| ID | 099887 |
| Title Proper | Constitutional indifferentism and republican freedom |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Vinx, Lars |
| Publication | 2010. |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | 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 essay 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. |
| `In' analytical Note | Political Theory Vol. 38, No. 6; Dec 2010: p.809-837 |
| Journal Source | Political Theory Vol. 38, No. 6; Dec 2010: p.809-837 |
| Key Words | Hobbes ; Neo - Republicanism ; Non - Domination ; Democracy ; Legitimacy |