Mardi intime de la Chaire Hoover par Adrian Herranz

We can distinguish freedom as exit, which refers to opting out of certain social relationships, from freedom as voice, which involves exercising influence on a social relationship. We have reasons to value both. Nonetheless, some authors think that if we can exit, as when we can opt for different sort of consumer products or we can change jobs or residences, then voice is redundant, or even harmful when it involves collective decision-making. If freedom is based on the idea of ending ties and relationships, I will argue that we risk endorsing a self-defeating position, because exit is amenable to produce detached and self-interested individuals, hence hampering the development of civic virtues. Without civic engagement the commonwealth is unstable, meaning that freedom is not assured in dynamic terms because people will lack the dispositions that help to sustain a well-ordered commonwealth over time.