Explore Sean's Articles and Insights

Between Principle and Protocol: The Moral Challenges of a Libertarian Politician Swearing the Oath of Allegiance in Ontario

In the heart of Canada's largest province, Members of Provincial Parliament are required to take a solemn oath before assuming office. It is not to the people, nor to a constitution, but to a monarch:

“I (members name) swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third.”

For most politicians, this is a ceremonial moment—steeped in tradition, symbolic of Canada’s constitutional monarchy. But for a Libertarian politician, this moment is more than symbolic. It is morally and ideologically fraught.

Libertarianism as a political philosophy values individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and the minimization of government authority. Libertarians tend to view the state—especially when empowered by coercive traditions or hereditary privilege—with deep skepticism. This makes the act of swearing allegiance to a monarch a significant ethical dilemma.

A Legacy of Allegiance

The Oath of Allegiance dates back to the British North America Act of 1867 and reflects Canada’s enduring constitutional ties to the Crown. While the monarchy today is largely ceremonial, its symbolism still holds legal and cultural weight in Canada’s parliamentary democracy. The oath is meant to uphold continuity of governance, loyalty to the constitutional order, and respect for the rule of law.
Yet, to the Libertarian mind, the oath represents a vestige of feudalism—an archaic ritual that stands in tension with modern democratic principles. The notion of pledging loyalty to an unelected, hereditary head of state challenges the Libertarian belief in voluntary association, merit-based authority, and accountability to the electorate.

The Ideological Clash

At its core, the moral tension lies in a clash between personal conviction and institutional requirement. For a Libertarian politician, several moral and philosophical concerns arise:

1. Endorsement of Hereditary Power: Pledging allegiance to a monarch may be seen as legitimizing a form of governance based on birthright, not consent. This conflicts with the Libertarian rejection of involuntary hierarchy.

2. Involuntary Speech: Many Libertarians hold that individuals should not be compelled to say or do things they do not believe in. Taking an oath as a condition for participating in government may be seen as coerced expression.

3. Misplaced Loyalty: Libertarians often argue that a politician’s first duty should be to uphold individual rights and serve their constituents—not to a monarch who plays no direct role in the legislative process.

4. Contradiction of Principles: Taking the oath might be viewed as an act of hypocrisy, especially if the politician has publicly criticized the institution of monarchy or called for more democratic reforms.

Pragmatism or Principle?

Faced with these concerns, a Libertarian politician must choose between principle and pragmatism. Some may refuse to take the oath on ethical grounds, effectively barring themselves from public office. Others may accept the oath as a legal formality—a symbolic gesture that does not undermine their broader mission.
Many Libertarian candidates would opt for the latter. They accept that Allegiance to the monarch is understood as allegiance to the constitutional framework within which Ontario’s government operates—not to the individual person of the king. In this way, Libertarians can fulfill the requirement without violating their core beliefs.
There is also a strategic dimension to consider. By entering the legislature, a Libertarian politician gains a platform to push for reforms—including changes to outdated ceremonial requirements. From this perspective, taking the oath may be seen as a necessary concession in the service of long-term ideological goals.

Join the Conversation

We value your input and insights! Our blog is not just a source of information but a platform for discussion. Engage with us in the comments section of our articles, share your experiences, and connect with others who are keen on personal and professional growth. Together, we can create a community of learners.

A Call for Reform

The moral discomfort raised by the oath is not limited to Libertarians. It has been questioned by Indigenous politicians, republicans, secularists, and others who view it as an outdated, imposed tradition. Several have taken office only after making public statements clarifying their allegiance lies with the people, not the Crown.
There is a growing argument that the oath should be modernized to reflect democratic values and the pluralism of Canadian society. One proposal is to allow a dual oath: one to the Constitution or Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and one (optionally) to the monarch. This would preserve continuity while respecting individual conscience.

Conclusion

For Libertarian politicians in Ontario, the Oath of Allegiance is more than a quaint tradition—it is a test of moral integrity and ideological coherence. Whether one sees it as an acceptable compromise or a violation of principle, the tension it creates reveals deeper questions about the nature of loyalty, the role of tradition in democracy, and the moral responsibilities of those who seek public office.
As Canada continues to evolve, so too should the institutions that shape its governance. The oath, like all symbols of power, must be open to scrutiny. For Libertarians and others who value personal freedom above ceremonial conformity, this is not merely a matter of protocol—it is a matter of principle.