|
[Aug. 4th, 2011|10:45 am] |
|
|
|
Comments: |
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.
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. | |