Idea
Philip Pettit holds that a person is free to the extent that no other person or group has the capacity to interfere in their affairs on an arbitrary basis. What matters is exposure to arbitrary power, not only actual interference.
Theory
Set out in Republicanism (1997), the idea is traced to a neo-Roman tradition that contrasted free citizens with dependent slaves; Quentin Skinner developed the historical case. Institutions that reduce domination include the rule of law, a mixed constitution, separation of powers and means for citizens to contest decisions.
Real examples
Its historical reference points are the Roman republic and the Renaissance and Dutch republics, and the republicanism of Jefferson, Madison and Adams.
Critique
Carter, Kramer and Goodin argue that non-domination reduces to secure non-interference. Pettit replies that the method of securing low interference matters, as with a benevolent master. Critics also question how 'arbitrary' is to be defined.
Results
It is the best developed contemporary republican research programme and a main rival of liberal and libertarian accounts of freedom as non-interference.
Related
Claims
Neo-republicans such as Pettit treat political liberty as non-domination, independence from arbitrary power, and define freedom as the absence of another's capacity to interfere arbitrarily in one's affairs.[1][2]
Some philosophers (Goodin, Carter, Kramer) argue that talk of non-domination is another way of describing secure non-interference; Pettit rejects this because the method of securing low interference matters.[1]
Revision history
- 2026-10-23rev 1 — Seed import