_{I wanted to write down the basic structure of what I’m presenting to keep thoughts organized. This isn’t finished or comprehensive, just a way to make the logic visible.}

My Hypothesis:

History doesn’t repeat because people fail to learn. It repeats because fear, domination, and objectification are reliable human responses under threat. Some people can’t be persuaded, some won’t become more self-aware, and no politics that depends on universal enlightenment survives contact with reality. And yet, harm has been reduced before — not because humanity improved, but because power was constrained. What changes history is not moral awakening, but architecture.

Freedom isn’t the absence of rules. It’s the presence of limits that prevent cruelty from becoming inevitable and preserve the conditions under which meaningful choice remains possible. Subjectivity, the ability to experience oneself as a living “I,” is the ground of freedom, but it doesn’t scale. The task isn’t to restore subjectivity to everyone; it’s to design systems that protect agency and future choice even when people act from fear or identity.

The architecture of freedom isn’t about saving humanity or ending repetition. Abolition, here, means refusing punishment as a substitute for safety — not refusing limits, exits, or containment when harm would otherwise continue. The point is not to justify authority, but to make coercion rare, bounded, contestable, and unable to harden into power. What follows sketches how coordination, limits, and exits can be structured without collapsing into punishment or denial.

♥︎ Inability here refers to situational limits on coordination, not fixed traits, diagnoses, or moral worth, and accommodation is aimed at preserving safety and agency without demanding normalization or cure.

𖹭