Privately pursued security against interference would distribute freedom unequally

Evidence

One more or less obvious argument against leaving non-domination to the care of individuals is that doing so would be likely to lead to a very unequal distribution of non-domination. Suppose that people do pursue their own non-domination, each in their own private way. They individually seek to defend themselves against interference from others, to punish any interference that occurs-thereby showing that no one can interfere in their affairs with impunity-and to deter or deflect possible acts of interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 455

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Freedom from interference lacks stability absent publicly visible protective institutions — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 364; Paley reports that common discourse defined liberty as security against arbitrary interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 242