Girl power

Within the economics blogosphere, a debate has arisen as to whether women have more libertarian freedom now than they did in 1880. The argument originated because one argued that yes, women were freer more than a century ago. This, not surprisingly, launched a spree of reactions.

There are the obvious social comments and disputes to be made: the ability now held to cohabitate outside of marriage, more freedom to choose marriage and the elimination of arcane laws that limited women's lifestyles. There is also the question of liberty as imposed by society or as imposed by law.

So the debate becomes, is the degree of libertarian freedom across historical eras quantifiable or does it fall into the category of grass-is-always-greener nostalgia? But to even ask this question, a more basic dilemma needs to be solved: what is freedom?

Is freedom based on wealth or is freedom based on rights? Brennan and Schmidtz wrote their book, attempting to define liberty in a way that would allow them to examine "when a society is moving toward liberty or away from it, and so that we can proceed to ask a straightforward question: 'Was that move a good one?' "

If that is the lens through which we view the level of freedom in a society, then the measure immediately becomes subjective. Is it a "good" move if everyone has economic choice, or if everyone is guaranteed the same level of economic possession? The argument becomes circular because it is heavily disputed as to which theories support the greatest level of freedom, particularly when negative and positive liberties must be balanced. Is forcing someone to be free, as Berlin might suggest, a valid construct, or is it simply an oxymoron? Can we argue that women are less free now because more is expected of them? Or are they more free because so many societal barriers have been taken down?

Regardless, in some ways women are definitely more free. Though liberty is a contentious topic, I don't think anyone will argue against the constrictive nature of a corset.