When we engage in dialogue, the manner in which we express ourselves can be just as significant as the content of our words. The importance of language is magnified in the political arena, particularly for libertarians aiming to persuade others to adopt their perspectives. Therefore, the rhetoric employed is crucial and requires careful consideration.
Libertarians primarily champion the expansion of individual liberty, advocating for personal freedom. However, they often encounter a common retort from non-libertarians: ‘Who doesn’t want freedom? The issue arises when freedom leads to inequality.’ This response frequently halts further discussion, overshadowing any efforts to contextualize or refute it. The desire for some form of equality, however nebulous, tends to dominate the conversation.
But what if libertarians could redefine the concept of ‘equality’ in a way that resonates with a significant portion of the populace? What if it were possible for libertarians to embrace egalitarian principles? A noteworthy recent effort to explore these ideas is found in Deirdre McCloskey’s examination of ‘equality of permission.’ McCloskey posits that this notion of equality is fundamentally aligned with the tenets of libertarianism. She reframes the libertarian objective as the establishment of a society where every individual is granted equal opportunity to ‘enter the race as an adult,’ or simply put, to lead their lives as they see fit. If everyone is afforded the same opportunities without any special privileges, then a libertarian society can be realized.
By equating equality of permission with ‘liberalism’—in the classical sense—McCloskey offers libertarians a compelling narrative for engaging in debates. When confronted with the question ‘What about equality?,’ libertarians can confidently assert their commitment to egalitarian ideals, thereby bridging the seemingly insurmountable divide between freedom and equality.
Yet, one might wonder: ‘What about equality before the law? Haven’t we, as libertarians, already embraced this principle?’ This is indeed a pertinent inquiry. The concept of ‘equality before the law’ can be seen as synonymous with ‘equality of permission.’ However, it doesn’t necessarily have to be so.
The principle of ‘equality before the law’ boasts a rich historical lineage, tracing back to the origins of classical liberalism. For much of that history, the law was perceived as a stable and universally applicable construct. However, the late 19th century and the entirety of the 20th century witnessed a troubling trend (as identified by Bruno Leoni) that conflated ‘law’ with ‘legislation,’ particularly as the latter began to cater increasingly to special interests. Consequently, discussions about equality before the law can lead to confusion among the general public, who may interpret this as a call for equal privileges granted by diverse pieces of legislation to various interest groups. From a libertarian perspective, such an outcome could be catastrophic, resulting in both economic and moral degradation.
As libertarians, we face a choice: we can either resist the reality around us or adapt our strategies accordingly. While we can endeavor to educate the public about the significance of the Constitution, the distinctions between law and legislation, the pitfalls of crony capitalism, and many related issues, our fundamental goal of liberating ourselves from the constraints of existing legislation may also benefit from a more straightforward presentation. The term ‘equality of permission’ is arguably more accessible, while ‘equality before the law’ can seem convoluted.
Ultimately, as libertarians, we all seek to communicate our core beliefs to the broader public. In a landscape that often works against libertarian ideals, adopting a fresh approach could be key. Perhaps the concept of equality of permission can be as persuasive as it is ethically robust. It’s worth a shot.
Â
Marcos Falcone is the Project Manager of Fundación Libertad and a regular contributor to Forbes Argentina. His writing has also appeared in The Washington Post, National Review, and Reason, among others. He is based in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
