Liberty can be lost through domination even when no one actively interferes.

Evidence

There are two grounds for thinking that the conception of liberty as non-domination is the view of liberty that we find in the republican tradition. The first is that in the republican tradition, by contrast with the modernist approach, liberty is always cast in terms of the opposition between liber and servus, citizen and slave. The condition of liberty is explicated as the status of someone who, unlike the slave, is not subject to the arbitrary power of another: that is, someone who is not dominated by anyone else. Thus, the condition of liberty is explicated in such a way that there may be a loss of liberty without any actual interference: there may be enslavement and domination without interference, as in the scenario of the non-interfering master. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 167

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes the core non-domination definition of freedom that the whole book builds on.
• XREF: connects to: Affluence and liberty serve as the guise through which domination absorbs all opposition — Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the…, 148; Domination is a distinct harm even when no interference occurs — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 64; Domination requires only the capacity to interfere arbitrarily, not its exercise — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1217 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Domination is a distinct harm even when no interference occurs #corroborates (0.95) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 64
• Domination requires only the capacity to interfere arbitrarily, not its exercise #expands (0.90) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1217
• Domination consists in a power of arbitrary interference, not interference actually exercised. #expands (0.90) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 278
• Mere non-interference can coexist with domination when security is absent #corroborates (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 349
• Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery #expands (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1207
• Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference. #corroborates (0.85) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 25