David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Political Theory 38 (6):809-837 (2010)
Neo-Republicans claim that Hobbes’s constitutional indifferentism (the view that we have no profound reason to prefer one constitutional form over another) is driven exclusively by a reductive understanding of liberty as non-interference. This paper argues that constitutional indifferentism is grounded in an analysis of the institutional presuppositions of well-functioning government that does not depend on a conception of liberty as mere non-interference. Hence, indifferentism cannot be refuted simply by pointing out that non-domination is a distinctive ideal of freedom. This result does not suffice to defend the strong version of indifferentism put forward by Hobbes. But it does point to an important limitation of neo-republican constitutional theory: Neo-republicanism will amount to a distinctive paradigm of constitutional thought only if it is understood in a way that conflicts with Hobbes’s understanding of the institutional presuppositions of well-functioning government. It is doubtful that we have good reason to embrace neo-republicanism, so understood.
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
M. J. Thompson (2013). Reconstructing Republican Freedom: A Critique of the Neo-Republican Concept of Freedom as Non-Domination. Philosophy and Social Criticism 39 (3):277-298.
Robert S. Taylor (2013). Market Freedom as Antipower. American Political Science Review 107 (3):593-602.
Samantha Besson & José Luis Martí (eds.) (2009). Legal Republicanism: National and International Perspectives. OUP Oxford.
Nicholas Southwood (2002). Beyond Pettit's Neo-Roman Republicanism: Towards the Deliberative Republic. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 5 (1):16-42.
Fabian Wendt (2011). Slaves, Prisoners, and Republican Freedom. Res Publica 17 (2):175-192.
Philip Pettit (2006). Freedom in the Market. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 5 (2):131-149.
Philip Pettit (2005). Liberty and Leviathan. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 4 (1):131-151.
Philip Pettit (1997). Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford University Press.
M. Victoria Costa (2013). Is Neo‐Republicanism Bad for Women? Hypatia 28 (4):921-936.
Boudewijn de Bruin (2008). A Note on List's Modal Logic of Republican Freedom. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (3):341-349.
Boudewijn de Bruin (2009). Liberal and Republican Freedom. Journal of Political Philosophy 17 (4):418-439.
Matthew Simpson (2006). A Paradox of Sovereignty in Rousseau's Social Contract. Journal of Moral Philosophy 3 (1):45-56.
R. B. Talisse (2014). Impunity and Domination: A Puzzle for Republicanism. European Journal of Political Theory 13 (2):121-131.
Douglas W. Kmiec (ed.) (2009). The American Constitutional Order: History, Cases, and Philosophy. Lexisnexis Matthew Bender.
Christian List (2006). Republican Freedom and the Rule of Law. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 5 (2):201-220.
Added to index2010-09-11
Total downloads32 ( #45,887 of 1,088,753 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,753 )
How can I increase my downloads?