Subjection can maximize a person’s expected freedom from interference while leaving them vulnerable.
Evidence
Perhaps the recourse to the law would be so interventionist in their own lives and so ineffective in stopping interference by others that it would mean more interference, not less. Perhaps the way to maximize the person’s expected non-interference is to leave them in subjection to others, then, in a position where they suffer much uncertainty. Their expectation of non-interference would be at a maximum, but at the maximal point envisaged the interference to which they are exposed would be the arbitrary sort that induces uncertainty: the sort that occasions anxiety and makes planning difficult. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 422
Categorization
- XREF: Relevant to solidarity research: shows why merely laissez-faire relations among equals are insufficient without structural guarantees against domination. — connects to: Maximizing non-interference can justify leaving employees and women subject to powerful others. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 421; Freedom requires others actually be blocked from arbitrary interference, not merely unexercised — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1220; Freedom as non-domination yields benefits beyond those of non-interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 407 (+4 more)
Broader Connections
- Accepting vulnerability to others is necessary to enjoy maximal non-domination
#complicates(0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1193 - Freedom requires others actually be blocked from arbitrary interference, not merely unexercised
#expands(0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1220 - Freedom as non-domination differs from non-interference by targeting the mere capacity for arbitrary interference.
#expands(0.78) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 434 - Freedom as non-domination yields benefits beyond those of non-interference.
#qualifies(0.75) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 407