Yet Another Problem for Republican Freedom: Why Non-Domination Theory Fails

What is it about?

What makes someone free? Some political theorists argue that freedom means no one has the power to interfere with your choices, even if they never actually do interfere. This is called "republican freedom" or "freedom as non-domination." Critics have pointed out a fatal problem with this theory: since it's always possible for someone to gain power to interfere with others' choices, this would mean no one is ever free. Recently, some republicans proposed a solution using the concept of "ignorability" - saying we can ignore some possibilities of interference. Our paper examines this solution and shows why it also doesn't work. We demonstrate that their fix doesn't solve the problem. This matters because how we define freedom affects how we think about power relationships in society and how we design political institutions to protect people's liberty.

Featured Image

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

Why is it important?

This paper offers a timely critique of the latest attempt to salvage republican freedom theory, one of the most influential theories of freedom in contemporary political philosophy. While previous critiques focused on the basic "impossibility problem" of republican freedom, our work is the first to systematically examine and expose the recent "ignorability" solution. For scholars and students interested in political theory, this paper provides essential insights into why defining freedom in terms of non-domination remains problematic, even with recent theoretical innovations.