Legitimacy as Public Willing: Kant on Freedom and the Law

Huber, Jakob

doi:10.1111/raju.12231

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The necessity of the state might not even require the actual possibility of interference as it might be required rather by the nature of public laws which our external action must be subjected to(Friedrich, 2004; Gregory, forthcoming;Kleingeld, 2022). Here Kant is not concerned about establishing anyone's actual interference but only that persons can possibly interfere with me and so dominate me in a state of nature.10 In addition to Ripstein, seeByrd and Hruschka (2010);Hodgson (2010);Flikschuh (2012);Huber (2019);Pallikkathayil (2016) Marey (2018). points out some more specific ways in which Flikschuh misreads the connection between Kant and Hobbes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Kantian state dominate?: Freedom and majoritarian rule

Gregory

2023

Ratio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, scholars have criticized what they call the “Kantian‐Republican” thesis of freedom as non‐domination. The main complaint is that domination is unavoidable. This concern can be separated into the problem of state domination, which suggests that the state's intervening powers necessarily dominate its citizens, and the problem of majority domination, which suggests that the People necessarily dominate individual citizen as a result of the potential to form dominating majorities.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Kantian state dominate?: Freedom and majoritarian rule

Gregory

2023

Ratio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to Ripstein, seeByrd & Hruschka 2010; Hodgen 2010; Flikschuh 2012;Huber 2019; Pallikkathayil 2016. Marey 2018 points out some more specific ways in which Flikschuh misreads the connection between Kant and Hobbes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%