From Chapter 6, On Paternal Power, page 32, of John Locke’s 1689 work, Second Treatise of Government:
“The end of the law is, not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be where there is no law: and is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists. (For who could be free when every other man’s humour might domineer over him?) But a liberty to dispose, and order freely as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be the subject of the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.”
Libertarianism is the clunky neologism used to denote the philosophy given expression in the above passage from Locke’s 329-year old book. I’ve never really been comfortable with the term, it seems so second-rate next to the word originally used to indicate support for the spontaneous forces of society, which is liberalism. Some advocates for liberty even believe the term ‘liberalism’ should be recovered from the supporters of a massive welfare state, something I don’t really see as possible now. Deirdre McCloskey’s idea hits closer to the mark than the others with her phrase of “market-tested innovationism”. I actually prefer ‘voluntarism’ as a fairly clear and simple term to signify support for a free society. After all, we supporters of liberty advocate for the extension of voluntary interaction into every possible social sphere. We advocate for the removal of all restrictions on any voluntary interaction between consenting adults. We advocate for the rule of law as Locke envisions it, law that protects us not only from other citizens but also from government interference.
