Non-domination is less skeptical of government but socially more radical than non-interference

Evidence

When it comes to the specific policies that the ideal of freedom as non-domination would support—particularly, the policies it would support in combating the sort of domination associated with private dominium or resources—two things stand out: one, that the ideal is politically less sceptical than the ideal of freedom as non-intereference, since it recognizes the possibility of non-dominating government; and two, that it is socially more radical, since it requires not just the absence of arbitrary interference but the absence of capacities for arbitrary interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1253

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Republicans hold liberty as non-domination while liberals define it as mere non-interference. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 46; Big government does not undermine social capital and may foster it — Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival…, 972; Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 25 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference. #expands (0.85) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 25
• Non-domination requires security against interference across possible worlds, not mere actual non-interference. #expands (0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 137
• Big government does not undermine social capital and may foster it #complicates (0.78) — Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival…, 972
• Coercive government power depends on voluntary cooperation from many #expands (0.72)