Mere non-interference can coexist with domination when security is absent

Evidence

Suppose that for a certain range of choices I happen to enjoy the absence of all interference by arbitrary powers in the actual world: no one with such a power gets in the way of my making my preferred choice, and no one of that kind would get in the way had I chosen differently among the relevant options. It is possible, consistently with this supposition, that the non-interference I enjoy is extremely insecure and that I am a relatively powerless individual. I may enjoy it only for the very contingent reason that while there are agents around who dominate me—agents with an arbitrary power of interference— it happens that they like me and leave me alone; or it happens that I am able to ingratiate myself with them and placate them as they become ill-disposed towards me; or it happens that I am cunning and manage to keep out of their way when trouble is brewing; or whatever. In such a world, the price of my liberty is not eternal vigilance but, as Gore Vidal once said, eternal discretion. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 349

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes non-domination from mere non-interference by the security or resilience of the immunity.
• SEED: Vidal’s ‘eternal discretion’ aphorism is a quotable contrast to liberty-through-vigilance worth building an essay around.
• XREF: connects to: Domination is a distinct harm even when no interference occurs — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 64; Predictability of domination does not reduce domination itself — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 30; Interference is non-dominating when structured by shared-interest conditions and contestable penalties — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 128 (+11 more)

Broader Connections

• Non-domination requires security against interference across possible worlds, not mere actual non-interference. #corroborates (0.92) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 137
• Domination is a distinct harm even when no interference occurs #expands (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 64
• Domination requires only the capacity to interfere arbitrarily, not its exercise #expands (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1217
• Power functions through unexercised possible sanctions rather than actual coercion #corroborates (0.85) — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 621
• Predictability of domination does not reduce domination itself #corroborates (0.80) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 30
• Interference is non-dominating when structured by shared-interest conditions and contestable penalties #contradicts (0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 128