Freedom as non-domination requires embracing state power rather than fearing it

Evidence

There are two respects in which our expectations of the state are going to increase greatly if we think that the state should be designed to advance freedom as non-domination, not freedom as noninterference. The ideal of targeting only forms of dominating interference, not interference as such, means that we are going to be relatively well-disposed towards giving the state considerable power; we are going to look more fondly on state interference, provided that such interference can be bound by constraints that make it non-arbitrary. And the ideal of targeting all forms of domination, not just those in which there is actual interference, means that we are going to be relatively ill-disposed towards tolerating relations of domination, even relations of domination where the stronger party may usually be expected to stay their hand; we are going to look less fondly on the traditional relationship of husband to wife, for example, or employer to employee. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 389

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the two axes along which non-domination diverges from non-interference: it disciplines rather than minimizes state power, and it rejects even latent domination.
• XREF: connects to: Freedom as nondomination yields radical policies and democracy through contestability rather than consent — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 35; Power creates freedom, not the other way around. — Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning: The…, 273; Non-domination makes citizens more radical and less state-sceptical — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 390 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Power creates freedom, not the other way around. #corroborates (0.82) — Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning, 273