Providing mobility to the disabled expands freedom even absent any domination

Evidence

Suppose I am a physically handicapped person for whom getting around my home town is impossible or difficult. My non-domination would be increased, at whatever level of intensity, by my being provided with the means of locomotion, for I would thereby be facilitated in the enjoyment of certain undominated choices. And my non-domination would be increased, even though no one currently dominates me on matters of where I go; it is just that I am unable to go anywhere. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 379

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: This is structural enablement — capacity expansion rather than enemy-removal — which parallels the shared-resource logic of the trees-as-infrastructure piece.
• XREF: connects to: Freedom is increased by enabling undominated choice, not merely by reducing domination — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 381; Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1207; Freedom as non-domination yields benefits beyond those of non-interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 407 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Freedom is increased by enabling undominated choice, not merely by reducing domination #corroborates (0.92) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 381
• Freedom as non-domination yields benefits beyond those of non-interference. #expands (0.87) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 407
• Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery #expands (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1207
• Freedom as non-domination, unlike non-interference, cannot be fully enjoyed by one person alone #expands (0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1239
• Freedom requires awareness of options, not just their existence #qualifies (0.75) — Tim Wu, The Attention Merchants, 422