Ethics 121 (4):693-716 (
2011)
Copy
BIBTEX
Abstract
In Hobbes, freedom of choice requires nonfrustration: the option you prefer
must be accessible. In Berlin, it requires noninterference: every option, preferred
or unpreferred, must be accessible—every door must be open. But
Berlin’s argument against Hobbes suggests a parallel argument that freedom
requires something stronger still: that each option be accessible and that no
one have the power to block access; the doors should be open, and there
should be no powerful doorkeepers. This is freedom as nondomination. The
claim is that freedom as noninterference is an unstable alternative between
freedom as nonfrustration and freedom as nondomination.