The purpose of this paper is to remark on Quentin Skinner s view of liberty. I am sure that it deserves as a more democratic view of liberty other than liberal one. He shows us that the neo-roman or republican thesis of a free state offers a valuable ground of challenging the current (neo-)liberal hegemony by inviting us to consider a more democratic understanding of the concept in which liberty and equality, and liberty and democracy, are bound together more closely than current liberal ideologies allow. When republican critics stressed the need to restore and uphold the liberty, Skinner insists, they were not speaking merely or even mainly about the need to prevent their individual rights and liberties from being oppressed and curtailed. Skinner holds that they were speaking about the need to rescue the people from the loss of their standing as free men. According to Skinner, this understanding of the idea of liberty is essentially different from liberal one. The point is that freedom is taken away not merely by coercive interference but also, and more fundamentally, by background conditions of domination and dependence. I am sure that Skinner explains us why we have to always be vigilant against any kinds of potential domination.
Ⅱ. 자유주의 대 공화주의: 아이제이야 벌린 대 퀜틴 스키너
Ⅲ. 퀜틴 스키너의 공화주의 자유론: “자유 국가 안에서만 인간은 자유롭다.”
Ⅳ. 소극적 자유론 대 공화주의 자유론-17세기: 토머스 홉스 대 제임스 해링턴
Ⅴ. 소극적 자유론 대 공화주의 자유론-18세기: 리처드 프라이스 대 존 린드
Ⅵ. 소극적 자유론에 대한 스키너의 비판