Contrasting liberty with slavery reveals a non-domination rather than non-interference theory of freedom.

Evidence

It is significant, because slavery is essentially characterized by domination, not by actual interference: even if the slave’s master proves to be entirely benign and permissive, he or she continues to dominate the slave. Contrasting liberty with slavery is a sure sign of taking liberty to consist in non-domination rather than in non-interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 170

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Non-interference fails to capture liberty because slaves with lenient masters count as free. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 11; Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1207; Hobbes redefined liberty as the absence of coercion rather than non-domination — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 200 (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery #expands (0.92) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1207
• Freedom can be defined through domination rather than through respect for others. #expands (0.82) — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 164
• Hobbes redefined liberty as the absence of coercion rather than non-domination #qualifies (0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 200
• Freedom as non-domination, unlike non-interference, cannot be fully enjoyed by one person alone #expands (0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1239