A New Adversary of Freedom as Non-Domination

Philip Pettit has used Isaiah Berlin's positive and negative freedom for two different purposes. First, the distinction is employed to elaborate a third distinguishable ideal of freedom as non-domination that contains elements of both the negative and the positive freedom. Second, Pettit contends that freedom as non-domination is more attractive than the negative freedom defended by Berlin -freedom as non-interference - and a variant of positive freedom criticized by Berlin -freedom as participation or populism -. The paper holds that there is a tension between these two objectives. Once a distinguishable conception of freedom as non-domination is elaborated it is not possible to argue that it is more attractive than the rival alternatives. Specifically, the arguments that Pettit have addressed against populist positive freedom have no impact over a variant of positive freedom that identify liberty with control, and control with republican institutions.