Freedom as non-domination inherently requires certainty, unlike maximal non-interference.

Evidence

Freedom as non-domination requires us to reduce the capacities for arbitrary interference to which a person is exposed, while freedom as non-interference requires us to minimize the person’s expectation of interference as such. But this means that, while the non-domination ideal would tend to require conditions where certainty is high, the non-interference ideal is consistent with a great loss on this front. … But it is hardly conceivable that the same is true for the maximal non-domination that they might achieve. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 420

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sharpens the operational contrast between the two freedom ideals in terms of what each structurally demands.
• XREF: connects to: Freedom as non-domination differs from non-interference by targeting the mere capacity for arbitrary interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 434; Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 25; Non-domination requires security against interference across possible worlds, not mere actual non-interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 137 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Freedom as non-domination differs from non-interference by targeting the mere capacity for arbitrary interference. #expands (0.90) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 434
• Non-domination requires security against interference across possible worlds, not mere actual non-interference. #expands (0.88) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 137
• Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference. #expands (0.85) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 25
• Freedom requires temporal continuity, not isolated instants of choice. #expands (0.80) — Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity, 24
• Freedom requires awareness of options, not just their existence #corroborates (0.75) — Tim Wu, The Attention Merchants, 422