Pettit Berlin and Hobbes Negative Freedom or non-interference Freedom is in the silence of the laws Compatible with a monarch

rch or slavery because it is not the power one has over, but the exercise of it. Hobbes - Law is always a fetter even if it protect you from being bound in chains that are heavier than those of the law every law seems to me to curtail some liberty, although it may be a mean to increasing another o A free-man is he, that in those things, which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to doe what he has a will to o The liberty of a subject, lyteth therefore only in those things which in regulating their actions, the Sovereign hath pretermitted. Historical story from Skinner: Liberalism is a watered-down or corrupted form of republican thought. Non-domination targets arbitrary use of power B has the capacity to interfere On an arbitrary basis, and In certain choices that A is in a position to make Emphasis is not on participation, not Arendt, Aristotle or civic humanists participation is a means to non-domination, not the end Non-domination allows you to pursue your good as you best understand it. Act is not arbitrary if it tracks your interests. Must justify government action in light of a common good. Advantages over non-interference every act of the government does not have to be considered a diminution of liberty. No concept of natural freedom outside of civil society. But many leftist liberal theories do not have emphasis on non-interference theories of neutrality or Rawls difference principle Pettit response: yes, but then you have equality and freedom at odds. Non-domination ends up with leftist liberal policies in the name of freedom.

Consent vs. Contestability Consent has led to two problems o Growth of the populist idea majority rule o Free contract asymmetries of power established under the contract Consent leads to absurd doctrines about implicit consent

Under republicanism, must always have the power to contest

Non-domination targets domination both in society (ch. 5) and by government (ch.6) thus it is predisposed to government action to rectify domination in society, but is wary that government does not become the dominator. Details on chapter 5 - Chapter 5- dangers that ordinary people face in their dealings with one another, individually and in the context of collective and corporation organizations Will be disposed toward a form of government that gives the law and the state a considerable range of responsibilities But will ill-disposed, on the other hand, towards a form of government that gives authorities or even majorities, a high degree of power and discretion o Sort of built-in break of how much republicanism is going to want the state to do Socio-economic independence requires Sen capabilities approach Notes that the premodern republican tradition assumed that there was nothing that could be done to give independence to those who did not already have it, and so it did not support the sort of state envisaged here o Special taxation on luxury or sumptuary goods and a commitment to ensuring that no one was allowed the sort of wealth that might enable them to corrupt public officials and lord it over citizens. Harrington redistributive, agrarian proposal, designed to ensure that land di not come excessively under the control of a few Details on Chapter 6 Republican forms: constitutionalism and Democracy hamstring government to prevent it from dominating, especially majority tyranny Constitutional constraints in the ideal republic republican instrumentalities should not be manipulative by those in power reduce discretion makes government action more difficult o Rule of Laws, not men General and apply to everyone, promulgated and made known in advance, intelligible, consistent and not subject to constant change; and so on. Will be discretion, but must meaningfully reference the law o Disperse legal powers among different parties otherwise it becomes arbitrary Beyond separation of powers, also bicameralism, federalism o Law resistant to majority will majorities will seize the law and oppress minorities Decision-making power should be democratically controlled within the republican state everyone should be able to contest o Contestability, not consent need to force an account of relevant interest and ideas o Peoples autonomy: most of the time on auto-pilot, but can contest decisions at will, and if the contestation establishes a mismatch o Three conditions for contestability Decision-making is conducted in such a way that there is a potential basis for contestation Deliberative, not bargaining with pre-formed interests cant be based on power have to make decisions on the basis of suitable considerations

Channel or voice available by which decisions may be contested inclusivity all different voices of community will have to be represented perhaps quotas for groups such as women Responsive: Suitable forum in existence for hearing contestations: a forum where the validity of the claim is assessed and a suitable response determined Includes depoliticized ones central banks

Critiques: 1. Doesnt non-interference have an independent value? a. Community where our lives are regulated down to the tiniest detail, but always in strict accordance with known, non-arbitrary rules and procedures i. Afterward Pettit seems to acknowledge this distinction between factors that compromise liberty, and factors that condition it b. So then we have to ask of which has no more value c. Skinner diverges from Pettit says both non-interference and non-domination have value 2. Non-domination is not an independent value its primarily security in your noninterference. But in anything we value, we want security in it. If you care about X as a good, then it follows that you care about the security of your enjoyment of x a. Thats why almost all liberals, except Hobbes, give political rights as a way to ensure ability to fight 3. What counts as common good and how is it determined? a. Answer ends up deliberative democracy b. But deliberation is difficult in c. Part of liberalisms value was to exclude or limit controversial visions of the good 4. Excessively hamstrings government Shapiro critique 5. No vision of rights certain arbitrariness in government no matter what rights give a sort of security against arbitrariness a. Important footnote one way of linking-rights talk with republicanism would be to recognize certain natural, perhaps absolute, rights not to be interfered with on an arbitrary basis: these would be different from natural rights not to be interfered with on any basis, and would not raise probems for legitimating the state; in practice they would be rights against interference other than by a suitable law. Such an approach would amount to a programme of honouring non-domination, and would constitue a deontological version of republican thought. It is possible that, wittingly or unwittingly, some 18th century figures may have been deontological republicans in that sense. b. Pettit response inevitably rights clash and then we get into a harm principle i. Yes but there is prima facie presumption against violation by government. Burden on government to prove it. c. Discussion of Harrington But what if the law of Lucca itself represent the imposition of arbitrary will? i. only themselves to blame. ii. 6. Liberalism has an independent value that republicanism lacks equality

a. Status conception only those who had status were entitled to security from nondomination i. Tied heavily into owning property ii. Feared they would be used to violate property rights or become tools of oligarchic ambition b. Pettit argues that result of old prejudices c. Prejudices were erased by liberalism free and equal regardless of our property relations. In virtue of being human rather than in virtue of our economic relationships. d. Pettit notes Non-domination came to bee seen as too demanding that human beings are equal and should be equally well served by their social and political institutions i. Women and servants ii. Critics like Paley and Bentham axiomatic that all human beings are equal e. Furthermore, once you include everyone difficult, if not impossible to come up with an idea of the common good. 7. Larmore liberalism smuggled in to on an arbitrary basis a. Arbitrary aimed at racking or pomoroitng the interests of the individuals who are its object i. Interests defined by the citizens themselves in deliberative procedure ii. Lays down to conditions for deliberation 1. Citizens should rely solely on conceptual distinctions and forms of interference which no one in the community has a serious reason to reject. 2. Fundamental notions on which they do rely must nonetheless be substantial enough to permit an adequate articulation fo their various grievances and goals iii. First condition which others have a serious reason to reject embodies in fact a basic kind of respect for the individual. If just laws are based, not upon the bargaining power of various interests, but upon arguments that in principle can meet with the assent of each citizens reason, then persons are being viewed as something more than simple means to an ulterior end. They are being seen as ends in thesmevles, in the sense that the exercise of their reason counts in this context at least as having an intrinci value, which the terms of political life ought to acknowledge. iv. Fundamental principle of respect for persons turns out to constitute the most important aspect of Pettits theory it guides the determination of the interests which are non-arbitrary, that is, just laws ough to promote. 8. Non-domination is compatible with monarchichal forms enlightenment Condorcet and turgot both supported the king who ruled in accordance with reason and their own interests a. Liberalism b. Discusses nobles oblige