It is easy to forget that rigid national borders have not always been the European norm. Those who read novels set before World War I will experience a time when passports were largely unnecessary. Joseph Roth’s The Emperor’s Tomb or Stefan Zweig’s The World of Yesterday explore the Hapsburg Empire before the war and the nationalist wave that followed it.

Of course, those who live in today’s democracies should not look back at this period with naive fondness. The era of Zweig and Roth was far from ideal; Roth’s novel also deals with the emancipation of women who enjoyed little freedom in the Hapsburg Empire. Still, it is difficult to deny the nostalgic appeal of these stories. For the reader, they prove that a more cosmopolitan world is not only possible—but that it used to be real.

The promise of European federalism is that we can combine modern, liberal democracy with open borders between states. Today, European citizens can move around the Union with little bureaucratic hassle. It is strange, then, that the political ideology which puts the strongest emphasis on individual freedom, libertarianism, seems to have a particularly negative view on the EU.

Among libertarian think tanks and publications, it is hard to find appreciation for the EU. Some, like the Cato Institute, point out that free movement of goods, capital, people, and services are accomplishments that should not be taken for granted. Still, one finds little beyond support of the EU as a lesser evil to protectionism. More regularly, libertarians view the EU as a bureaucratic nightmare that stifles freedom instead of fostering it. But does that mean they should reject European federalism?

Beyond two concepts of liberty

Libertarianism is not a widespread ideology in Europe. Most nation-states on the continent, along with the EU, pride themselves on widespread regulation, progressive taxation, and a comprehensive welfare state. In Isaiah Berlin’s famous post-war essay, Two Concepts of Liberty, he made a distinction between what he termed “positive liberty” and “negative liberty”. Europe is far more preoccupied with the former.

For Berlin, negative liberty defined freedom as the absence of coercion by others. Positive liberty, on the other hand, defined freedom as being the true master of one’s life. For instance, someone in poverty may not be coerced by others, but their choices are still limited by their circumstances. They have the right to buy a house – but they don’t have the means. Most of Europe has chosen to enhance positive liberty and fund welfare states, even if that means reducing the freedom of the highest earners through taxation.

Libertarians, however, believe that prioritising positive liberty over negative liberty is unjust. Beyond flat taxes for the most basic operations of the state, and a small safety net, how one spends their income should be their own choice. Excessive taxes and regulations tip the balance dangerously towards freedom via coercion. However, stopping at this critique does little to help promote libertarian goals. To become a more attractive political movement, libertarians need a positive vision. In Europe, they might try to blend libertarianism with European federalism.

A libertarian vision of European federalism

European federalism is mostly a left-wing, progressive movement. Some of its biggest advocates, such as Jürgen Habermas, have advanced it as being both a pacifist project and a way of taming free markets. Libertarians cannot get behind such a vision, but it is not—or does not have to be—the only one. European federalism can and should be a place where different political ideologies coexist. It is time libertarians shape what a federation will look like.

What would a libertarian vision of European federalism look like? We can start by looking at Robert Nozick’s seminal text, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In this book, Nozick argues for what he terms a “minimal state”. A minimal state only features a military, an executive force and a judiciary system. He establishes—in opposition to anarchists—that it is possible to build such a state without violating anyone’s rights. So, the state itself cannot be rejected because it violates rights.

Yet, for Nozick, nothing more coercive than the minimal state is allowed if one takes rights seriously. A minimal state that protects people from external and internal enemies and upholds contracts can arise without violating rights, but a comprehensive welfare state cannot. The reason lies in Nozick’s entitlement conception of justice, defined as spheres of decision-making where only someone’s personal preferences matter. Whether two people decide to marry each other or when someone decides to retire is only their decision.

However, other members of society have a stake in those decisions. By marrying, two people are taking away other people’s choice to marry them. Likewise, if the head of a company was to retire or sell it off to someone else, it could potentially lead to people becoming unemployed. Still, Nozick insists that it is only their preferences that matter. Nozick defends the idea that people should be free to make decisions in their own spheres, free from coercion by others who may not like the decisions they make.

In other areas, this idea appears less straightforward—especially when it comes to money—but Nozick argues that there is no difference between deciding who one wishes to marry and how to spend the money that one earns. Attempts to introduce a more equal distribution of wealth can only be maintained through restricting freedom, either by preventing people from consuming the goods and services they desire, or by taking the earnings of those who provide it.

The minimal state is not an inspiring vision or an uplifting call. One cannot organise masses by arguing that we should all leave each other alone. Yet, Nozick is not opposed to the formation of communities that voluntarily implement a cooperative way of living. What Nozick is preoccupied with is the ability to freely join and leave communities. This offers the basis for a libertarian European federalism.

A careful balance of different interest groups

Under this vision, a European federation could guarantee security, legal equality, and individual rights, while ensuring that people could freely join and leave the communities that it consists of. Such a political order could restrain political leaders flirting with coercion or unjust policy-making, because they know that taxpayers could easily move to other communities. In doing so, it could prevent the dangers that are inherent in the centralisation of power – a centralisation that European federalism also entails.

This is precisely why the tenth Federalist Paper by James Madison, one of the American founding fathers, outlined that the American republic had to prevent centralisation of power, ensuring that different interest groups compete against each other. That way, no group could dominate another. Freedom can be best guaranteed by keeping the holders of power in a careful balance against each other.

While this is an inspiring vision, it has faced challenges when applied to the real world. Obviously, people cannot vote with their feet all the time. People may want to leave communities that enact policies they want to escape, but are unable to do so because of lack of funds, familial ties, or language barriers. The libertarian vision of European federalism would not immediately undo the nation state. But it can provide a positive vision for doing so in the long run.

The seeds of a libertarian revival exist in Europe

There is clearly an appetite for a vision that prioritises freedom. While the welfare state has undoubtedly improved the living standards of European citizens, states that provide an extensive safety net also reduce people’s feeling of agency. In Free Market Fairness, John Tomasi argues that people are increasingly resentful of overzealous welfare states, restricting their economic freedom and undermining their feeling of being the author of their own lives.

As Nozick writes, “we are distinct individuals, each with his own life to lead”. While we all have an interest in living as comfortable a life as possible, people also care about feeling like they are actually the ones steering the course of their lives. This is not to say that the welfare state should be abolished altogether in a European federation. But it is a reminder that beyond material wellbeing, the feelings of freedom and agency also matter to people.

European federalism cannot simply replicate the American example. Clearly, the formation of a more libertarian Europe will require a movement that is tailored to the continent’s particular history. The US built a federation out of many individuals. The EU has to build one out of many nations. It has achieved the hard part by breaking the nationalist view of shutting oneself off. Today, Europeans know that their neighbors in the Union can be trusted.

European governments enact solidarity every day. This is not just a political spectacle. People have undoubtedly moved closer together. What the EU has achieved is a large, post-nationalist bloc in which people are now freer than ever to voluntarily choose where they want to live their lives—with the people they choose to live with. This is a big step towards Nozick’s minimal state.

And, yet, the future of Europe is still contested. Political movements battle over the right to shape how the continent will develop in the next years, decades, and even centuries. What is missing right now on the right-wing is a strong libertarian voice to challenge those nostalgic for a return to nationalism. One that champions people’s autonomy and agency. One that welcomes people who weren’t born here but voluntarily choose this continent as their home. And one that reminds us that Europeans do not only want to live good lives—they also want to lead them.