The republican tradition prized liberty as non-domination, not democratic participation
Evidence
So much by way of arguing that the main figures in the republican tradition were not concerned primarily with liberty in the positive sense of democratic participation but rather with liberty in a sense opposed to interference. We come now, however, to the crucial question. Did the republican emphasis on the importance of avoiding interference come of a belief in freedom as non-interference or of a belief in freedom as non-domination? — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 166
Categorization
- DEFINE: Sets up the book’s core distinction between freedom as non-interference and freedom as non-domination.
- XREF: connects to: Civic republicans define freedom as non-domination, not mere non-interference — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 68; Republican tradition is unified by a distinctive way of conceptualizing liberty — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 114; Republican democrats treated participation as a means to, not the definition of, liberty. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 158 (+7 more)
Broader Connections
- Freedom in the republican tradition means non-domination rather than merely non-interference
#corroborates(0.95) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 186 - Republicans hold liberty as non-domination while liberals define it as mere non-interference.
#corroborates(0.92) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 46 - Republican freedom means absence of dependence on arbitrary power, not non-interference.
#corroborates(0.90) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 18 - Republican freedom as non-domination fuses absence from negative and mastery from positive liberty.
#expands(0.82) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 122 - On the republican view, non-arbitrary laws do not reduce freedom but can enhance it.
#expands(0.78) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 47 - Republican freedom can relate to noninterference in various distinct ways.
#expands(0.75) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 29