Freedom as non-domination protects against the goodwill of others turning sour.
Evidence
But the most crucial difference between enjoying nondomination and enjoying mere non-interference is precisely that no individuals have this sort of power over you. Were other individuals to take against you—were you to become less likeable, less cunning, or whatever—still that would make no difference to the non-interference you enjoy; you would be protected against any interference that they might come to contemplate. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 136
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Freedom can be defined through domination rather than through respect for others. — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 164; Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1207; Freedom as non-domination, unlike non-interference, cannot be fully enjoyed by one person alone — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1239 (+7 more)
Broader Connections
- Freedom as non-domination, unlike non-interference, cannot be fully enjoyed by one person alone
#expands(0.90) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1239 - Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery
#expands(0.88) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1207 - Freedom can be defined through domination rather than through respect for others.
#expands(0.85) — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 164 - Freedom as non-domination is constituted by institutions, not caused by them.
#expands(0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1238