Freedom increases with reduced domination, not with improved insight into one’s dominator

Evidence

Most people are not inclined to say that slaves enjoy increasing freedom just because, with experience, they improve their insight into their master’s psychological dispositions. But many would be inclined to say that their freedom is enhanced, other things being equal, if some effective reform in the laws, institutions, or norms sharply reduced their master’s authority over them. (This is not necessarily to say that the slaves will enjoy greater well-being, all things considered—only that because their domination is lessened, they enjoy greater freedom to that extent.) And of course, no matter how benevolent their particular master happens to be, no slave can be completely free until the institution of slavery itself is abolished. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 21

Categorization

• DEFINE: Sharpens the distinction between the liberal (non-interference) and republican (non-domination) views of freedom via a decisive slavery intuition.
• XREF: Connects to Pettit’s republican liberty vs. Berlin’s negative liberty debate and to the republican tradition’s institutionalism. — connects to: Unfreedom lies in the structural power to dominate, not in actual interference. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 16; Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1207; Predictability of domination does not reduce domination itself — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 30 (+7 more)
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 21

Related

• Contrasting liberty with slavery reveals a non-domination rather than non-interference theory of freedom. (similarity 0.89)
• Unfreedom lies in the structural power to dominate, not in actual interference. (similarity 0.89)
• Non-interference fails to capture liberty because slaves with lenient masters count as free. (similarity 0.88)
• Freedom is absent under any master’s power, however kindly that master behaves (similarity 0.87)
• Freedom as non-domination is conceptually inseparable from reducing uncertainty, strategy, and subordination (similarity 0.87)
• Freedom in the republican tradition means non-domination rather than merely non-interference (similarity 0.86)
• Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery (similarity 0.86)
• Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference. (similarity 0.86)
• A benign master still dominates, so freedom requires civic status, not mere non-interference. (similarity 0.85)
• Liberty can be lost through domination even when no one actively interferes. (similarity 0.85)
• Predictability of domination does not reduce domination itself (similarity 0.84)
• Republican freedom as non-domination fuses absence from negative and mastery from positive liberty. (similarity 0.84)
• Freedom requires a well-ordered institutional framework to reduce domination. (similarity 0.84)
• Freedom is increased by enabling undominated choice, not merely by reducing domination (similarity 0.83)
• Freedom as non-domination protects against the goodwill of others turning sour. (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery #expands (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1207
• Predictability of domination does not reduce domination itself #corroborates (0.80) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 30
• Freedom can be defined through domination rather than through respect for others. #expands (0.80) — Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 164
• Freedom as non-domination, unlike non-interference, cannot be fully enjoyed by one person alone #expands (0.75) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1239