True liberty is resilient security against interference, not merely its absence

Evidence

6. Non-domination involves the absence of domination in the presence of other people: it is a social ideal which requires that, though there are other people who might have been able to interfere with the person on an arbitrary basis, they are blocked from doing so. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1220 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

9. The considerations that led Paley and the new liberal tradition to prefer the idea of freedom as non-interference are not decisive. Notwithstanding those allegations, there is no confusion of ends and means involved in the idea of freedom as security against arbitrary interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1225 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

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 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Freedom as security against arbitrary interference is not a means-end confusion — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1225; Freedom requires others actually be blocked from arbitrary interference, not merely unexercised — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1220; Non-domination requires security against interference across possible worlds, not mere actual non-interference. — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 137 (+8 more)

Related

• Freedom requires others actually be blocked from arbitrary interference, not merely unexercised (similarity 0.95)
• Freedom as non-domination differs from non-interference by targeting the mere capacity for arbitrary interference. (similarity 0.93)
• Non-domination requires security against interference across possible worlds, not mere actual non-interference. (similarity 0.93)
• Freedom can be reconceived as non-domination rather than non-interference or self-mastery (similarity 0.92)
• Non-domination provides resilience against arbitrary interference that non-interference lacks. (similarity 0.92)
• Freedom as non-domination inherently requires certainty, unlike maximal non-interference. (similarity 0.91)
• Liberty can be lost through domination even when no one actively interferes. (similarity 0.91)
• Freedom as non-domination is not reducible to security of non-interference. (similarity 0.90)
• Mere non-interference can coexist with domination when security is absent (similarity 0.90)
• Freedom as security against arbitrary interference is not a means-end confusion (similarity 0.89)
• Freedom from interference lacks stability absent publicly visible protective institutions (similarity 0.89)
• Domination consists in a power of arbitrary interference, not interference actually exercised. (similarity 0.89)
• Domination requires only the capacity to interfere arbitrarily, not its exercise (similarity 0.89)
• Freedom means no one holds arbitrary power to interfere with us. (similarity 0.89)
• Freedom as non-domination yields benefits beyond those of non-interference. (similarity 0.88)

Broader Connections

• Freedom requires others actually be blocked from arbitrary interference, not merely unexercised #corroborates (0.88) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1220
• Freedom as security against arbitrary interference is not a means-end confusion #corroborates (0.85) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 1225
• Non-domination requires security against interference across possible worlds, not mere actual non-interference. #expands (0.82) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 137
• Negative liberty means being free from interference in one’s choices. #qualifies (0.78) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 7
• Restraint by fair law is compatible with freedom, unlike arbitrary sway #corroborates (0.76) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 66
• Political freedom is constituted by institutions, not by the absence of actual interference #corroborates (0.75) — Frank Lovett, Republicanism, 22
• Power creates freedom, not the other way around. #expands (0.72) — Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning, 273
• Freedom requires awareness of options, not just their existence #expands (0.72) — Tim Wu, The Attention Merchants, 422