Environmental harm from innocent aggregate action still reduces freedom

Evidence

Even if the damage comes about inadvertently, then, or as the aggregate outcome of individually innocent actions, it counts as a loss in the ledger-book of republican liberty. And, of course, if the damage does not come about inadvertently, if it represents interference by some agency that manages to cover its tracks or to assert its way, then it represents an even greater loss. It means that the agency which assumes the right to inflict that environmental damage exercises a form of domination over those who are affected; they live, at least in some part, at the mercy of that agency: it can harm them or not harm them, interfere in their lives or not interfere, at its pleasure. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 632

Categorization

• QUESTION: Does this account of environmental damage as a loss in the ledger of freedom imply an unusually expansive notion of ‘interference’ that risks collapse into non-interference criteria?
• XREF: connects to: Environmental adversity only reorients choice; it does not cancel freedom; Environmental harm is a product of human activity carrying a moral obligation; For social individuals, freedom is a positive relation to the environment — Georg Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel, 3668 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Environmental adversity only reorients choice; it does not cancel freedom #corroborates (0.80)
• Environmental harm is a product of human activity carrying a moral obligation #expands (0.80)
• For social individuals, freedom is a positive relation to the environment #complicates (0.75) — Georg Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel, 3668