Non-domination confuses liberty with its guarantee: exposure to a power takes nothing away from what one can do; it only makes liberty precarious.

Objects to

Paley · The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy · 1785

Distinguish what I can do today from how solid that power is tomorrow: being free is one thing, being assured of remaining free another.
The kind master's slave can, today, act as he pleases across the whole field left open: what he lacks is the certainty that this field will stay open, that is, the security, not the extent, of his liberty.
The dependent's self-censorship shows the practical cost of dependence; describing it needs no new definition: the mere probability of interference already reduces the liberty one can count on, and it is precisely in terms of expected interference that it gets measured.
It will be replied that only arbitrary, uncontrolled power dominates; but then the disagreement becomes one of degree: the more a power is checked, the less likely interference becomes, and "domination" can be measured as a risk of interference, with no new concept.

Therefore Dependence makes liberty fragile and precious to guarantee; it does not change what being free means.

Possible resolutions of the objection

Your choice is recorded in your profile, like a questionnaire answer.

Challenges