Freedom means no one holds arbitrary power to interfere with us.

Evidence

The republican conception of political liberty aims to capture this insight as directly as possible. It defines freedom as a sort of structural independence—as the condition of not being subject to the arbitrary or uncontrolled power of a master. Pettit, who has done more than anyone else to develop this republican conception of freedom philosophically, puts it thus: a person or group enjoys freedom to the extent that no other person or group has “the capacity to interfere in their affairs on an arbitrary basis” (1999, 165; cf. Pettit 1997, 2001, 2012, 2014). On a plausible rendering of the term ‘domination’ to mean arbitrary or uncontrolled power (see Wartenberg 1990; Pettit 1997, 2012; Lovett 2010, 2018), we might equivalently say that freedom in the republican sense consists in the robust enjoyment of non-domination. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 17

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clean working definition of republican freedom as non-domination, anchored to Pettit’s canonical formulation.
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 17
• XREF: connects to: Freedom requires others actually be blocked from arbitrary interference, not merely unexercised — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1220; Others’ freedom is the condition of, not a limit on, my own freedom — Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity, 91; Republican freedom means absence of dependence on arbitrary power, not non-interference. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 18 (+1 more)

Related

• Freedom requires others actually be blocked from arbitrary interference, not merely unexercised (similarity 0.92)
• Freedom in the republican tradition means non-domination rather than merely non-interference (similarity 0.90)
• Republican freedom means absence of dependence on arbitrary power, not non-interference. (similarity 0.90)
• Republican freedom can relate to noninterference in various distinct ways. (similarity 0.89)
• Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery (similarity 0.89)
• True liberty is resilient security against interference, not merely its absence (similarity 0.89)
• Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference. (similarity 0.89)
• Freedom as non-domination differs from non-interference by targeting the mere capacity for arbitrary interference. (similarity 0.88)
• Freedom as security against arbitrary interference is not a means-end confusion (similarity 0.88)
• Domination consists in a power of arbitrary interference, not interference actually exercised. (similarity 0.88)
• Non-domination requires security against interference across possible worlds, not mere actual non-interference. (similarity 0.88)
• Republican freedom depends on laws that constrain power without creating new domination (similarity 0.87)
• Liberty can be lost through domination even when no one actively interferes. (similarity 0.87)
• Republicans held that subjection to another’s arbitrary will itself constitutes unfreedom (similarity 0.87)
• Domination requires only the capacity to interfere arbitrarily, not its exercise (similarity 0.87)

Broader Connections

• Freedom requires others actually be blocked from arbitrary interference, not merely unexercised #qualifies (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1220
• Others’ freedom is the condition of, not a limit on, my own freedom #expands (0.75) — Simone de Beauvoir, The Ethics of Ambiguity, 91