Political philosophy is multifaceted. One of the more interesting debates taking place at this time involves left-libertarianism. Consider the following propositions:

1. The libertarian right of self-ownership is incompatible with an egalitarian principle of distributive justice.
2. There is a libertarian right of self-ownership.
3. There is an egalitarian principle of distributive justice.

These propositions are incompatible, which means no rational person can accept all three. Egalitarians such as G. A. Cohen reject 2. Libertarians such as Robert Nozick reject 3. Left-libertarians such as Michael Otsuka reject 1. Left-libertarians are compatibilists; egalitarians and libertarians are incompatibilists.

Some left-libertarians arrive at results that are indistinguishable from egalitarianism, so one might wonder why they bother with reconciliation. Law professor Barbara Fried, for example, calls left-libertarianism “liberal egalitarianism in drag.” (This is the same Barbara Fried who abused Nozick.) Fried is mistaken, for two reasons.

First, even if left-libertarianism is extensionally equivalent to egalitarianism (i.e., even if the theories arrive at the same results), it is a distinct theory of justice. This alone makes it philosophically interesting. (Fried has no philosophical credentials.) Second, if left-libertarians wish to persuade libertarians to adopt egalitarian social policies, they must begin where libertarians are, with a right of self-ownership. This is simple common sense, although many philosophers, judging from their writings, fail to grasp it. (To persuade rationally, one must begin with premises one’s interlocutor accepts.)

I will have more to say about left-libertarianism in days to come. Stay tuned.