Revising republican liberty: what is the difference between a disinterested gentle giant and a deterred criminal?

Journal article

This paper assesses the most well thought out contemporary conception of republican liberty put forward by Philip Pettit and Quentin Skinner. I demonstrate that it is incoherent: at least insofar as it seeks to pick out a form of unfreedom not captured by the negative conception of liberty. This incoherence arises because Pettit and Skinner cannot both hold that republican unfreedom is defined by one agent’s mere capacity to interfere arbitrarily with another agent and, at the same time, claim that republican freedom can be promoted by deterrence mechanisms. My contribution to contemporary republican theory is to suggest that a coherent republican conception can be achieved, however, through an important revision. This is to replace Pettit and Skinner’s antonym of republican liberty—the power to interfere arbitrarily—with a higher order power—the power to determine arbitrarily rules with respect to interference. This revised conception does pick out a genuinely distinct extension of unfreedom from the negative liberty conception. I believe it also reflects an important intuitive sense in which we may understand ourselves to be unfree, that is, to live under the rule of another.

Authors: Kirby, N

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Springer Verlag
• Journal: Res Publica
• Volume: 22
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 369-386
• Publication date: 2015-10-20
• DOI: 10.1007/s11158-015-9277-y
• EISSN: 1572-8692
• ISSN: 1356-4765
• Keywords: Republicanism; Liberty; Freedom; Philip Pettie; Quentin Skinner