Jā - zini, es tikko noskatījos raidījumu par zemnieku dzīvi viduslaikos Anglijā. Interesanti, kā vēsturnieki definēja šo sistēmu, kurā zemniekiem bija jāstrādā zināmas dienas zemes lordam. Viņi to nosauc par 'fuedal burden'. Parasti, viņiem bija jāvelta tam no 40 līdz 50 dienām.

Man šķiet, ka mūsdienās daļai no mums ir jāstrādā vairāk, lai nosegtu izdevumus nepieciešamām lietām (nodokļi, īre, 'mortgage' utt). Protams, esam brīvāki, izvēloties kur strādāt, bet iziet no sistēmas ir krietni grūtāk.

Par komforta līmeņiem utt., es teiktu, ka mūsu uztvere ir atkarīga no mūsu situācijas. Ja kādam ir kredīts un apgādājami bērni, tad šī nasta ir smagāka, un viņi ir attiecīgi ...less free.

Un, runājot par šo nastu, mani interesē divas lietas:

1) bankas, kā organizācijas, kas savāc šo nastu - un veids, kā šis kredīts vispār parādās.

2) the generational thing: ja pieņemsim, ka līdz ar ģimenes uzsākšanu (starting a family), mēs bieži uzņemam šo finansiālo nastu, tad tie, kas to saprot pirms tam varētu izlemt atlikt šo soli, vai vispār atteikties.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Nezinu, es tomēr gribētu saistīt verdzību ar reālu brīvas rīcības zaudējumu, kad to veic citi cilvēki ar tevi piespiedu kārtā.

No šī viedokļa, droši vien "feudal burden" kvalificējas; pieņemu, ka zemnieki, nepildot šo "burden" (latviski, starp citu, tas saucās "klaušas"), riskēja ar savu fizisko ādu un locekļiem.

Man ir kredīts un apgādājami bērni, bet no kredīta es varu atteikties (protams, zaudējot savu iemaksāto daļu), un bērnu varu apgādāt vairāk vai mazāk (un man ir labs piemērs, kad cilvēki dzīvo un apgādā bērnus tepat Rīgā ar kopīgajiem ģimenes ienākumiem tādiem, kādi manā gadījumā aiziet vienam pašam bērnam). Tā ir mana izvēle apgādāt viņu noteiktā līmenī.

I may be less free, but it is by my choice, which is the opposite of slavery.

Par (2), tā izskatās, ka daudzi cilvēki arī to saprot un ģimenes neuzsāk. Which might and might not bite them in the ass later on, but once again it's their choice.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

OK, es nevaru nepiekrist (these double negatives really fuck me up - that means 'I agree')- ja dažreiz neesam tik brīvi, kā mums liekas, tad dažreiz esam brīvāki, (nekā mums liekās). Atbīlde uz to jautājumu par to, kur ir atšķirība starp verdzību un pakļuatību konkrētā ekonomiskā iekartē (derēs?), varētu būt tā, kā tu aprakstīji.

I suppose, however, that the concept of choice could do with a bit more examination. I mean in a sense, you could argue that we always have some choice: even though a slave would have more difficulty in enacting a choice, and the consequences of it would be quite terrible.

I also think (writing in English as I have to vacate the keyboard) our idea of our level of freedom is largely based on our character and what role we take on in certain situations/relationships. There are many of us who feel a heavier sense of responsibility (for perhaps dubious reasons, too) who feel less free than they are/could be. However again, of course, it is their choice to take on this responsibility...

Regarding material subordination in an economic system, I guess favourable bankruptcy laws would help us feel more free. I also still feel I should know far more about the monetary system and the issuance of credit and the creation of debt (they seem to go hand in hand) both at state and individual level. It sometimes appears to me to be a scam through which we pay are paying tribute to those who are closer to the issuance of money.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

There are scientists, who would argue that from point of view of physics free will (and subsequently, choice) is an illusion, a kind of qualia -- akin to the way we perceive colours.

If we don't take such an extreme view, however, I would still maintain that slavery is a word that is mostly used and best used for describing a situation where your life is strictly subservient to the whims of your "owner", very limited in what you can do on your own (as compared, for exmaple, to the current democracies) and where the punishment for disobeying is severe to your wellbeing as person.

As it is, I would very much be in favour of real estate bankrupcy law which would limit the debtor's liability to the mortgaged property. It would help combat a number of bubbles, I feel, as banks would have to be less reckless.

Regarding your last paragraph, I believe there may be some truth to it, however, I also consider the option that it might feel that way only because the money/debt/credit etc. things are by now, in fact, a matter of agreement or convienience, in the sense that we all have to buy in that dream (or nightmare) or the system collapses.

The only way for the agreement to collapse, however, would seem to be a situation where too many people would rather gain (or at least not lose) by the collapse.

(Reply to this) (Parent)