Locke regarded non-arbitrary law as enlarging rather than constraining freedom

Evidence

John Locke is a good representative of the commonwealth tradition, though the originality of his rational, contractarian perspective gives him a special status (Robbins 1959: 58-67; Tully 1993). And Locke is clearly on Harrington’s side in the debate about law and liberty. He argues for a ‘freedom from Absolute, Arbitrary Power’ as the essential thing, and the thing that marks the contrast with slavery (Locke 1965: 325). And in explicit opposition to Filmer, he sees law as creative of freedom: ‘that ill deserves the Name of Confinement which serves to hedge us in only from Bogs and Precipices … the end of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom’ (Locke 1965: 348). — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 212

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Law can be non-arbitrary and freedom-preserving rather than inherently dominating — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 335; Blackstone held well-framed laws generate rather than restrict liberty — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 217; Eighteenth-century English thinkers held law as the source, not enemy, of civil liberty — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 214 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Law that is non-arbitrary does not make citizens unfree #expands (0.90) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 66
• Law can be non-arbitrary and freedom-preserving rather than inherently dominating #expands (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 335
• Blackstone held well-framed laws generate rather than restrict liberty #corroborates (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 217
• Eighteenth-century English thinkers held law as the source, not enemy, of civil liberty #corroborates (0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 214