A merely harmless disposition does not reduce a power-bearer’s domination.

Evidence

If, on the other hand, being benign or saintly simply means that the person happens to have inclinations that do no harm to anyone else— in the actual circumstances, they do not lead to interference with anyone—then it will not entail a reduction in the domination of those who are under this person’s power. It will remain the case that the person can interfere on an arbitrary basis and that anyone under their power lives, and lives by common knowledge, at that person’s mercy. Even when a dominating agent is benign in this sense, of course, the likelihood of interference will be that much lower. But it is important to see that domination goes with the accessibility of arbitrary interference to another, and that improbability of the kind in question here does not make for inaccessibility. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 329

Categorization

• QUESTION: Curiosity-worthy: this is counterintuitive — benign rulers still dominate. Worth keeping against liberal accounts equating freedom with absence of actual interference.
• XREF: connects to: Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 25; Unfreedom lies in the structural power to dominate, not in actual interference. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 16; Freedom from domination rests on normative respect, not fear of sanctions. (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Non-domination requires normative reasons for respect, not just legal sanctions #corroborates (0.95) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1289
• Domination consists in a power of arbitrary interference, not interference actually exercised. #expands (0.92) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 278
• Freedom from domination rests on normative respect, not fear of sanctions. #corroborates (0.90)
• Unfreedom lies in the structural power to dominate, not in actual interference. #expands (0.85) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 16
• Non-domination requires security against interference across possible worlds, not mere actual non-interference. #expands (0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 137
• Freedom as non-domination protects against the goodwill of others turning sour. #expands (0.78) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 136
• Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference. #expands (0.75) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 25
• Republican liberty may not require citizens to be inwardly virtuous. #corroborates (0.72) — Adelin-Costin Dumitru, Forging the Resistive Republic, 21