Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q778 - Revision history

Reversedragon: Domination of nature and freedom of the individual are inherently connected

2026-05-14T23:25:35Z

Domination of nature and freedom of the individual are inherently connected

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:25, 14 May 2026
Line 37:		Line 37:
	{{li\|I=S1/HAS\|Q=580\|Q2=580\|h4= fitting action }} (truth value) / virtuous individual action		{{li\|I=S1/HAS\|Q=580\|Q2=580\|h4= fitting action }} (truth value) / virtuous individual action
	{{li\|I=S1/HM/A \|Q=576\|Q2=576\|h4= promotes freedom }} (truth value)		{{li\|I=S1/HM/A \|Q=576\|Q2=576\|h4= promotes freedom }} (truth value)

			</li></ol>

			== Freedom and domination ==
			<ol class="hue clean terse">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Domination of nature and freedom of the individual are inherently connected; far from freedom being an exact opposite to domination which can only take the shape of a communal tribe and cannot take the shape of an antagonistic empire, when individuals have total freedom to escape domination by each other {{i\|a la}} Habermasian ethics, they must make use of the methods of science and mechanical philosophy to survive alone and practically make use of that freedom

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: some kind of conspiracy to bring down power and control onto poor unsuspecting businesses to enslave them into a nationality

2026-05-12T09:11:32Z

some kind of conspiracy to bring down power and control onto poor unsuspecting businesses to enslave them into a nationality

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:11, 12 May 2026
Line 50:		Line 50:
	{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618\|h4= Hierarchies are freedom mountains }} / "Hierarchical" societies are actually stratified by amount of freedom rather than amount of domination / Society is not actually divided into order-givers and order-takers, it is stratified into the individuals who are educated and talented enough to be handed a lot of freedom to make big changes to the world and the people who are deemed not competent enough to be trusted with freedom; Stalin was given his position involving the most freedom to give theoretical pronouncements due to his expertise while Trotsky was denied the highest forms of freedom because he was not considered to be good at Marxism; Donald Trump was given the freedom to make declarations about foreign policy because he was deemed the best at being "American" and defending the United States while other people were not elected because they were not considered good enough at fighting China or Iran -><br/>		{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618\|h4= Hierarchies are freedom mountains }} / "Hierarchical" societies are actually stratified by amount of freedom rather than amount of domination / Society is not actually divided into order-givers and order-takers, it is stratified into the individuals who are educated and talented enough to be handed a lot of freedom to make big changes to the world and the people who are deemed not competent enough to be trusted with freedom; Stalin was given his position involving the most freedom to give theoretical pronouncements due to his expertise while Trotsky was denied the highest forms of freedom because he was not considered to be good at Marxism; Donald Trump was given the freedom to make declarations about foreign policy because he was deemed the best at being "American" and defending the United States while other people were not elected because they were not considered good enough at fighting China or Iran -><br/>
	this is very obviously not an ethics-based statement, it's a descriptive statement, but it's a little frightening how well it expands to describe Liberal-republicanism, capitalism, Bolshevism, and Deng Xiaoping Thought. if you're going to be an anarchist and insist that capitalism and Bolshevism are 'basically the same', then this is how you should look at things. 'hierarchy' is not its own unique thing. expertise {{em\|really is a form of hierarchy}} most of the time. you have to genuinely figure out how to navigate a world where there are Trumps and Trotskys everywhere wanting to give you terrible advice on how to get through large-scale world events that should not be followed and yet it's also simultaneously true that stopping those people from taking control and leading people is oppressing them.		this is very obviously not an ethics-based statement, it's a descriptive statement, but it's a little frightening how well it expands to describe Liberal-republicanism, capitalism, Bolshevism, and Deng Xiaoping Thought. if you're going to be an anarchist and insist that capitalism and Bolshevism are 'basically the same', then this is how you should look at things. 'hierarchy' is not its own unique thing. expertise {{em\|really is a form of hierarchy}} most of the time. you have to genuinely figure out how to navigate a world where there are Trumps and Trotskys everywhere wanting to give you terrible advice on how to get through large-scale world events that should not be followed and yet it's also simultaneously true that stopping those people from taking control and leading people is oppressing them.

			</li></ol>

			== Freedom and Bolshevism ==
			<ol class="hue clean terse">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=F2/LR\|Q=618}}[[E:Material System of Bolshevism\|Bolshevism]] enslaved the individual into Stalin's project / some kind of conspiracy to bring down power and control onto poor unsuspecting businesses to enslave them into a nationality / ({{9k\|RD/Q79}}) -> note that this proposition as you usually see it is factually false because over half the population was in support, not just dragged along; claiming this is as bad as claiming that if 60% of the population votes for Barack Obama and he wins the election that the United States is enslaved under the Obama regime. Obama enslaved all Black people because White people in Florida didn't want to vote for him.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Hierarchies are freedom mountains

2026-05-11T08:45:47Z

Hierarchies are freedom mountains

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:45, 11 May 2026
Line 43:		Line 43:
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Government can create liberty / Government can create freedom (Liberal-republicanism)		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618\|h4= Government can create liberty }} / Government can create freedom (Liberal-republicanism)

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=618}}Government cannot create liberty / Formal government cannot create freedom; it cannot manufacture the ability to act and choose freely (anarchism, meta-Marxism) -> this is the crux of the three-way conflict between anarchism, Communism, and Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republicanism uniquely believes that government can create Liberty. anarchism often does not believe that, and believes that some tiny-scale process such as The Subject is responsible for creating Freedom/Liberty while formal government can only take it away or at least act in contradiction to it. however, when faced with Bolshevism, anarchism and Liberal-republicanism have similar reactions — both of them tend to aggressively turn into "[[E:Freedom cannot be possessed; it must come in the form of destroying something else\|anarchism]]" and insist that Bolshevism is killing The Subject and must be [[E:Zinovievizing (early Trotskyism, Liberal-republicanism)\|Zinovievized]] in order to create Freedom From Communism.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=618\|h4= Government cannot create liberty }} / Formal government cannot create freedom; it cannot manufacture the ability to act and choose freely (anarchism, meta-Marxism) -> this is the crux of the three-way conflict between anarchism, Communism, and Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republicanism uniquely believes that government can create Liberty. anarchism often does not believe that, and believes that some tiny-scale process such as The Subject is responsible for creating Freedom/Liberty while formal government can only take it away or at least act in contradiction to it. however, when faced with Bolshevism, anarchism and Liberal-republicanism have similar reactions — both of them tend to aggressively turn into "[[E:Freedom cannot be possessed; it must come in the form of destroying something else\|anarchism]]" and insist that Bolshevism is killing The Subject and must be [[E:Zinovievizing (early Trotskyism, Liberal-republicanism)\|Zinovievized]] in order to create Freedom From Communism.<br/>
	in this sense, Liberal-republicanism is a deep contradiction. on one hand, Liberal-republicanism tries to insist at various times that because "democracy" is capable of creating Freedom and poverty is a lack of Freedom it must be that "democracy" can socially construct a lack of poverty. on the other, it can only actually try to achieve that end through actions that attack Freedom. nobody who supports Liberal-republicanism wants to acknowledge this, although it is an inevitable thing to recognize if you adhere to Liberal-republican frameworks. Liberal-republicanism is not founded on any generalized concept of social progress, but strictly on concepts of peace and Freedom. so if Liberal-republicanism has to do anything that limits Freedom even for the purpose of protecting Freedom it becomes a really big problem. Liberal-republican theory is almost entirely the study of Freedom. this makes it very difficult to push anything that doesn't revolve around Freedom, such as Marxism, in a country that has adopted Liberal-republicanism, although things that do happen to revolve around Freedom such as anarchism have a somewhat easier time. so here's the part absolutely everybody misses: that's a catastrophe. that's not okay. Freedom itself is a heavily incoherent concept which is itself almost inherently built on intolerance and [[E:Zinovievizing\|destruction]]. having to work with a national culture that has built itself on Freedom is actually in and of itself an apocalyptic, world-threatening proposition.		in this sense, Liberal-republicanism is a deep contradiction. on one hand, Liberal-republicanism tries to insist at various times that because "democracy" is capable of creating Freedom and poverty is a lack of Freedom it must be that "democracy" can socially construct a lack of poverty. on the other, it can only actually try to achieve that end through actions that attack Freedom. nobody who supports Liberal-republicanism wants to acknowledge this, although it is an inevitable thing to recognize if you adhere to Liberal-republican frameworks. Liberal-republicanism is not founded on any generalized concept of social progress, but strictly on concepts of peace and Freedom. so if Liberal-republicanism has to do anything that limits Freedom even for the purpose of protecting Freedom it becomes a really big problem. Liberal-republican theory is almost entirely the study of Freedom. this makes it very difficult to push anything that doesn't revolve around Freedom, such as Marxism, in a country that has adopted Liberal-republicanism, although things that do happen to revolve around Freedom such as anarchism have a somewhat easier time. so here's the part absolutely everybody misses: that's a catastrophe. that's not okay. Freedom itself is a heavily incoherent concept which is itself almost inherently built on intolerance and [[E:Zinovievizing\|destruction]]. having to work with a national culture that has built itself on Freedom is actually in and of itself an apocalyptic, world-threatening proposition.

			{{li\|I=S2/A/MX\|Q=618\|h4= Hierarchies are freedom mountains }} / "Hierarchical" societies are actually stratified by amount of freedom rather than amount of domination / Society is not actually divided into order-givers and order-takers, it is stratified into the individuals who are educated and talented enough to be handed a lot of freedom to make big changes to the world and the people who are deemed not competent enough to be trusted with freedom; Stalin was given his position involving the most freedom to give theoretical pronouncements due to his expertise while Trotsky was denied the highest forms of freedom because he was not considered to be good at Marxism; Donald Trump was given the freedom to make declarations about foreign policy because he was deemed the best at being "American" and defending the United States while other people were not elected because they were not considered good enough at fighting China or Iran -><br/>
			this is very obviously not an ethics-based statement, it's a descriptive statement, but it's a little frightening how well it expands to describe Liberal-republicanism, capitalism, Bolshevism, and Deng Xiaoping Thought. if you're going to be an anarchist and insist that capitalism and Bolshevism are 'basically the same', then this is how you should look at things. 'hierarchy' is not its own unique thing. expertise {{em\|really is a form of hierarchy}} most of the time. you have to genuinely figure out how to navigate a world where there are Trumps and Trotskys everywhere wanting to give you terrible advice on how to get through large-scale world events that should not be followed and yet it's also simultaneously true that stopping those people from taking control and leading people is oppressing them.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: fragmentation as democracy

2026-05-11T07:18:59Z

fragmentation as democracy

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:18, 11 May 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	== Definitions of freedom ==		== Definitions of freedom ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/ES\|Q=32,79\|Q2=3279}}freedom (fragmentation) / democracy (fragmentation) / decentralization (chopping things up into tiny pieces to supposedly create Freedom) / democratization (spreading out a particular activity to more people without regard for how well it will be done, whether it will lead to uncontrolled hotspots of the activity being used for violent or hateful purposes, or whether it will divide people) / choppification (meta-Marxism; generic) / ({{9k\|RD/Q3279}})

	{{li\|I=S1/HAS\|Q=618}}freedom ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach\|lack of limitation on capabilities]]; Feuerbach)		{{li\|I=S1/HAS\|Q=618}}freedom ([[EC:9k/RD/Q618-ThesesOnFeuerbach\|lack of limitation on capabilities]]; Feuerbach)
Line 43:		Line 45:
	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Government can create liberty / Government can create freedom (Liberal-republicanism)		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/LR\|Q=618}}Government can create liberty / Government can create freedom (Liberal-republicanism)

	{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=618}}Government cannot create liberty / Formal government cannot create freedom; it cannot ~~create~~ the ability to act and choose freely (anarchism, meta-Marxism) -> this is the crux of the three-way conflict between anarchism, Communism, and Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republicanism uniquely believes that government can create Liberty. anarchism often does not believe that, and believes that some tiny-scale process such as The Subject is responsible for creating Freedom/Liberty while formal government can only take it away or at least act in contradiction to it. however, when faced with Bolshevism, anarchism and Liberal-republicanism have similar reactions — both of them tend to aggressively turn into "[[E:Freedom cannot be possessed; it must come in the form of destroying something else\|anarchism]]" and insist that Bolshevism is killing The Subject and must be [[E:Zinovievizing (early Trotskyism, Liberal-republicanism)\|Zinovievized]] in order to create Freedom From Communism.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX/A\|Q=618}}Government cannot create liberty / Formal government cannot create freedom; it cannot manufacture the ability to act and choose freely (anarchism, meta-Marxism) -> this is the crux of the three-way conflict between anarchism, Communism, and Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republicanism uniquely believes that government can create Liberty. anarchism often does not believe that, and believes that some tiny-scale process such as The Subject is responsible for creating Freedom/Liberty while formal government can only take it away or at least act in contradiction to it. however, when faced with Bolshevism, anarchism and Liberal-republicanism have similar reactions — both of them tend to aggressively turn into "[[E:Freedom cannot be possessed; it must come in the form of destroying something else\|anarchism]]" and insist that Bolshevism is killing The Subject and must be [[E:Zinovievizing (early Trotskyism, Liberal-republicanism)\|Zinovievized]] in order to create Freedom From Communism.<br/>
	in this sense, Liberal-republicanism is a deep contradiction. on one hand, Liberal-republicanism tries to insist at various times that because "democracy" is capable of creating Freedom and poverty is a lack of Freedom it must be that "democracy" can socially construct a lack of poverty. on the other, it can only actually try to achieve that end through actions that attack Freedom. nobody who supports Liberal-republicanism wants to acknowledge this, although it is an inevitable thing to recognize if you adhere to Liberal-republican frameworks. Liberal-republicanism is not founded on any generalized concept of social progress, but strictly on concepts of peace and Freedom. so if Liberal-republicanism has to do anything that limits Freedom even for the purpose of protecting Freedom it becomes a really big problem. Liberal-republican theory is almost entirely the study of Freedom. this makes it very difficult to push anything that doesn't revolve around Freedom, such as Marxism, in a country that has adopted Liberal-republicanism, although things that do happen to revolve around Freedom such as anarchism have a somewhat easier time. so here's the part absolutely everybody misses: that's a catastrophe. that's not okay. Freedom itself is a heavily incoherent concept which is itself almost inherently built on intolerance and [[E:Zinovievizing\|destruction]]. having to work with a national culture that has built itself on Freedom is actually in and of itself an apocalyptic, world-threatening proposition.		in this sense, Liberal-republicanism is a deep contradiction. on one hand, Liberal-republicanism tries to insist at various times that because "democracy" is capable of creating Freedom and poverty is a lack of Freedom it must be that "democracy" can socially construct a lack of poverty. on the other, it can only actually try to achieve that end through actions that attack Freedom. nobody who supports Liberal-republicanism wants to acknowledge this, although it is an inevitable thing to recognize if you adhere to Liberal-republican frameworks. Liberal-republicanism is not founded on any generalized concept of social progress, but strictly on concepts of peace and Freedom. so if Liberal-republicanism has to do anything that limits Freedom even for the purpose of protecting Freedom it becomes a really big problem. Liberal-republican theory is almost entirely the study of Freedom. this makes it very difficult to push anything that doesn't revolve around Freedom, such as Marxism, in a country that has adopted Liberal-republicanism, although things that do happen to revolve around Freedom such as anarchism have a somewhat easier time. so here's the part absolutely everybody misses: that's a catastrophe. that's not okay. Freedom itself is a heavily incoherent concept which is itself almost inherently built on intolerance and [[E:Zinovievizing\|destruction]]. having to work with a national culture that has built itself on Freedom is actually in and of itself an apocalyptic, world-threatening proposition.

Reversedragon: Freedom cannot be possessed / definitions of freedom

2026-05-08T06:17:54Z

Freedom cannot be possessed / definitions of freedom

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 == Definitions of freedom ==
-<!-- <ol class="hue clean">
+<ol class="hue clean">
-</li></ol> -->
 == Freedom and Habermasian logic ==
@@ Line 31: / Line 45: @@
 {{li|I=S2/MX/A|Q=618}}Government cannot create liberty / Formal government cannot create freedom; it cannot create the ability to act and choose freely (anarchism, meta-Marxism)  ->  this is the crux of the three-way conflict between anarchism, Communism, and Liberal-republicanism. Liberal-republicanism uniquely believes that government can create Liberty. anarchism often does not believe that, and believes that some tiny-scale process such as The Subject is responsible for creating Freedom/Liberty while formal government can only take it away or at least act in contradiction to it. however, when faced with Bolshevism, anarchism and Liberal-republicanism have similar reactions — both of them tend to aggressively turn into "[[E:Freedom cannot be possessed; it must come in the form of destroying something else|anarchism]]" and insist that Bolshevism is killing The Subject and must be [[E:Zinovievizing (early Trotskyism, Liberal-republicanism)|Zinovievized]] in order to create Freedom From Communism.<br/>
 in this sense, Liberal-republicanism is a deep contradiction. on one hand, Liberal-republicanism tries to insist at various times that because "democracy" is capable of creating Freedom and poverty is a lack of Freedom it must be that "democracy" can socially construct a lack of poverty. on the other, it can only actually try to achieve that end through actions that attack Freedom. nobody who supports Liberal-republicanism wants to acknowledge this, although it is an inevitable thing to recognize if you adhere to Liberal-republican frameworks. Liberal-republicanism is not founded on any generalized concept of social progress, but strictly on concepts of peace and Freedom. so if Liberal-republicanism has to do anything that limits Freedom even for the purpose of protecting Freedom it becomes a really big problem. Liberal-republican theory is almost entirely the study of Freedom. this makes it very difficult to push anything that doesn't revolve around Freedom, such as Marxism, in a country that has adopted Liberal-republicanism, although things that do happen to revolve around Freedom such as anarchism have a somewhat easier time. so here's the part absolutely everybody misses: that's a catastrophe. that's not okay. Freedom itself is a heavily incoherent concept which is itself almost inherently built on intolerance and [[E:Zinovievizing|destruction]]. having to work with a national culture that has built itself on Freedom is actually in and of itself an apocalyptic, world-threatening proposition.
 </li></ol>

Reversedragon: Government cannot create liberty

2026-05-08T06:11:05Z

Government cannot create liberty

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 {{li|I=S1/HAS|Q=580|Q2=580|h4= fitting action }} (truth value) / virtuous individual action
 {{li|I=S1/HM/A |Q=576|Q2=576|h4= promotes freedom }} (truth value)
 </li></ol>

Reversedragon: formatting

2026-05-08T06:08:37Z

formatting

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:08, 8 May 2026
Line 2:		Line 2:
	== Main entry ==		== Main entry ==
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">
	~~<!-- {{li\|start=y\|I=S1/ML\|Q=697\|Q2=697\|h4=}} -->~~

	</~~li><li class~~=~~"field_exstruct" value~~="778~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S">~~freedom (top-level category) -> one of the only terms worse than [[E:Q777\|free will]] in terms of how many definitions it has. genuinely don't use this except to list the category on category pages		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/ES\|tradition=LR, IK, ES, A\|Q=778\|Q2=778\|h4= freedom }} (top-level category) -> one of the only terms worse than [[E:Q777\|free will]] in terms of how many definitions it has. genuinely don't use this Item except to list the category on category pages
			{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/ES\|Q=778\|Q2=778}}freedom -> tradition: {{a\|E=Liberal-republicanism}} (LR), {{a\|E=Kantianism}} (IK), {{a\|E=Existentialist-Structuralist tradition}} (ES), {{a\|E=anarchism}} (A)<br/>
			any philosophy can {{em\|talk about}} this concept, obviously, but these are the main ones that popularized it or insist on it

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 13:		Line 14:

	== Freedom and Habermasian logic ==		== Freedom and Habermasian logic ==
	<ol class="hue clean">		<ol class="hue clean terse">
			{{li\|start=y
			\|I=S1/HAS/PT\|Q=579\|Q2=579\|h4= unfitting action }} (truth value) / vicious individual action
			{{li\|I=S1/HM/PT\|Q=575\|Q2=575\|h4= does not promote freedom }} (truth value)

	</li~~><li class="field_nations" value="579" data-dimension~~=~~"S">unfitting action (truth value)~~ / ~~vicious individual action~~		{{li\|I=S1/HAS\|Q=580\|Q2=580\|h4= fitting action }} (truth value) / virtuous individual action
	~~</li><li class~~=~~"field_nations" value="575" data-dimension="S">does not promote freedom (truth value)~~		{{li\|I=S1/HM/A \|Q=576\|Q2=576\|h4= promotes freedom }} (truth value)
	~~</li><li class~~=~~"field_exstruct" value="~~580~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S">~~fitting action (truth value) / virtuous individual action
	</~~li><li class~~=~~"field_anarchy" value~~="576~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S">~~promotes freedom (truth value)

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: copy markup from 9k/Q697

2026-05-08T05:50:34Z

copy markup from 9k/Q697

New page

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=freedom|User=RD|E=Q778|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">


</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="778" data-dimension="S">freedom (top-level category) -> one of the only terms worse than [[E:Q777|free will]] in terms of how many definitions it has. genuinely don't use this except to list the category on category pages

</li></ol>

== Definitions of freedom ==


== Freedom and Habermasian logic ==
<ol class="hue clean">

</li><li class="field_nations" value="579" data-dimension="S">unfitting action (truth value) / vicious individual action
</li><li class="field_nations" value="575" data-dimension="S">does not promote freedom (truth value)
</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="580" data-dimension="S">fitting action (truth value) / virtuous individual action
</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="576" data-dimension="S">promotes freedom (truth value)

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== Ideology codes ==

* (none)

[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]