The Instability of Freedom as Non-interference: The Case of Isaiah Berlin

Abstract

In Hobbes freedom of choice requires non-frustration: the option you prefer must be accessible. In Berlin it requires non-interference: every option, preferred or un-preferred, 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 door-keepers. This is freedom as non-domination. The claim is that freedom as non-interference is an unstable alternative between freedom as non-frustration and freedom as non-domination. © Presses de Sciences Po. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays.