Jacob T. Levy

An imperfect but very interesting book.

Its point is to explore a tension within the ideals that underpin most modern democracies. If one believes that a key value of democratic government is to protect the freedom of its individual citizens (by no means a universally held belief) then that raises a further question: who should that freedom be protected from?

More specifically, the central government can pose a threat to citizens' liberty. But so can subnational groups within society: a local government, or a religious group, or a business, or the family. Some theorists see the primary threat to liberty as being the state, and see these "intermediary groups" as bulwarks against tyranny. But others see the biggest threat as being those very intermediary groups and seek to use the power of the state to prevent those groups from oppressing their members.

An example: in a liberal democracy, citizens have freedom of expression. But a homeowners association — entered into willingly by its members — might impose limits on that freedom of expression, such as forbidding its members to display political signs. Can free democratic citizens willingly surrender some of their political rights by joining an association? If the government passes a law banning homeowners associations from forbidding political signs, does that law make the country more or less free?

It's a theoretical but very relevant question that gets to the root of many questions in modern politics and society. Levy comes at it from philosophical and historical angles, and the book is genuinely enlightening.

But it's also an odd duck. It's caught in the middle between being a work for lay readers and being one for a technical audience, with large sections discussing questions in a general, accessible manner and others dropping half-explained jargon all over the place. I'm not sure if I could recommend it to someone who doesn't already have a background in political theory, which is a shame, because the question is one worth considering more broadly.

It also is caught in between an exploration of the topic and an advocacy for one side of the debate. The author ultimately believes that neither side is all correct, but spends much of the book defending one perspective because he's responding to literature in the field that, he says, predominantly backs the other side. That's all well and good if you're familiar with the latest developments in liberal political theory, but less so for someone coming at the topic fresh.… (altro)