Exposure to another’s arbitrary capacity, not its use, constitutes loss of freedom
Evidence
This line of thought is more or less explicit in the complaint that Priestley brings on behalf of the American colonists. It is a proof of the unfreedom of the Americans, as he puts it, that the Parliament of Great Britain could arbitrarily tax them for their last penny, even though it now only taxes them for one penny and even though, he might have added, it is unlikely ever to try and tax them for their last penny. The mere fact of being exposed to such a capacity on the part of others, the mere fact of being dominated in that way, meant for Priestley that the Americans were unfree (see too Paine 1989: 24-5). — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 188
Categorization
- DEFINE: Crystallizes the non-domination definition: a never-exercised but always-possible arbitrary power suffices to render one unfree.
- XREF: connects to: Living under another’s arbitrary power demeans even when unexercised — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 65; Freedom as non-domination differs from non-interference by targeting the mere capacity for arbitrary interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 434; Freedom as non-domination protects against the goodwill of others turning sour. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 136 (+2 more)
Broader Connections
- Freedom as non-domination differs from non-interference by targeting the mere capacity for arbitrary interference.
#corroborates(0.95) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 434 - Freedom as non-domination protects against the goodwill of others turning sour.
#expands(0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 136 - Freedom requires material independence from another’s arbitrary will
#corroborates(0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 173 - Freedom can be defined through domination rather than through respect for others.
#corroborates(0.80) — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 164