Authors
- Doliner Maxim G.
Annotation
The relevance of this study stems from the internal contradiction within libertarian theory between formal freedom, based on the principle of self-ownership, and the need to ensure conditions for real personal autonomy. The purpose of this article is to identify the limitations of the principle of self-ownership and to show the possibility
of reconciling it with egalitarian mechanisms of resource distribution within libertarianism. The main content of the study consists of a philosophical analysis of the concept of selfownership, various interpretations of John Locke’s reservation (utilitarian, sufficiency, and egalitarian), as well as a consideration of the problem of autonomy using the examples of voluntary slavery and dependence. The analysis showed that the formal right to dispose of one’s own body does not guarantee real freedom without access to the minimum necessary resources. Based on the results of the study, the conclusion was made about the need for egalitarian restrictions on the appropriation of natural resources in order to preserve personal autonomy. The theoretical significance of the work lies in clarifying the concept of real freedom in libertarianism and justifying the compatibility of the principle of self-ownership with redistributive mechanisms, including unconditional basic income.
How to link insert
Doliner, M. G. (2026). REAL FREEDOM IN LIBERTARIANISM: THE SEARCH FOR COMPROMISE Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", № 1 (57), 45. https://doi.org/10.24412/2078-9238-2026-157-45-52
References
1.
1. Hobbes, T. (1936). Leviathan, or the matter, form, and power of a commonwealth ecclesiastical and civil. State Socio-Economic Publishing House. (Original work published 1651). (In Russian).
2.
2. Kant, I. (1994). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. In Kant, I. Collected works in 8 vols. (vol. 4, pp. 153–246). Choro. (Original work published 1785). (In Russian).
3.
3. Nozick, R. (2008). Anarchy, state, and utopia. IRISEN. (Original work published 1974). (In Russian).
4.
4. Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government. In Locke, J. Works in 3 vols. (vol. 3, pp. 135–406). Mysl. (Original work published 1689). (In Russian).
5.
5. Sychev, A. A. (2015). Ethical and ecological dimensions of the problem of common-pool resources. Proceedings of the Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 17, (1–3), 737–741. (In Russian).
6.
6. Frankfurt, H. G. (1988). Equality as a moral ideal. In The importance of what we care about (pp. 134–158). Cambridge University Press.
7.
7. Morozov, K. E. (2024). Reciprocal libertarianism: Key principles and implications. Moscow University Bulletin, Series 7. Philosophy, 48, (5), 88–105. (In Russian).
8.
8. Mack, E. (1995). The self-ownership proviso: A new and improved Lockean proviso. Social Philosophy & Policy, 12, (1), 186–218.
9.
9. Block, W. (2003). Toward a libertarian theory of inalienability: A critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Smith, Kinsella, Gordon, and Epstein. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 17, (2), 39–85.
10.
10. George, H. (1896). Progress and poverty: An inquiry into the cause of industrial depressions and of increase of want with increase of wealth. M. M. Lederle. (In Russian).