Recommended resources
The freely available resources this lesson will direct you to.
Introduction
Welcome to your second lesson on Republican Justice. In our last session, we drew the foundational distinction between the liberal conception of freedom as non-interference and the republican alternative of freedom as non-domination. We saw that while non-interference focuses on the contingent outcome of not being blocked or coerced, non-domination is about the structural security of not being subject to another's arbitrary power. The examples of the benevolent slave master and the dependent employee illustrated that one can experience little interference yet still be profoundly unfree.
Today, we will analyze precisely how the mere capacity for arbitrary power creates unfreedom, even when that power is not actively exercised. We will move beyond the initial definition to explore the psychological and strategic consequences of living under domination. We will also refine our understanding of what makes power 'arbitrary' and develop a practical test for identifying domination in the real world. This analysis is crucial, as it reveals that unfreedom is not just an event, but a pervasive condition that shapes behavior and thought.
1. The Psychological Reality of Domination
A key liberal objection to the republican view might be: "If I'm not actually being interfered with, in what sense am I unfree?" The republican answer is that the awareness of being subject to an arbitrary will forces a change in your own behavior and psychology, effectively constraining you without any overt action from the dominator.
The historian Quentin Skinner, drawing on the English republican John Milton, provides a powerful account of this mechanism.
Quentin Skinner. On the Liberty of Republics.
In this segment from Quentin Skinner's lecture, he explains the republican response to the liberal critique. He argues that living under arbitrary power—even a benign one—inevitably leads to self-censorship and servility, which are themselves profound forms of unfreedom.
Please watch from 42:02 to 46:40. Pay close attention to Milton's argument about 'abject bowings and cringings' and Skinner's contemporary example of Rupert Murdoch's influence on politicians.
As Skinner explains, the core issue is that the dependent person must constantly strategize to keep the powerful person's will a "good will." This leads to:
- Self-Censorship: You avoid saying or doing anything that might displease the master, boss, or political power. You police yourself, preemptively limiting your own freedom of expression and action.
- Ingratiation: You may feel compelled to engage in "abject" or "slavish" conduct to curry favor and maintain your position of safety.
In this state, you are not acting according to your own judgment but are constantly anticipating and adapting to the will of another. As Skinner's modern example of media influence illustrates, the power-holder doesn't even need to issue a command; the knowledge of their capacity to inflict harm is enough to ensure compliance. The unfreedom is already present in the calculations you are forced to make.
2. Freedom as a Status: The Liber Homo vs. the Servus
This psychological reality stems from a deeper structural fact that goes back to the Roman legal origins of republican thought. The fundamental distinction was not between actions that were permitted or forbidden, but between the status of a free person (Liber homo) and that of a slave (servus).
A slave is unfree not because they are constantly being whipped or ordered around, but because they live in potestate domini—in the power of a master. Their entire existence is subject to the master's will (arbitrium).
Quentin Skinner. On the Liberty of Republics.
Let's revisit Quentin Skinner's lecture, where he elaborates on this crucial distinction. This clip gets to the very heart of the republican definition of freedom and directly explains why the capacity for arbitrary power is the deciding factor.
Please watch from 24:59 to 29:08. Focus on why the idea of a 'free slave' is a paradox for the liberal view but impossible for the republican view. Note the core definition of slavery: being subject to the arbitrary will of someone else, whether that power is exercised or not.
This brings the concept into sharp focus. Freedom is not an inventory of things you can do; it is the status of not being a slave. Any liberty a slave enjoys is a temporary grant, a privilege revocable at any moment. It is not a right. For the republican, the slave with a kind, absent, or indulgent master is just as unfree as the slave with a cruel one, because their fundamental status of being subject to arbitrary power remains unchanged.
3. What Counts as 'Arbitrary' Power?
The entire argument hinges on the word "arbitrary." If power is not arbitrary, then being subject to it does not constitute domination. So, what makes power arbitrary? It's not simply that its exercise is random or unpredictable. Nor is it simply that it involves discretion.
The key is whether the power is constrained in a way that forces it to track the interests and ideas of those it affects.
Republicanism - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Republicanism provides a very clear analysis of what 'arbitrary' means in this context. This section is crucial for adding precision to our understanding.
Please read the subsection '2.2 What Counts as ‘Arbitrary’ Power?'. Focus on the two main ways non-arbitrariness is defined: the procedural view and the democratic view.
As the article explains, power is non-arbitrary if it is properly controlled. There are two primary ways to think about this control:
- Procedurally (The Rule of Law View): Power is non-arbitrary if its exercise is bound by stable, public, and effective rules. An official following a clear legal procedure is not acting arbitrarily, even if you dislike the outcome. Their power is controlled by the law, not by their personal whim.
- Democratically (The Popular Control View): Power is non-arbitrary if the people subject to it have control over its exercise (e.g., through democratic processes). If you've given someone the key to your liquor cabinet with strict instructions, their power to withhold it from you is not arbitrary because it is authorized and controlled by you.
In both cases, arbitrary power is power that can be exercised "at the pleasure" of the power-holder, without regard for the established interests and views of the person being affected.
4. Diagnosing Domination: The "Tough-Luck Test"
This gives us a method for diagnosing domination in the real world. We can see it in the workplace, where an employee is subject to a manager's "fire-at-will" authority. We can see it in a family, where one spouse holds all the financial power. And we can see it at the level of the state.
Philip Pettit offers a brilliant heuristic for this, which he calls the "tough-luck test."
The Globalized Republican Ideal
In this excerpt from his paper 'The Globalized Republican Ideal,' Pettit introduces a practical test for determining whether a state is dominating its citizens. This provides a sharp analytical tool for applying the concept of non-domination.
Please read the two paragraphs under the heading 'A test for the freedom of a people' and the summary point about the 'tough-luck test' in the conclusion. The core idea is that you are not dominated if you can view a negative outcome from the state as 'tough luck' rather than as the product of a hostile or indifferent will.
The test is this: When the state makes a decision that goes against your interests (e.g., building a waste facility in your town, raising a tax that affects your business), can you see the setback as just tough luck?
- If yes—if you believe the decision was made through a fair, impartial process that you endorse, where your views were considered but simply lost out—then you have not been dominated. The outcome is the product of a system you accept, not the imposition of an alien will.
- If no—if you have reason to believe the decision was the product of a partial, indifferent, or hostile will (e.g., lobbyists for another group had special access, the decision-makers were corrupt, your community was simply ignored)—then you have been dominated.
This test neatly captures the essence of arbitrary power. It's not the negative outcome that makes you unfree, but the belief that the outcome was imposed by a power that was not forced to consider you as an equal.
Test your understanding!
Consider a scenario from your experience in product management at Revolut. Imagine a new regulatory requirement is imposed by a central bank that adversely affects a payment system you designed, increasing costs and operational friction.
Apply the "tough-luck test." Describe the conditions under which you would perceive this as "tough luck" (non-domination) versus the conditions under which you would perceive it as an act of arbitrary power (domination).
Show answer
You would likely perceive it as "tough luck" (non-domination) if:
- The central bank followed a transparent, established rulemaking process.
- They published a draft rule, solicited feedback from the industry (including Revolut), and provided a reasoned justification for their final decision, even if it wasn't the one you wanted.
- The rule applies equally to all institutions in your category, and its purpose is to secure a clear public good (e.g., financial stability, fraud prevention).
- In this case, even though the outcome is negative for your system, it's the result of a legitimate, non-arbitrary process.
You would likely perceive it as an act of arbitrary power (domination) if:
- The rule was imposed suddenly, with no consultation or clear justification.
- You had reason to believe the rule was specifically designed to benefit incumbent banks at the expense of fintech challengers, perhaps after secret lobbying.
- The central bank had wide discretion to interpret the rule and apply it punitively to some firms but not others.
- In this case, the negative outcome feels like the imposition of a hostile or partial will, not the result of a fair process. You are being subjected to a power you cannot contest or influence.
5. The Architecture of Domination: Public and External Power
Finally, this analysis of arbitrary power applies at the macro-architectural level, which is a key interest for you. A society could successfully prevent citizens from dominating one another (private domination) but still be profoundly unfree if the state itself is a dominating power (public domination).
The Globalized Republican Ideal
Pettit's paper also draws a crucial distinction between private and public domination. A state can be a 'benevolent despot,' protecting citizens from each other while holding them all in a state of dependence.
Please read the paragraph that begins 'Assume that the citizens of a state do relatively well...'. This section explains how a benevolent but unconstrained state is a source of public domination, directly addressing the learning outcome at the level of the state.
This is the classic case of the well-run autocracy or colony. Even if the laws are good and life is peaceful, the people are unfree because the ruler could change the laws overnight. Their freedom is a gift from the ruler, not a right they possess.
The analysis can be extended one level further, which is particularly relevant given your background in international finance and venture capital. A state itself can be dominated by external powers.
The Globalized Republican Ideal
To conclude this section, let's look at how external domination of a state affects the freedom of its citizens. Pettit argues that a dominated state cannot help but become a dominating power to its own people.
Please read the section beginning 'The second question raised bears on why the domination of free peoples matters.' Focus on the core argument: if a state is subject to the arbitrary will of an external body (e.g., another country, an international agency), it can no longer be controlled by its own citizens, and thus becomes an arbitrary power relative to them.
If a state's policies are dictated by the arbitrary will of a foreign government, the IMF, or a powerful bloc of multinational corporations, then it is not responsive to its own citizens. The power it wields internally is not controlled by the people, and thus it becomes an arbitrary power. The citizens cannot treat setbacks as "tough luck" within a system they control; they are subject to a chain of command that originates outside their polity.
Conclusion
In this lesson, we have moved from defining non-domination to analyzing the mechanisms by which the mere capacity for arbitrary power creates unfreedom.
Key Takeaways:
- The awareness of being subject to arbitrary power creates unfreedom by forcing self-censorship and servile behavior, even without direct interference.
- Freedom, in the republican view, is a secure status (being a
liber homo), not a contingent set of permissions. - Arbitrary power is power that is not reliably controlled by procedures or by the people subject to it, allowing it to be exercised at the whim of the power-holder.
- The "tough-luck test" provides a powerful heuristic for diagnosing domination: can you see a negative political outcome as a product of a fair system, or as the imposition of an alien will?
- Domination operates at multiple levels: private (citizen-citizen), public (state-citizen), and external (a state's dependence on outside powers), all of which compromise the freedom of the individual.
Preview of the Next Lesson:
Having now thoroughly analyzed the problem of domination and how it constitutes unfreedom, we are perfectly positioned to explore the republican solution. In the next lesson, we will examine the institutional remedies designed to combat arbitrary power: the rule of law, constitutional safeguards, and the role of civic virtue in maintaining a non-dominating republic.