Republican ‘arbitrariness’ means sheer lack of control, not injustice.

Evidence

The first is that, on either view, arbitrariness simply means uncontrolled and vice versa. Pettit’s recent preference for the latter term over the former (e.g., Pettit 2012, 2014) is simply due to its superior clarity, and represents neither a real change in view nor the addition of a new condition alongside the old. The second caveat is that, again on either view, arbitrary or uncontrolled power should not be defined along substantive lines as power that is unjust or illegitimate. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 34

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies that republicans define arbitrary power procedurally as uncontrolled, explicitly not as unjust or illegitimate — a key technical distinction.
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 34
• XREF: connects to: Republican freedom means absence of dependence on arbitrary power, not non-interference. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 18; On the republican view, non-arbitrary laws do not reduce freedom but can enhance it. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 47; Republicans held that subjection to another’s arbitrary will itself constitutes unfreedom — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1209 (+1 more)

Related

• Republican freedom means absence of dependence on arbitrary power, not non-interference. (similarity 0.89)
• Republican freedom can relate to noninterference in various distinct ways. (similarity 0.86)
• Republican freedom can be equated with an extended rule of law (similarity 0.86)
• Republicans held that subjection to another’s arbitrary will itself constitutes unfreedom (similarity 0.85)
• Freedom means no one holds arbitrary power to interfere with us. (similarity 0.85)
• Interference is arbitrary by lack of control, not by harmful consequences. (similarity 0.84)
• On the republican view, non-arbitrary laws do not reduce freedom but can enhance it. (similarity 0.84)
• Arbitrariness concerns the controls on an act, not its consequences (similarity 0.83)
• Republicans hold liberty as non-domination while liberals define it as mere non-interference. (similarity 0.83)
• Republican freedom depends on laws that constrain power without creating new domination (similarity 0.83)
• Arbitrary interference is defined by its impunity, not by its content (similarity 0.83)
• Power counts as non-arbitrary when those subject to it control how it is exercised. (similarity 0.83)
• Law can be non-arbitrary and freedom-preserving rather than inherently dominating (similarity 0.82)
• Law that is non-arbitrary does not make citizens unfree (similarity 0.82)
• Restraint by fair law is compatible with freedom, unlike arbitrary sway (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• On the republican view, non-arbitrary laws do not reduce freedom but can enhance it. #corroborates (0.80) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 47
• Republicans held that subjection to another’s arbitrary will itself constitutes unfreedom #expands (0.75) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1209
• Arbitrariness concerns the controls on an act, not its consequences #expands (0.70)