Ripstein v. libertarians - a fight to the death

I want to examine libertarianism—particularly Nozick’s account—against Ripstein’s conception of freedom, because to be honest, I think Ripstein gives a pretty compelling and solid response to the libertarian. Libertarians argue that a minimal state is necessary to secure individual freedom and Nozick in particular makes the implied assumption that private property exists prior to the state. Nozick, for instance, claims that the state’s primary role is to enforce justice in rectification—stepping in only when someone violates the principles of justice in acquisition or transfer. But Ripstein flips this idea on its head, arguing that private property is only legitimate within the framework of public right. In this sense, the state needs to have a robust public domain so that it can secure the public conditions in which our entitlements to private property are legitimate. 

At the heart of Ripstein’s argument is the Kantian notion that to be free and independent means being able to use your own means to set your ends without being subject to the arbitrary will of others. Libertarianism, despite its rhetoric of freedom, fails on this front—individuals dependent on the will and choices of others. Take Ripstein’s public roads example: even if everyone were granted equal plots of land, their ability to leave and return to their property would depend entirely on whether their neighbors allowed them to pass. It doesn’t matter whether those neighbors actually restrict movement or not since the point that someone’s freedom of movement is contingent on another’s will and that such individuals are actually entitled to make these choices. In this case, public roads are not just a convenience but a necessary condition for securing private property since it is only by having public roads that private property is defensible otherwise individuals are not really free to move as they please. 

I also want to quickly highlight Ripstein’s discussion about homelessness and begging because I personally find it really interesting and profound. In essence (as I read it) Ripstein’s discussion of the beggar reveals that they shouldn’t have to beg since Kant asserts that the state “has both an obligation and an entitlement … to support citizens incapable of supporting themselves” (232) and thus supporting the poor should be a matter of public right. If the state has fulfilled its obligations under public right, then homelessness should not exist (not because it is illegal) but because a just society would ensure that all individuals have a place where they can live safely without being dependent on the arbitrary will of others. This means that no one should have to rely on charity or the goodwill of private individuals to meet their basic needs. As I see it then, homelessness is an indicator that the state is not securing public right. 

All in all, really cool stuff.