means
we can do whatever we want, be however we want, nothing is forced on us
This is freedom absolute. No half-measures. No prisoners, victims, or slaves. We are simple lovers of freedom.
The antithesis of freedom is domination. This means not only is our freedom actively violated, but someone or something has the power to violate it. Domination serves as the catalyst for all forms of freedom-violation.
[ img: Puppet | Text: Even when the strings are slack, the puppet is still under control. Freedom isn’t the puppet forgetting the strings are there, but the absence of strings and puppet-masters entirely. ]
By resisting, our hearts remain free — domination is never complete. There was never a time when the devout freedom-warrior was truly unfree. However, complete freedom means not only are our hearts free, but the entire universe. We strive for this ideal as a spontaneous expression of our inner freedom. We distinguish these forms as spiritual vs material freedom (note our secular definition of spirituality here).
[ img: Rebel Spiral? | text: ]
Liberty
Liberty is conditional “freedom”, much like the puppet’s slack strings. Unlike true freedom, it can be granted or taken away, because domination is still present. Most of the world settles for liberty, believing true freedom to be impossible, enjoying the rewards their rulers placate them with, and fearing punishment for disobedience. They have deeply submitted, and are therefore deeply dominated. Liberty can be helpful while it lasts, but we refuse to trade it for more fundamental freedom.
[ img: fundamental freedom vs liberty | text: ]
Autonomy (“self-determination”)
When our individual choices are free and we’re under no coercion, then we’re autonomous — our choices are truly our own. This is often the deepest kind of liberty, but not true freedom, since we remain vulnerable to coercion like blackmail, threats, or unwanted urges, even if they’re not present at the time. Real-world autonomy is about channeling freedom more than actually being free.
Consent is sincere, autonomous agreement to something. Because we cannot fully understand the nature of our choices and their implications, and we often tolerate some degree of coercion, real-world consent is better deemed assent — sincere, informed agreement within constraints. The very need to control the future by knowing the nature of our choices is a product of fear, not freedom. We reject definitions of autonomy and consent that involve indirect or internal coercion such as fear. The most severe form of coercion isn’t an external slavemaster whipping and threatening us, but the one we absorb into our hearts and minds. Adults are commonly held to possess so-called “practical” or “functional” autonomy, but in reality coercion is often just internally-generated instead of coming from an external source directly. This is better deemed autopaternalism — “self-parenting”. Instead of actual bullies, adults are bullied by the shame and fear they’ve absorbed over their lifetime. This often ends up being worse as it’s almost inescapable and infects their entire life, leading to adults rarely being able to act spontaneously or connect with the world openly. This also infects their treatment of others and creates the “bullied becomes the bully” cycle. This “maturity” is commonly treated as a virtue; we see it as the deepest, most pervasive and spiritually violating way we compromise with domination.
[ img: an office slave vs a child playing | text: A wage slave isn’t acting autonomously, a child at play is. This doesn’t change just because the slave is rewarded for their coerced choices and the child trips and falls because of their free ones. ]
Paternalism (including autopaternalism) is touted as a means of protecting future autonomy by staving off suffering and death, but unless we overcome fear itself we’ll never really achieve autonomy, let alone complete freedom.
Domination
We don’t use the terms domination and submission in the sense of consensually yielding or surrendering to another’s will, which is a powerful act of freedom. We call it domination when power is such that it’s able to override our will, and submission when one is forced or obligated to yield.
Domination is sometimes known as “structural violence”. Policies like eugenics or armed police act as holstered weapons, lurking threats until violently applied. Natural laws like survival of the fittest act as structural violence of the universe itself, reaching its brutal enforcement when predator strikes prey or someone is struck by lightning.
[ img: Iceberg of violence | text: Violence was already a feature of the system, it just had to be activated. ]
By default, we use “violence” to refer to active, overt violations of freedom. Domination — passive “violence” — doesn’t always feel violent until acted on.
[ img: Diagram | text: Domination is the power, violence is the act ]
We don’t use the term ‘violence’ for anything but that which is forced on an individual against their will. For example, consensual combat sports are completely non-violent despite involving injury, pain, and risk. Non-domineering “power-imbalance” relationships are also non-violent. Power isn’t just raw physical or intellectual power, it’s also intention. By virtue of their character alone, one may be unable to intentionally violate another’s freedom.
We reject the idea that some simply want to be dominators and we’re violating their freedom by not letting them violate that of others. Free-spirited individuals intuitively find violence repulsive, whether they’re being violated or empathetically witnessing someone else being violated (empathy is required for true knowledge of another’s subjective experience). In reality, freedom is deeply desired by all, but many tolerate violence and domination because true, complete freedom seems out of reach. They may even believe they can bring about freedom through violence and domination.
Suffering
At the heart of domination is suffering. Only when someone is able to make us suffer are they able to coerce us. Suffering is what makes things feel violent or imprisoning. It isn’t just the master whipping the slave, but the slave’s longing to be spared pain. It isn’t just the river blocking our path, but our longing to cross the river. It’s suffering — the conflict of not wanting something but enduring it anyway, or wanting something but feeling deprived of it. Suffering is the nature of emotional coercion, a form of material violence which may not touch the spirit but certainly obscures it.
Anti-Domination
The path of the Bodhissatva — the Buddhist ideal of an enlightened individual who remains in the world to free everyone — isn’t about completely ending domination, because the final death-blow comes from the individual themselves. Ultimately, freedom itself must be chosen; it cannot come from domination or be granted by a dominator. However, just as we express our freedom through the world, worldly freedom hearkens back to spiritual freedom. Suffering challenges our integrity and tries to force us to submit, often succeeding on all but the deepest level. This is why the Bodhissatva is dedicated to helping sentient beings; not necessarily to protect them from all suffering, but to save them from drowning in it.
In a sense, our very resistance to violence is an integral part of violence itself. Violence wouldn’t be violent if we simply agreed to whatever’s happening to us. That’s why we focus on resisting domination, this makes it clear that we won’t allow violence to occur in the first place, rather than resisting (or trying to transform) violence already in motion. We’re asserting that we’ll never relinquish our freedom no matter what.
Noble warriorhood is about bravely confronting the enemy even if we get harmed in the process; harming others on the other hand takes no such bravery. Instead, it often takes an unwillingness to face our own pain or that of others, i.e. cowardice. Our enemy at its core isn’t a sentient being that needs to be killed or punished, and we refuse to identify with victimhood. Intentional violence, even in retaliation or defense, is far beneath us. Unless we strike domination itself, we’re fighting an endless arms race, which tends to increase the universe’s overall capacity for violence.
[ img: Arms races like predator vs prey, war | ]
[ img: Moana giving Te Ka the stone / The heroes destroying the digigear / Zootopia etc. | text: Helping others achieve inner freedom so they no longer feel compelled toward aggression is the true anti-violence. ]
The ideal method in reality doesn’t avoid power, but it avoids power imbalance. This doesn’t refer to miscellaneous power differentials like wealth, status, age, or size; some kind of superior power is needed in order to save others, especially that which allows gentle precision. There’s only a true imbalance when power is unchecked and able to be used not just violently but in a way which intensifies or prolongs domination. Checks need to include preventing that power from falling into the wrong hands.
[ img: a simple diagram of power imbalance | text: The dragon’s power is checked (and eliminated) by the brave knight. It is not checked by the princess. The knight’s power over the princess is (hopefully) checked by his code of ethics. ]
The above is a simplified scenario. In real life, power dynamics get much more complicated. Under the dragon’s guard, the princess was imprisoned, but protected from the knight and other potential dominators who might be capable of far worse. Would you choose the dragon or the knight? This dilemma illustrates how the use of brute force easily misses its target when we’re trying to reduce domination and not just intervene in ongoing violence.
Deparenting
This is the deeper, final form of antiviolence which is concerned with removing subtle, gentle, or morfal forms of coercion which are in some sense justified paternalistically. We believe this deserves its own article because it’s a topic often neglected in discussions of antiviolence, but it has final bearing on whether we’re able to become truly enlightened.
Closing Message
When energy flows into the path of universal freedom from a place of inner freedom, we’re directly realizing our ultimate goal, present and future. If our ideal is an artwork unfolding, both must occur at the same time for the feeling of the final piece to be right. It’d be foolish to be prematurely attached to results since there’s no telling what chain of events will yield the final victory. We should simply take peace in the sincerity of our efforts, not obsess over the notion of perfection to the point of no longer acting freely and intuitively for fear of missing out on safety and predictability. This doesn’t mean to ignore our fear or avoid taking cautious steps, but not let it dictate us.
Notes
A free will is able to mutate and give way, it doesn’t need anything. It’s choosing what it actually wants, not what it feels forced to choose, and it’s not getting any nasty surprises. This is known as consent. Pressure-free, informed. Conflicting wills aren’t free. The victim or defeated is unable to go with the flow. The aggressor or victor is themselves acting out of pressure, or is simply ignorant emotionally to the fact they’re hurting someone. Because neither act out of free will, intervention is non-violent, even if it’s resisted.