An employer has never treated any employee unfairly and sincerely intends to be fair. However, employees can be dismissed at any time without cause and have no legal recourse. According to republican non-domination theory, are these employees free?
AYes — since the employer has never interfered arbitrarily, no domination is occurring
BYes — the employer's good intentions are sufficient to secure the employees' freedom
CNo — the employees are dominated because they live at the employer's discretion rather than by right, regardless of how the employer has behaved so far
DIt depends on whether the employees are aware of their vulnerability and feel constrained
Republican non-domination is about the structure of the relationship, not the current behavior of the powerful party. An employee who can be dismissed arbitrarily must anticipate the employer's preferences, avoid provoking displeasure, and frame her projects around his approval — even if he never abuses this power. She acts at his sufferance, not as a matter of right. That structural dependency is domination. The benevolent master who never whips his slaves remains a master; the employee's freedom depends on the employer's goodwill, not on enforceable rights.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Which statement best captures the difference between Berlin's negative liberty and republican non-domination?
ANegative liberty concerns legal rules; non-domination concerns social norms and culture
BNegative liberty is freedom from actual interference by others; non-domination is freedom from subjection to another's capacity for arbitrary interference, whether or not that capacity is exercised
CNegative liberty applies to individuals; non-domination is a property of institutions only
DNon-domination is simply a stricter version of negative liberty, requiring that interference be reduced to zero
The decisive difference is that negative liberty is violated only when interference actually occurs, while domination exists whenever someone has unchecked power over you — even if they never use it. A non-interfering master still dominates; a constrained ruler who operates through accountable law does not dominate even when imposing rules. Option D is wrong because non-domination does not require zero interference — law can constrain citizens without dominating them if it is non-arbitrary, consistent, and accountable.
Question 3 True / False
On republican theory, a slave master who rarely punishes his slaves does not dominate them, because no actual interference with their actions is occurring.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
This is exactly the scenario Pettit uses to show that negative liberty gives the wrong verdict. The slaves are not interfered with, but they must anticipate the master's preferences, avoid provoking him, shape their actions around his goodwill, and cannot act from right — only from his sufferance. Domination is the structural condition of being subject to another's arbitrary power, which is present whether or not the power is exercised. The absence of whipping doesn't change the nature of the relationship.
Question 4 True / False
Republican political theory supports rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic accountability partly because these mechanisms make the exercise of power non-arbitrary — and non-arbitrary power is compatible with non-domination even when it constrains citizens.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
The republican insight is that domination requires *arbitrary* power — power exercised at someone's discretion without accountability. Law-governed power that is publicly known, consistently applied, and subject to contestation is not arbitrary in the relevant sense. Citizens constrained by law but with equal standing to challenge it are not dominated in the way subjects of arbitrary executive discretion are. This is why republican theory is institutionally focused: the design of power-constraining institutions is constitutive of freedom, not merely useful for it.
Question 5 Short Answer
Why does Pettit's republican theory imply that a worker with no legal protections against arbitrary dismissal lacks freedom, even in a society with minimal government interference in employment?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Pettit's theory locates unfreedom in domination — the structural condition of being subject to another's arbitrary power — rather than in actual interference. An unprotected worker lives at the employer's discretion: she must manage the relationship, anticipate displeasure, and cannot act from right. She is not free in the republican sense even if the employer never abuses his power, because freedom requires that she be immune to arbitrary power as a matter of right, not merely fortunate enough to have a benevolent superior. This shows that libertarian minimal-government frameworks can leave people unfree in the republican sense if private relationships involve unchecked hierarchical power.
The political implication is significant: labor protections, anti-discrimination law, and whistleblower statutes are not just welfare policies but republican freedom conditions. They limit the employer's capacity for arbitrary action and replace employer-discretion with rule-governed accountability — converting domination into a constrained power relationship.