Arbitrary interference ignores the affected parties’ own interests and opinions

Evidence

An act is perpetrated on an arbitrary basis, we can say, if it is subject just to the arbitrium, the decision or judgement, of the agent; the agent was in a position to choose it or not choose it, at their pleasure. When we say that an act of interference is perpetrated on an arbitrary basis, then, we imply that like any arbitrary act it is chosen or not chosen at the agent’s pleasure. And in particular, since interference with others is involved, we imply that it is chosen or rejected without reference to the interests, or the opinions, of those affected. The choice is not forced to track what the interests of those others require according to their own judgements. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 291

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines ‘arbitrary basis’ via the Latin arbitrium, grounding Pettit’s later claim that tracking interests, not absence of interference, is what non-dominating states must achieve.
• XREF: connects to: Exploitative bargaining and spiteful omissions can themselves constitute interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 285; An act is arbitrary when chosen without tracking affected parties’ interests; Interference can be non-arbitrary when institutions force officials to track citizens’ interests — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 331 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• An act is arbitrary when chosen without tracking affected parties’ interests #expands (0.92)
• Interference can be non-arbitrary when institutions force officials to track citizens’ interests #expands (0.88) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 331
• State interference is non-arbitrary when it tracks shared rather than exceptional interests. #qualifies (0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 293
• Interference is non-dominating when structured by shared-interest conditions and contestable penalties #expands (0.78) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 128