Many people believe that libertarianism can be best understood in terms of the idea of free-market capitalism. It is usually held that liberals endorse particular government restrictions on individuals by taxation and the like. Libertarians oppose government restrictions on individual freedoms.
Will Kymlicka claims that every claim about freedom must possess a triadic structure- 'X is free from Y to do Z', where X is the agent, Y specifies the preventing conditions and Z specifies the action. In other words, "who is free to do what from what obstacle."
Anthony Flew believes that individuals have the right to dispose of property as they see fit but he does not state who has this right in the first place. This is a major problem for him because although the owner of a property is enjoying increased freedom, there are others who are not.
This brings us back to Robert Nozick's famous Amy and Ben argument. In this argument, Amy and Ben are both living off the resources of a particular land. One day, Amy decides that she is going to appropriate all of the land for herself. Obviously, Ben loses his freedom to reap the benefits of the land, once held in common.
In general, this means that private ownership for a particular individual simultaneously implies non-ownership for other individuals. Therefore, this ownership argument also restricts particular freedoms. G.A Cohen claims that private ownership redistributes, "freedom and unfreedom".
Cohen provides a devastating critique of Nozick's theory. By showing that both private ownership and the welfare-state both restrict particular individual freedoms. Nozick believes that his theory is superior to John Rawl's theory of liberal egalitarianism because Rawls' theory involves constant interference from the government. However, as Cohen points out, Nozick's theory itself is the problem because private ownership violates others individual freedom.
Kymlicka believes that most libertarians do not believe that free-market capitalism creates more freedom than it takes away. Libertarians will claim that capitalism does not create restrictions on any one individual. He believes they claim this because they have shifted to a moralized definition of freedom. This type of freedom refers to the 'exercise of one's rights.' Thus, they argue, the free market increases freedom in the moralized sense rather the non-moralized sense which can produce 'freedom' and 'unfreedom'.
However, with the moralized view of freedom, libertarians can claim that a private owner is not interfering with another individuals' freedom but rather they are simply claiming that it prevents these other individuals from doing what they had no right to do in the first place. The problem with this is that this argument is not liberty based but rather, it assumes the existence of rights prior to liberty. This can only be true if we view such rights as morally correct, which has not been done.
Kymlicka believes that once we define liberty in terms of the rights we can exercise, then liberty cannot cannot play a role in determining which theory is correct. Both theories can claim that their particular government institutions will act in accordance with people's moral rights is not limiting moralized liberty. Thus, if we endorse the libertarian view that people have a moral right to private property, then capitalism involves no restriction on liberty. On the other hand, if we endorse the liberal view that people do not have a right to benefit from their undeserved talents, then the redistribution of these talents does not involve a restriction on liberty as well. The answer, according to Kymlica, is that we do not need an increased amount of liberty but rather "we must first choose between their accounts of our moral rights."
