her prior exchanges with Seavey:
Thus, a black man who cannot hold employment by law is unfree,
but a black man who cannot hold employment because social custom is such that
no one will hire him is as free as any white man. A gay couple who must stay
closeted to avoid social ostracism is as free as any hetero couple. A woman who
has to choose between purdah and exile from her village is basically living in
a libertarian paradise, so long as no one writes the rules down.
Howley also notes that Roderick Long and Charles Johnson
address some similar issues in Libertarian
Feminism: Can This Marriage Be Saved?
Ilya Somin
has a long and detailed post on Howley’s piece, addressing some of the
arguments and putting the debate within the context of libertarian thought more
broadly. Howley responds here, and Somin
fires round two here.
Muse
Free argues that this is “the oldest libertarian debate” but also says that
“it seems to be that these people are speaking a but past each other, or at the
very least, their debate is more semantical than substantive.”