You’re framing different games, not making opposing claims.
You are working from the practical ethics of freedom as the ability to act without coercion, which requires power. I think nostr:nprofile1qqsyeqqz27jc32pgf8gynqtu90d2mxztykj94k0kmttxu37nk3lrktcprdmhxue69uhhg6r9vehhyetnwshxummnw3erztnrdakj7qghwaehxw309akkcettw5hxummnw3erztnrdakj7wg4f5r speaks abstractly, seeing any influence as a loss of autonomy. The disagreement is mostly about levels, not logic.
Well I didn't think he was being illogical at all. My entire point was definitions. He's right from his point of view, but I'm offering what I think may be an even better way to look at it. It seems there are 3 different concepts at play: freedom (rightful control), my version of power (control), and mleku's version of power (control of people).
I think that NPCs often confuse all 3 or different 2 of 3 combinations.
I think these 3 concepts correspond to Liquidzulu's discussion of Natural Law vs mixed law vs law of the jungle, respectively. Incidentally I finally understand the distinction between mixed law and law of the jungle.
