Non-domination provides resilience against arbitrary interference that non-interference lacks.

Evidence

Where the ideal of non-interference involves this inbuilt contingency, the ideal of non-domination avoids it. For if you are not dominated by anyone else, if you are not subject to a capacity for arbitrary interference by anyone else, then it follows that the non-interference you enjoy in the actual world, you enjoy with a certain resilience or security. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 134

Categorization

• DEFINE: Introduces the core ‘non-domination’ versus ‘non-interference’ distinction that structures the book’s whole argument.
• XREF: connects to: Freedom as non-domination yields benefits beyond those of non-interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 407; Non-domination enables equal eye-to-eye standing that non-interference cannot guarantee. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 428; Freedom as non-domination differs from non-interference by targeting the mere capacity for arbitrary interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 434 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Non-domination requires security against interference across possible worlds, not mere actual non-interference. #expands (0.90) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 137
• Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference. #corroborates (0.85) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 25
• Predictability of domination does not reduce domination itself #contradicts (0.75) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 30