Liberty: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control; freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
Fraternity: a group of persons associated by or as if by ties of brotherhood; any group or class of persons having common purposes, interests, etc.
While fraternity is certainly possible without liberty, is liberty possible without fraternity? Not merely a fraternity of NAP adherents – that’s an easy (and irrelevant) question; a fraternity “as if by ties of brotherhood.” Common culture, common custom, common language, common religion.
It is a question ignored by many who call themselves “libertarian” and “hope” for a libertarian world. Further, it is a question answered affirmatively by some such as these – liberty can be had in a land of any culture or no common culture. Is this true? Or is this claimed out of ignorance, or worse, out of preference for a leftist, socialist (even communist) world?
Christopher Caldwell has written a review of a book by Christophe Guilluy: Le crépuscule de la France d’en haut (roughly: “The Twilight of the French Elite”). The analysis and review are applicable to the situations behind the political realities of the west today; it is also applicable to the question of the possibility of liberty without fraternity – liberty without nation.
Caldwell describes the several books by Guilluy:
…they give the best ground-level look available at the economic, residential, and democratic consequences of globalization in France. They also give an explanation for the rise of the National Front that goes beyond the usual…