Interference is non-dominating when structured by shared-interest conditions and contestable penalties

Evidence

Suppose that another person or agency is allowed to interfere with me but only on condition that the interference promises to further my interests, and promises to do so according to opinions of a kind that I share. Suppose that the person is able to interfere in the event of the interference satisfying that condition, but that otherwise they are blocked from interfering or are subject to a deterrent penalty for attempting interference. … In such a case it is not possible to see the interference as an exercise of domination; the person interferes with me but not on an arbitrary basis. The person envisaged relates to me, not as a master, but more in the fashion of an agent who enjoys a power of attorney in my affairs. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 128

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s prior sources on trust and institutions: interference that is ‘contestable’ and policed parallels Milgrom’s private judges and Bernhard/Biggart’s extralegal enforcement — trusted institutional structures enable freedom rather than threatening it. — connects to: Mere non-interference can coexist with domination when security is absent — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 349; Non-arbitrary interference tracking the agent’s interests does not compromise freedom — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 142; State interference is non-arbitrary when it tracks shared rather than exceptional interests. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 293 (+5 more)
• QUESTION: The mechanism — third-party policing or self-contestation rendering interference non-arbitrary — is a trust-building institutional design claim worth chasing into Pettit’s account of republican contestation.

Broader Connections

• Non-arbitrary interference tracking the agent’s interests does not compromise freedom #corroborates (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 142
• State interference is non-arbitrary when it tracks shared rather than exceptional interests. #expands (0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 293
• Interference can be non-arbitrary when institutions force officials to track citizens’ interests #expands (0.75) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 331
• Mixed-motive games require tacit social coordination absent from zero-sum games #corroborates (0.72) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 367