Republicans hold liberty as non-domination while liberals define it as mere non-interference.

Evidence

The most important of these is the tendency in the liberal tradition, especially beginning with Bentham, Paley, and Constant, to displace the robust conception of liberty as independence from arbitrary or uncontrolled power with a weaker conception of liberty as non-interference. The significance of this substitution will be easier to assess after the discussion below, but in the main it comes down to this: because republican liberty is inherently incompatible with any form of dependency or mastery, its social implications are considerably more radical than those of mere negative liberty. This is precisely why many liberal authors took pains to distance themselves from republicanism in the first place, as they openly admitted: “those definitions of liberty ought to be rejected, which, by making that essential to civil freedom which is unattainable in experience, inflame expectations that can never be gratified,” observed Paley (1785, 315; cf. Pettit 1997, Skinner forthcoming). — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 46

Categorization

• DEFINE: Cleanly defines the core republican-liberal disagreement over the meaning of liberty itself.
• XREF: This maps to Isaiah Berlin’s Two Concepts of Liberty (negative vs positive) and to Quentin Skinner’s and Philip Pettit’s work on neo-Roman liberty. — connects to: Republican freedom means absence of dependence on arbitrary power, not non-interference. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 18; Republican freedom can relate to noninterference in various distinct ways. — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 29; Republican freedom as non-domination fuses absence from negative and mastery from positive liberty. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 122 (+9 more)
• CANDY: Lovely dinner-party line: liberals like Bentham, Paley and Constant explicitly rejected republican liberty as too radical precisely because it demands non-dependency.
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 46

Related

• Republican freedom as non-domination fuses absence from negative and mastery from positive liberty. (similarity 0.92)
• Republican freedom can relate to noninterference in various distinct ways. (similarity 0.92)
• The republican tradition prized liberty as non-domination, not democratic participation (similarity 0.91)
• Republican freedom means absence of dependence on arbitrary power, not non-interference. (similarity 0.91)
• Freedom in the republican tradition means non-domination rather than merely non-interference (similarity 0.90)
• Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery (similarity 0.89)
• Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference. (similarity 0.89)
• Republicanism offers a third way of understanding freedom beyond liberal and populist models (similarity 0.88)
• Republican liberty is a protected status, with democracy merely instrumental to it (similarity 0.88)
• Republicans held that subjection to another’s arbitrary will itself constitutes unfreedom (similarity 0.88)
• Liberty can be lost through domination even when no one actively interferes. (similarity 0.87)
• True liberty is resilient security against interference, not merely its absence (similarity 0.87)
• Republican tradition is unified by a distinctive way of conceptualizing liberty (similarity 0.87)
• Freedom as non-domination differs from non-interference by targeting the mere capacity for arbitrary interference. (similarity 0.87)
• Freedom means no one holds arbitrary power to interfere with us. (similarity 0.86)

Broader Connections

• Republican freedom as non-domination fuses absence from negative and mastery from positive liberty. #expands (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 122
• Republicans held that subjection to another’s arbitrary will itself constitutes unfreedom #expands (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1209
• Non-domination is less skeptical of government but socially more radical than non-interference #expands (0.80) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1253
• Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference. #expands (0.80) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 25