Freedom Under an Order of Public Law: From Hobbes Through Hayek to Republicanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
My focus in this chapter is on the connection between law and liberty, specifically on the connection between law and the Republican idea of liberty as non-domination. In my view, neoRepublicans have done political philosophy an immense service both because they have moved attention back to classical themes about liberty and because they have so persuasively argued that the focus of this attention should be the theme of non-domination. However, the main result of this contribution is to uncover resources in the liberal tradition, sometimes in surprising places, not to provide an alternative to it. Republicans regard Hobbes as the founder of negative-liberty liberalism and as having put forward his understanding of liberty in order to contest and suppress that of the Republicans of his day. I argue that for Hobbes the chief virtue of the rule of law is that it secures non-domination. Moreover, his argument about why it does so might well prove superior to that of Republicans in that it shows in what way the rule of law is constitutive of liberty and not merely instrumental to it, an insight that resonates in the twentieth century in the work of such arch-liberals as Hayek.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".