Non-domination requires security against interference across possible worlds, not mere actual non-interference.

Evidence

When you are not dominated, then, you enjoy the absence of interference by arbitrary powers, not just in the actual world, but in the range of possible worlds where contingencies of the kind mentioned have a different, less auspicious setting. Those who are attached to the ideal of non-interference value the fact of having choice—the fact of non-interference—whether the choice is dominated or not; those who embrace the ideal of non-domination value the fact of having undominated choice, but not necessarily the fact of having choice as such. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 137

This conception is negative to the extent that it requires the absence of domination by others, not necessarily the presence of self-mastery, whatever that is thought to involve. The conception is positive to the extent that, at least in one respect, it needs something more than the absence of interference; it requires security against interference, in particular against interference on an arbitrary basis. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 273

Categorization

• DEFINE: Shows what distinguishes republican freedom as non-domination from mere non-interference using possible-worlds language.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 137; Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 273
• XREF: connects to: Unfreedom lies in the structural power to dominate, not in actual interference. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 16; Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 25; Non-domination is less skeptical of government but socially more radical than non-interference — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1253 (+11 more)

Broader Connections

• Freedom requires others actually be blocked from arbitrary interference, not merely unexercised #expands (0.95) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1220
• Non-domination requires normative reasons for respect, not just legal sanctions #expands (0.75) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1289