Abstrakt:
In the present paper the author considers a challenge
to libertarianism posed by G.A. Cohen. The
charge issued by Cohen says that libertarianism
defines freedom in terms of justice and justice in
terms of freedom. The paper deals with an aspect
of this charge as expressed by one of Cohen’s
thought experiments according to which it is not
the case that the answer to the question whether
person B forces person A to do φ depends on
whether person B’s actions are legitimate or not.
Employing the Hohfeldian analysis of fundamental
jural conceptions, the author demonstrates
that if person B’s actions are legitimate, then
making person A to do φ cannot, at pains of contradiction,
be considered forcing. If person B is at
a liberty to make person A to do φ, then person B
cannot at the same time and in the same respect
be at duty not to make person A to do φ. Yet, this
is exactly what would follow if we adopted the
stance that person B’s legitimate actions force
person A to do φ. If they forced person A, then
the expenditure of whatever labour needed to
do φ would not be a voluntary expenditure and
thereby would constitute a violation of person
A’s rights to this labour. However, if person A’s
rights were violated by person B’s actions, then
via Hohfeldian Correlativity Axiom person B
would have to be at duty not to undertake these
actions. Yet, the whole reasoning started from
the assumption that person B is at liberty to
undertake them.