Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery

Evidence

The negative conception of freedom as non-interference and the positive conception of freedom as self-mastery are not the only available ideals of liberty; a third alternative is the conception of freedom as non-domination which requires that no one is able to interfere on an arbitrary basis—at their pleasure—in the choices of the free person. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1207

Categorization

• DEFINE: Crisply introduces the book’s foundational third-way definition of liberty as non-domination.
• XREF: Directly maps onto the author’s own framing preference — the core concept the reader’s knowledge base is being built around. — connects to: Negative liberty means being free from interference in one’s choices. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 7; Unfreedom lies in the structural power to dominate, not in actual interference. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 16; Freedom increases with reduced domination, not with improved insight into one’s dominator — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 21 (+43 more)

Broader Connections

• Freedom as non-domination is constituted by institutions, not caused by them. #expands (0.90) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1238
• Positive freedom means self-mastery, negative freedom means absence of restraint #qualifies (0.90)
• Freedom as non-domination, unlike non-interference, cannot be fully enjoyed by one person alone #expands (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1239
• Freedom as security against arbitrary interference is not a means-end confusion #expands (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1225
• Freedom can be defined through domination rather than through respect for others. #expands (0.80) — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 164
• Freedom from domination is treated as a universal human desire #expands (0.75)