Hi,
If by 'freedom' you mean a total lack of responsibilities, the ability to do whatever you want or even nothing at all, then that condition has never existed and will, probably, never exist. Our earliest ancestors (if our closest relatives are any indication) formed bands with leaders and followers. The leaders were not free, they were constrained by the good of the band, both real and perceived. The followers were not free, they had to cooperate in the band's activities and submit to the will of the leader. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." Those are the three possible states, the third being 'outcast' and possibly the least free of them all, for the outcast is a slave to nature and has no one to relive him of any part of that slavery.
As a person of principle, and as one that seems even to put principle above personal well being, your argument that working for someone is the equivalent of slavery seems incongruous. The fundamental difference *is* one of principle. Slavery reduces a human being to an object that can be owned. This was recognized as far back as Cicero ("instrumentum vocale"). The most benevolent treatment of a slave (short of manumission) does not negate this fundamental fact, that a slave is an object, not a person.
We have options, we have choices. We don't have unlimited license, but we do have a large chunk of freedom. Maybe we should have more, but that is something to work for. But if your idea of freedom is freedom from responsibility to the world, to the nation, to society, then I cannot agree with you. And if you think that those responsibilities will be shouldered by individuals without coercion, then I think you are mistaken. And, with the fragmentation and decline of religion, I cannot think of an organization other than the state who can supply that coercion.
--Pete
Quote:Yes, it the IT world, our freedom ebbs and flows with the economy. I have the choice to rebel and join the ranks of the unemployed, and they will easily replace me with someone who will gratefully obey.But the IT world isn't the whole world. And unemployment isn't the only alternative. There are nationwide shortages of teachers and nurses. There are other fields that need people. If you cannot afford to retrain, it is not the corporate world that put you in that position, it is the choices you made. If, to be free, you have to have no boss, no supervisor, no one that expects your effort for their money, then you can still move to undeveloped areas and live a pioneer lifestyle, grow and hunt your own food, etc.
If by 'freedom' you mean a total lack of responsibilities, the ability to do whatever you want or even nothing at all, then that condition has never existed and will, probably, never exist. Our earliest ancestors (if our closest relatives are any indication) formed bands with leaders and followers. The leaders were not free, they were constrained by the good of the band, both real and perceived. The followers were not free, they had to cooperate in the band's activities and submit to the will of the leader. "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." Those are the three possible states, the third being 'outcast' and possibly the least free of them all, for the outcast is a slave to nature and has no one to relive him of any part of that slavery.
As a person of principle, and as one that seems even to put principle above personal well being, your argument that working for someone is the equivalent of slavery seems incongruous. The fundamental difference *is* one of principle. Slavery reduces a human being to an object that can be owned. This was recognized as far back as Cicero ("instrumentum vocale"). The most benevolent treatment of a slave (short of manumission) does not negate this fundamental fact, that a slave is an object, not a person.
We have options, we have choices. We don't have unlimited license, but we do have a large chunk of freedom. Maybe we should have more, but that is something to work for. But if your idea of freedom is freedom from responsibility to the world, to the nation, to society, then I cannot agree with you. And if you think that those responsibilities will be shouldered by individuals without coercion, then I think you are mistaken. And, with the fragmentation and decline of religion, I cannot think of an organization other than the state who can supply that coercion.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?