Defines Cotometism by contrast—showing what it is not. Rejects identity-based, zero-sum, paternalistic, utopian, and authoritarian ideologies to preserve the framework’s commitment to Life Autonomy, Reciprocity, and adaptive cooperation.
Situates Cotometism in the wider philosophical landscape, showing how it converges and diverges from related traditions—capability theory, positive liberty, relational autonomy, non-domination, and mutual-advantage social contract thought—while maintaining a single evaluative axis: Life Autonomy sustained through Reciprocity
Critics might call cotometism contradictory, naïve, or utopian. This essay takes those objections head-on, showing how autonomy and reciprocity actually reinforce one another, why vulnerability makes reciprocity indispensable, and how institutions can be tools for liberty rather than ideals. Cotometism doesn’t promise perfection—it offers clarity about the real conditions that let lives remain free.
Many people call themselves socialists because they sense that conditions unfairly limit lives and concentrate power. Cotometism shares concerns for vulnerability and exploitation, but it starts with the fragile autonomy of each individual life. Where socialism might rely on authority and redistribution, cotometism emphasizes Life Autonomy and Reciprocity—direct empowerment and voluntary cooperation that make freedom last.
A table comparing the treatment of life autonomy and reciprocity in major frameworks outside cotometism.
