Freedom as non-interference can exist in isolation while non-domination requires society

Evidence

In this respect, freedom as non-domination contrasts in an interesting way with the alternative ideal of freedom as non-interference. That ideal is linked to the notion of natural rather than civil liberty. And the linkage suggests that it may be enjoyed in isolation from society, so that non-interference means the absence of interference, whether in the presence of other people or in their absence: whether by design or by default. Where freedom as non-domination represents the freedom of the city, freedom as non-interference tends to represent the freedom of the heath: ‘the right of common upon a waste’, in a nice phrase from Paley (1825: 355). — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 337

When a person is free in the sense of negative liberty they are exempt from interference in the things they do— exempt from intentional coercion or obstruction—where exemption means that they enjoy the absence of such interference. When a person enjoys non-domination, they are exempt from arbitrary interference in the things they do, where exemption now means that others are unable to interfere with them in that way. The constraint from which exemption is given is not interference of any sort, just arbitrary interference. And the exemption given involves not just the absence of the interference but the incapacity of others to practise it: if you like, the resilient absence of the interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 140

Categorization

• XREF: This city-versus-heath contrast tracks Berlin’s positive/negative liberty split and connects to the reader’s broader civic-republican research. — connects to: Freedom as non-domination yields benefits beyond those of non-interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 407; Freedom is conceived either as absence of interference or as self-mastery — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 99; Domination and interference are distinct evils that can occur independently — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 129 (+2 more)
• DEFINE: Precisely distinguishes non-domination from negative liberty: exemption means others’ incapacity, yielding ‘resilient absence’ rather than mere absence of interference.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 337; Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 140