Great debate ongoing between Kling and Wilkinson regarding Freedom as Exit vs Voice. This current debate is being stimulated by Paul Romer's "chartered cities" concept, heavily promoted by the likes of Patri Friedman.

Here's my take. Libertarian that I am, I still have to concede that the moral basis(self-ownership) of it suffers from the same problem that every other moral theory suffers from, namely the "Ought-Is" problem. And although we often talk about "left" and "right" libertarianism, in reality, the "American libertarian movement," at least, can be refined into another set of dual categories, namely Praxeology vs Non-rationalist Emergent Order. In terms of personalities, Mises/Rothbard vs Hayek/Adam Smith. Praxeology is the logical deduction of "Human Action" from an axiomatic basis. Libertarian praxeologists will typically debate amongst themselves over, say, the Kantian vs Aristotelian epistemological basis for such axioms.

Contrastly, the Hayekian wing is rooted in the nonrationalist, dialectical social evolution resulting from the by-product of human design and undesigned spontaneous order. Hayek more or less rejected praxeology, stating that is a "mere collection of empirically empty tautologies" and that it was unable to explain how agents obtain knowledge about the results of their historical actions. Hayekian social theory is seen as a refinement and inheritor of the Adam Smith/Scottish enlightenment tradition.

The thing to note is that you can be a "left-winger" or a "right winger" and come down on either side. If you don't think "left libertarians" can't have a spirited debate, I can reference some not too polite discussions I've had with some noted left libertarians over the issue of the "sex industry." Dialectics comes naturally in terms of Hayekian social theory, but I think such methods can be artificially added on top at times by praxeologists, resorting to what i called "dialectical drivel." My point was that the emergent order of such things like home studio web cams, and even "sexting," sociologically discredits that "pornography" is a by-product of male dominant patriarchal order. Frankly, there's a valid reason why "Prostitution" is often referred to as the worlds' oldest profession.

The downside of Hayekian social theory is that you cannot guarantee a "liberal social order." I certainly can make a social observation that aversion to slavery(being enslaved) seems to be a universal trait shared by all humans. Much more innate than aversion to progressive notions of "inequality." However, tribalism is certainly a universal competing trait. But tribalism can be overcome by trade and exchange, and other conflicting traits such as the desire to explore(extend one's boundaries). I have yet to see evidence that social orders can beat out of humans their universal aversion to slavery, no matter what social myths one tries to wrap around such as justification. But you cannot derive the moral "Ought" from a sociological "Is." The best that you can do is make reasonable empirical extrapolations. And that will have to do.

Of course, neither progressives nor libertarian praxeologists can overcome the "Ought-Is" problem either. Progressives often attack the strength of "libertarianism," that is, it's critique of the State. However, it's rock solid there. You can either resort to the Praxeological "Calculation Problem" or the Hayekian "Knowledge Problem" to critique central planning. The actual "weakness" of libertarianism is that it doesn't inform you what to replace the central state with. Misean praxeology, for example, sees a role for the State whereas Rothbardian praxeology sees no role for the State. That's an issue with the praxeological method. And, Hoppe, supposedly the most rigorous Rothbardian praxeologist, deduced a propertarian social system so absolute that a child could point out it's flaws. Libertarian Praxeology is simply incapable of deducing even what property rights would be in a so-called libertarian order.

If "social justice" is largely meaningless because no one can either define what is meant by "social justice" or demonstrate how the State achieves it, then the progressive-libertarian debate largely boils down to "social engineering" vs "social experimentation." The former refers to engineering social outcomes through existing institutions, and if necessary, using those institutions to shape a majoritarian consensus, which, in the end, is the only thing that "legitimizes" shared community values. The latter refers to a bottom-up social organic evolution of social institutions. And that's why libertarianism, in the end, likely requires a "frontier," because it is quite difficult to socially experiment with "hardened institutions." As a social evolution is not guaranteed to turn out 'liberal," or that all social institutions may harden over time without competition, the notion of "Exit" is critical to liberty, more so than voice.

Given that we humans live in a 30 billion light year universe with an endless supply of nuclear energy from Stars, and given human capacity to abstract cooperation and scientifically understand it's environment; given human aversion to enslavement and it's propensity to explore, what's the best bet in terms of which social theory will win out in the end? Communitarian tribalism or libertarian frontierism?