Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference.

Evidence

A common objection to the republican idea of freedom is that it fails to pick out a distinct conception at all. The suggestion here, first noted perhaps by Paley (1785), is that talking about non-domination is really just another (more obscure) way of talking about security of non-interference (Goodin 2003; Carter 2008; Kramer 2008; Moen 2024). Contemporary civic republicans must reject this view. Pettit (1997, 73–4) observes that one might secure a low expected level of non-interference in more than one way, and the republican idea of freedom is by no means indifferent as to the method adopted. For example, to have a master with an exceptionally benevolent disposition is to be reasonably secure in one’s expectation that one will not often be adversely interfered with— but it is to have a master nonetheless. The republican idea of freedom specifically instructs us not to make our master a better person (the goal of the old ‘mirror for princes’ literature), but to render him less of a master. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 25

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sharply distinguishes the republican conception of freedom (absence of arbitrary mastery) from the liberal one (absence of actual interference), using the benevolent-master example to make the contrast vivid.
• XREF: The ‘benevolent master is still a master’ point connects to Philip Pettit’s Republicanism and to the broader liberty-vs-domination debates in this encyclopedia entry. — connects to: Non-interference fails to capture liberty because slaves with lenient masters count as free. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 11; Unfreedom lies in the structural power to dominate, not in actual interference. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 16; Republican freedom means absence of dependence on arbitrary power, not non-interference. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 18 (+17 more)
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 25

Related

• Freedom in the republican tradition means non-domination rather than merely non-interference (similarity 0.92)
• Non-domination requires security against interference across possible worlds, not mere actual non-interference. (similarity 0.92)
• Freedom as non-domination differs from non-interference by targeting the mere capacity for arbitrary interference. (similarity 0.92)
• Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery (similarity 0.92)
• Liberty can be lost through domination even when no one actively interferes. (similarity 0.91)
• Freedom requires others actually be blocked from arbitrary interference, not merely unexercised (similarity 0.91)
• True liberty is resilient security against interference, not merely its absence (similarity 0.90)
• Non-domination provides resilience against arbitrary interference that non-interference lacks. (similarity 0.90)
• Freedom as non-domination inherently requires certainty, unlike maximal non-interference. (similarity 0.90)
• Freedom is absent under any master’s power, however kindly that master behaves (similarity 0.90)
• Republican freedom as non-domination fuses absence from negative and mastery from positive liberty. (similarity 0.90)
• Domination and interference are distinct evils that can occur independently (similarity 0.89)
• Domination consists in a power of arbitrary interference, not interference actually exercised. (similarity 0.89)
• Republicans hold liberty as non-domination while liberals define it as mere non-interference. (similarity 0.89)
• Freedom means no one holds arbitrary power to interfere with us. (similarity 0.89)

Broader Connections

• Non-domination requires security against interference across possible worlds, not mere actual non-interference. #expands (0.92) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 137
• Freedom as non-domination, unlike non-interference, cannot be fully enjoyed by one person alone #expands (0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1239