Ripstein- Focused Summary

Arthur Ripstein introduces a new principle that he believes to be more comprehensive than the Harm Principle outlined by John Stuart Mill. In order to defend the “Sovereignty Principle”, Ripstein explains how the Harm Principle is insufficient in protecting against an example that he categorizes as a harmless trespass. First he clarifies the basis of the Liberalist doctrine provides “freedom as independence”, meaning “a person is free if she, rather than anyone else is one who gets to decide how to use her power. Insofar as another person decides for her, she is dependent on that person and her sovereignty is compromised.” (Ripstein, 216). Overall Ripstein set’s out to explain why harm is not an appropriate basis for criminalization, rather violations of equal freedom. Ripstein uses his example of a harmless wrongdoing, a person who breaks into an empty home to take a nap in someone else's bed, without destroying any property at all to evaluate the flaws in the harm principle. Since the harm principle requires a justification of any act it prohibits in relation to preventing harm, harmless trespasses can not be criminalized.

The sovereignty principle creates a new system for evaluating what acts should be prohibited. Specifically, “the only legitimate restrictions on conduct are those that secure the mutual independence of free persons from each other” (Ripstein, 229). In order to avoid the objection that all rules protect some liberties at the expense of others, Ripstein maintains that equal freedom power that each person has the ability to set and pursue their own purposes as long as it allows for others to do the same. No person is able to use their own powers to deprive another person of their powers. This means that the criminal wrongdoing is dominating another’s independence. Ripstein maintains that no person should be subject to the choices of another person. Interfering someone’s powers may be either using someone else’s powers for their own purposes or destroying someones powers. This can mean taking advantage of someone else by using them without consent, for example to touch someone else in a non-violent manner. This also includes injuring and killing someone, taking away power from that person. Because it violates their independence it should be criminalized, encompassing crimes that would typically only be criminalized under Mill’s theory because of the harm it causes. This applies to property as well since that is a power that one can attain as external to their own person. Property is an additional power that one may use as they choose, and the owner is sovereign over how it is to be used. For someone else to impose or destroy it should be punished according to Ripstein. Ripstein advocates for a more inclusive criteria for what actions should be criminalized. By proposing restrictions as being justified in cases that will protect one’s independence, he critiques other principles that exclude this idea.

Ripstein, A. (2006). Beyond the Harm Principle. Philosophy & Public Affairs,34(3), 215–245. Retrieved September 8, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3876391