Paley reports that common discourse defined liberty as security against arbitrary interference.
Evidence
Paley recognizes in this work that the usual notion of civil liberty, the one that agrees with ‘the usage of common discourse, as well as the example of many respectable writers’ (p. 357), is that of freedom as non-domination. ‘This idea places liberty in security; making it to consist not merely in an actual exemption from the constraint of useless and noxious laws and acts of dominion, but in being free from the danger of having such hereafter imposed or exercised’ (p. 357; original emphasis). — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 242
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: True liberty is resilient security against interference, not merely its absence; Negative liberty means being free from interference in one’s choices. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 7; Freedom as security against arbitrary interference is not a means-end confusion — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1225 (+2 more)
Broader Connections
- True liberty is resilient security against interference, not merely its absence
#corroborates(0.85) - Freedom as security against arbitrary interference is not a means-end confusion
#qualifies(0.78) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1225 - Privately pursued security against interference would distribute freedom unequally
#expands(0.75) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 455 - Negative liberty means being free from interference in one’s choices.
#complicates(0.72) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 7 - Modern liberty-as-noninterference originated among authoritarian writers opposing American independence
#complicates(0.72) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 239