How Frank Ankersmit Pointed Out Freedom as a Basis for Inequality

Giving everyone equal freedom creates unequal outcomes. That is not wrong. That is structural.

Frank Ankersmit, Dutch historian and political theorist, argues something that makes many liberal-democratic thinkers uncomfortable: freedom creates inequality.

Not because freedom is bad. But because equal freedom for everyone, given that everyone starts in different positions, necessarily leads to unequal outcomes.

Take an example. Two people get equal opportunity for higher education. Both have free choice. But one is the child of lawyers, lives in Amsterdam, knows people who have studied. The other is the child of immigrants, lives somewhere where going to university means moving, knows nobody in higher education.

They have equal freedom. They do not have equal outcomes. The first finishes successfully. The second drops out.

Is that unjust? According to Ankersmit's logic: no. Both had equal freedom. They made equal choices. That one is better off is not because freedom failed. It is because freedom works: the strong can get stronger.

This is the fundamental paradox of liberal democracy. We believe in equal freedom. But equal freedom has unequal consequences. And do you want to stick with equal freedom, or with equal outcomes?

I see this pattern everywhere in my advisory work. A company says: we give everyone equal opportunity. Equal education, equal pay, equal right to promotion. Fine, people say. But then they notice: not everyone benefits equally well. Some have mentors. Some have networks. Some have money to take extra courses in the evenings.

So they get unequal outcomes. And then the same people say: wait, that is not equal!

There is the pinch. Equal freedom creates structurally unequal outcomes. And if you want to prevent that, you must constantly intervene to restore equality. That means: give someone less freedom. Quotas. Positive discrimination. Redistribution.

Ankersmit says: choose. Do you choose freedom or equality? Because you cannot have both.

Many countries try both. They want equal freedom, but they also want equal outcomes. And that creates continuous tension. Quotas that feel unjust. Progressive taxation that feels like theft. Redistribution that feels like infringement.

This is not political arbitrariness. This is structural. It sits in the logic of freedom itself.

The Netherlands says: we do both. Free education, but also equal access. Free market, but also social security. Free enterprise, but also regulation. I understand the ambition. But it creates continuous conflict. Because you cannot have both.

What would be fairer? What would be fairer: say what your priority is. The Netherlands says: we prioritize equal outcomes. Fine. Accept then that it means limitations on freedom. Or say: we prioritize freedom. Fine. Accept then that it creates unequal outcomes.

But do not say: we do freedom, and we get equality. That does not work. The strong get stronger.

Sources: Frank Ankersmit, Aesthetic Politics; analyses of freedom and equality in liberal democracy