Freedom of self-expression is an elusive value. In ordinary political discourse, the value of self-expression seems obvious. But it is surprisingly difficult to specify freedom of self-expression without collapsing it into the value of freedom in general. And reducing freedom of self-expression to a special case of freedom of speech yields a Procrustean and underinclusive account. This paper develops a novel account of freedom of self-expression which avoids both pitfalls. First, I show that the ubiquity of self-expression as a phenomenon is compatible with the normative distinctiveness of freedom of self-expression as a value. Second, I show that freedom of self-expression requires, at minimum, freedom from content-based limitations on the exercise of personal style. Third, I ground the moral significance of freedom of self-expression in two distinct interests: in autonomy of self-definition, and in opportunities for recognition. Ultimately, freedom of self-expression emerges as a distinct and coherent moral and political value.

Carmen Pavel has recently provided an illuminating analysis of the limits of anarchic legal orders and, by extension, current arrangements for international law (Pavel 2021). Central to her argument is an account of the structural flaws in market anarchist institutions. The current paper argues that market anarchist theorists have robust responses to at least some of Pavel’s criticisms. From the anarchist viewpoint, statist approaches to legal enforcement have problems that are at least as “structural” as those Pavel attributes to anarchism. The paper seeks to articulate this anarchist position and clarify the ways in which it complicates some of Pavel’s claims. It then offers some suggestions regarding what insights this market anarchist perspective might offer for our understanding of international law.