Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:07:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2013 12:26:15 GMT -5
This really depends on your view of the "freedoms" man enjoys in a state of anarchy. Hobbes' view seems more accurate than Locke's to my jaundiced eye.
I tend to agree that government assistance, being focused on a Rawlsian "original position" and blind to dynamic praxeology, tends to stifle opportunity and so indirectly restrict freedom in proportion to the level of regulation of welfare; I think regulation, rather than welfare per se, is the limiting factor there, although Parkinson's Law holds for any government bureaucracy.
Nonetheless, I'd also argue that what freedoms a man can meaningfully claim in society are the gifts of his government; government does not "take away" freedoms that did not exist without government. It just doesn't grant them as liberally as it might.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 13, 2013 12:39:49 GMT -5
This really depends on your view of the "freedoms" man enjoys in a state of anarchy. Hobbes' view seems more accurate than Locke's to my jaundiced eye. both of these men wrote prolifically on issues of state/freedoms. what in particular do you prefer in Hobbes' perspective?
|
|
zdaddy
Established Member
Joined: Jun 20, 2012 13:29:02 GMT -5
Posts: 295
|
Post by zdaddy on Sept 13, 2013 15:56:01 GMT -5
Interesting discussion, and since I've lately been on an ancient history podcast/audiobook kick, I'd like to say that American slavery was brutal but had nothing on the ancient world. The Spartans forced their slaves to live like animals, wearing crude rags and surviving on a starvation diet. To make things worse, young Spartan warriors were encouraged to hunt and murder slaves to test their fighting skills. The Romans weren't much better, especially if you look at the thousands of slaves sent to die in the mines or rowing galleys. And any slave that got out of hand was likely to die in a horrible fashion.
In other words, being a slave throughout history often treated far worse than most farm animals. i can certainly see an argument that we're creating an underclass in America that you're basically born into and unless you have amazing talents, all the hard work in the world will not get you out of. But even the guy with the worst job in America is probably far better off than a slave from any historical period.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 14, 2013 14:48:41 GMT -5
there are two more things about this that i would like to discuss.
the first is that i think "freedom" is an abstract concept. my son, who has basically no rights to his own TIME that i don't grant him, does not see himself as a slave in any way. he sees himself as a free agent. he does not have to work for a living. he does not have to participate meaningfully in planning for his future. he does not have to do anything other than get in the car and go where and when we say he goes. this shapes his image of freedom.
likewise, if you lived in China, your conception of "scut work" and slavery would be different than ours. ditto for Indonesia, Australia, and any other place you could name.
i would posit that our vision of "slavery" is unusually shaped and structured by our own experience with that institution, and that other people may not have nearly the sensation of loathing toward the idea of it that we, as Americans do. furthermore, i would posit that most of us have had POSITIVE experiences with "scut work". many of you have expressed it on this thread. therefore, i would expect the vast majority to say that slavery is absolutely inferior in every sense to scut work. but can you imagine that many outside the US would have had experiences that were almost universally negative with "scut work", and none of the cultural baggage to slavery that we have?
on the other side of the coin, if you ask former soviet immigrants this question, they will almost universally laud the US system (even lowly scut work) as being infinitely better not only than slavery, but than socialism- once again, shaped by their own experiences with those systems, and that culture.
in other words, how much of this discussion depends on the demographic/culture being surveyed? none? some? all?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 14, 2013 22:50:14 GMT -5
Are you asking how intracultural variance in views on freedom compares to intercultural variance?
If so, you've answered your own question. Intracultural variance is small. Intercultural variance is generally large. The specifics depend on which cultures you're comparing.
Views on freedom are one of the most homogenous elements of a culture. So much so that if a group's views on freedom differ moderately from the views of the society in which they live, we typically refer to the group as "having retained its culture" or "having a culture of its own". Intracultural views are so profoundly linked to everything that constitutes a culture that they can only diverge a little before we recognize a 'split' has occurred.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 15, 2013 9:37:18 GMT -5
Is this stupid thread still going? If you're doing scut work, it's because of two primary reasons: 1. You haven't wrapped your mind around what you're really actually capable of, or 2. It's all you actually qualify to do Of people doing scut work, I would say 95% fall into the first category. And in fact, very few people stay in scut work. Almost everyone moves up- I've done scut work. Most of us here have done scut work. If you're a slave, it's because someone has put you to forced labor and regards you a a piece of property. I have yet to see a wanted poster put out by the local McD's for their fry cook that ran off. Because there are many, many willing and qualified people who can do that job. That's why it pays so little, and why nobody notices when fast food workers walk off the job or quit.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 15, 2013 10:44:43 GMT -5
It's not a stupid thread, sir. By your own admission, you didn't even read most of it.
Nobody is disputing that the difference between freedom and slavery is an element of choice. This thread looks at how we define choice and how we meaningfully determine whether the choices people have are genuine or illusory. Many of the arcs have nothing to do with America.
It is a philosophical debate; there is a degree of abstractness. Do DJ the courtesy of reading the entire thread, or abstain from commenting if the subject matter strikes you as "stupid". I realize that certain posters do very little besides bellyache in your threads, but DJ isn't one of them, and in any case you oughtn't stoop to their level.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 15, 2013 12:06:38 GMT -5
Is this stupid thread still going? If you're doing scut work, it's because of two primary reasons: has nothing to do with "if". please find another thread to clutter up if this one doesn't interest you, Paul. tyia.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 15, 2013 12:07:33 GMT -5
Are you asking how intracultural variance in views on freedom compares to intercultural variance? If so, you've answered your own question. Intracultural variance is small. Intercultural variance is generally large. The specifics depend on which cultures you're comparing. Views on freedom are one of the most homogenous elements of a culture. So much so that if a group's views on freedom differ moderately from the views of the society in which they live, we typically refer to the group as "having retained its culture" or "having a culture of its own". Intracultural views are so profoundly linked to everything that constitutes a culture that they can only diverge a little before we recognize a 'split' has occurred. well put.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 15, 2013 12:27:58 GMT -5
ok, one final question:
is our conception of work (compensating for making someone else money by selling your time, which you can never get back, for a little change, which is highly transitory and replaceable) fundamentally flawed? aren't we simply selling half of our waking hours to enhance the lives and fortunes of our "betters"? how is THAT aspect of work any different than slavery? are we ("voluntarily") enslaving ourselves 40 hours/week for 128 hours of "freedom" (half of which we spend asleep)?
note: several posters alluded to this earlier. i recall deminmaine particulary, in the early part of this thread. this is simply a turning back to that earlier question.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 15, 2013 14:20:35 GMT -5
Calling work in general "slavery" is an abuse of the term. Although more work often leads to a higher standard of living, the element of choice is clearly present in this case. We've moved into the domain of time management and personal priorities.
I realize we sometimes use adages like "The man is a slave to his job.", referring to people with questionable (or downright lousy) priorities. "Addiction to work" does exist and is very accurately labeled 'addiction'
30 to 55 work hours a week--on average--seems reasonable to me, and I include volunteer work in that tally. Any less than 30 is "selfish" in the sense that an individual could certainly spare some leisure time to better his/her society or provide a useful good or service. Any more than 55, an individual either isn't getting enough sleep (which takes a huge toll, as the TED talk I posted earlier points out) or is neglecting at least one of the four pillars of a balanced life: social, physical, mental, and spiritual.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:07:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2013 15:00:56 GMT -5
We should have you over for lunch some time. Chef makes a Soylent Green to die for. LOL The names are known, I'm just to lazy to look them up. And I am actually following up on dj's main premise. We don't tend to recognise slavery until it gets uncomfortable. It is a constant balancing act for "the powers that be" to figure out what minimum amount they have to share with the fewest number of people before they have a mutiny on their hands and are deposed. It is not a coincidence that the social programs in democracies flourished when communism was a viable alternative to the masses and are decreasing now that communism is considered defeated.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 15, 2013 15:44:22 GMT -5
We should have you over for lunch some time. Chef makes a Soylent Green to die for. LOL The names are known, I'm just to lazy to look them up. And I am actually following up on dj's main premise. We don't tend to recognise slavery until it gets uncomfortable. It is a constant balancing act for "the powers that be" to figure out what minimum amount they have to share with the fewest number of people before they have a mutiny on their hands and are deposed. It is not a coincidence that the social programs in democracies flourished when communism was a viable alternative to the masses and are decreasing now that communism is considered defeated. At what point did social programs start to decrease? Canada: Wheeeeeeee! USA: Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! Curse all this capitalist talk depressing those social programs! It's not like we've spent more on them virtually every single freaking year, even in inflation-adjusted terms, since forever ago.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:07:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2013 15:49:37 GMT -5
Am I blind? Those graphs talk about total spending. I don't see anything identifying spending on social programs.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 15, 2013 17:42:45 GMT -5
Am I blind? Those graphs talk about total spending. I don't see anything identifying spending on social programs. If you're genuinely interested, give a precise definition of which programs you consider to be "welfare", and I'll see if I can dig up inflation-adjusted graphs of spending on those programs specifically. They're monotonically increasing with time. I believe they've also trended upwards as a percentage of total government spending, although there are broader upswings and downswings. If you consider healthcare in Canada to be part of our social welfare (which it is to a degree, since it would replace Medicaid in the US), the graphs J-curve upward as a function of time. The bottom line is that spending on social programs has always been a one-directional trend: up. The only problem seems to be that society's sense of entitlement is rising faster than spending can compensate. If the rest of Canada ever gets as bad as Quebec, we're as doomed as Europe.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:07:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2013 18:54:13 GMT -5
In Ontario Social Assistant payments to individuals and families were decreased under Mike Harris. They have never resumed their pre Harris levels adjusted for inflation. Not even not adjusted for inflation. That is just one example of what I am referring too. Many provinces lowered their payments. Many medical procedures have been disqualified from OHIP, many schools have been closed. There are many examples of what I am talking about Virgil. If services are costing more now than they did previously it is not because more services are being offered. However I do understand that deficits and national debts are the rational used for cutting these services. It's funny, we don't hear much about getting rid of compound interest on that debt.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 15, 2013 19:03:14 GMT -5
Ontario provincially is a unique case. You had Mr. Rae in before Mr. Harris, and he leveled the province. Ontario's debt went through the roof, and I still have relatives bitter about being forced to leave due to insufferable government practices. The professional "brain drain" to the US during those years was staggering. Mr. Harris had his problems, but he was also the guy who had to clean up the mess. I'll concede that spending during those years was above present levels, even if it did nearly destroy the province.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:07:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2013 20:45:32 GMT -5
LOL Way to dismiss the evidence Virgil. I'm sure you'll discount my next example just as blithely. So to counter my assertions you have posted irrelevant but impressive looking spending graphs and come up with a nice little narrative to belittle the truth of what I say. I can see this will be a fun conversation.
Anyway, the point I was making that is relevant to this thread is that even though people have limited freedom in the choices they make they don't see themselves as enslaved unless it is very uncomfortable. To that end the "powers that be" try to judge just how uncomfortable the majority of people can be without revolting.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 15, 2013 20:49:09 GMT -5
Calling work in general "slavery" is an abuse of the term. i didn't do that. what i asked is if this ONE ASPECT of work is.Although more work often leads to a higher standard of living, the element of choice is clearly present in this case. We've moved into the domain of time management and personal priorities. I realize we sometimes use adages like "The man is a slave to his job.", referring to people with questionable (or downright lousy) priorities. "Addiction to work" does exist and is very accurately labeled 'addiction' 30 to 55 work hours a week--on average--seems reasonable to me, and I include volunteer work in that tally. Any less than 30 is "selfish" in the sense that an individual could certainly spare some leisure time to better his/her society or provide a useful good or service. Any more than 55, an individual either isn't getting enough sleep (which takes a huge toll, as the TED talk I posted earlier points out) or is neglecting at least one of the four pillars of a balanced life: social, physical, mental, and spiritual. indeed. edit: i don't think i agree with the "idle hands" pretext of the final paragraph. a person can spend his time studying, or working on a cure for cancer, in his own time and his own way; processes that may have a very high public good as an end. there is no way to judge whether such efforts are to the benefit of mankind or not. likewise, a very industrious person can while his time away mechanizing the torture and destruction of his fellow man. who is the better?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 15, 2013 20:51:42 GMT -5
We should have you over for lunch some time. Chef makes a Soylent Green to die for. LOL The names are known, I'm just to lazy to look them up. And I am actually following up on dj's main premise. We don't tend to recognise slavery until it gets uncomfortable. It is a constant balancing act for "the powers that be" to figure out what minimum amount they have to share with the fewest number of people before they have a mutiny on their hands and are deposed. It is not a coincidence that the social programs in democracies flourished when communism was a viable alternative to the masses and are decreasing now that communism is considered defeated. lb- this is a really terrific reply. well done.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 15, 2013 20:59:11 GMT -5
The only part of your claim I'm disputing is that spending trends changed from the era where "the threat of communism kept it in check" to the post-USSR era. Yes, Ontario's provincial budget is one example where current spending is off-peak, and I conceded that. Does that fact validate your broader claim? Absolutely not. Ontario is not Canada. Canada is not the US. And the timeframe is wrong, regardless.
As for your claim that "the 'powers that be' try to judge just how uncomfortable the majority of people can be without revolting", you may well be correct.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:07:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2013 21:16:30 GMT -5
Taking the second point first, using the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 as a loose time frame for the fall of communism and Harris was elected in 1995 I'd say the timing is right on the money. Even I don't think the powers that be can change the course of mankind at the drop of a hat.
As for Ontario is not Canada, no it's not. However I have come up with a concrete example of what I'm talking about. Whereas you sir have not.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 16, 2013 3:52:10 GMT -5
As for Ontario is not Canada, no it's not. However I have come up with a concrete example of what I'm talking about. Whereas you sir have not. Good think communism was around. Those curves really plummet after 1990.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 16, 2013 12:51:30 GMT -5
did Canada have a (post war) baby boom, too? does Canada have the same problem with HC inflation? edit: you guys are really drifting. can we get back to slavery please?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 16, 2013 13:38:01 GMT -5
did Canada have a (post war) baby boom, too? does Canada have the same problem with HC inflation? edit: you guys are really drifting. can we get back to slavery please? Slave driver.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 16, 2013 13:56:02 GMT -5
did Canada have a (post war) baby boom, too? does Canada have the same problem with HC inflation? edit: you guys are really drifting. can we get back to slavery please? Slave driver. lie back and think of England, Virgil.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 16, 2013 20:45:19 GMT -5
It's not a stupid thread, sir. By your own admission, you didn't even read most of it. Nobody is disputing that the difference between freedom and slavery is an element of choice. This thread looks at how we define choice and how we meaningfully determine whether the choices people have are genuine or illusory. Many of the arcs have nothing to do with America. It is a philosophical debate; there is a degree of abstractness. Do DJ the courtesy of reading the entire thread, or abstain from commenting if the subject matter strikes you as "stupid". I realize that certain posters do very little besides bellyache in your threads, but DJ isn't one of them, and in any case you oughtn't stoop to their level. I have thought about what you posted here. And I took my time coming up with the following reasoned response: Nah. But seriously- I'm not going to get personal about what I think of what DJ does on my threads, but I'll give you a hint: I don't think it's particularly valuable. There's nothing abstract about slavery. The abstract, philosophical discussion is just that- it's not actual slavery. And while it is tempting to indulge the notion that freedom may be 'illusory' it's really not. Either you are free, or you're not. If you want to find out for sure- just leave your job. If nobody tracks you down and drags you back- you're free. Does that mean that freedom is easy, and if you do a, b, c, and d you can have any kind of lifestyle you desire? Of course not, but you're not a slave.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 16, 2013 22:16:32 GMT -5
It's not a stupid thread, sir. By your own admission, you didn't even read most of it. Nobody is disputing that the difference between freedom and slavery is an element of choice. This thread looks at how we define choice and how we meaningfully determine whether the choices people have are genuine or illusory. Many of the arcs have nothing to do with America. It is a philosophical debate; there is a degree of abstractness. Do DJ the courtesy of reading the entire thread, or abstain from commenting if the subject matter strikes you as "stupid". I realize that certain posters do very little besides bellyache in your threads, but DJ isn't one of them, and in any case you oughtn't stoop to their level. I have thought about what you posted here. And I took my time coming up with the following reasoned response: Nah. But seriously- I'm not going to get personal about what I think of what DJ does on my threads, but I'll give you a hint: I don't think it's particularly valuable. neither do i. but since the threads themselves have little value, i think my commentary fits right in.There's nothing abstract about slavery. red herring. nobody here claimed anything of the sort.The abstract, philosophical discussion is just that- it's not actual slavery. And while it is tempting to indulge the notion that freedom may be 'illusory' it's really not. nobody said that either. but i said that it was abstract. and most people agreed with that. the reason it is abstract and cultural is that, in a "free society", people are unfree to the degree that their freedom does not matter to them. therefore having a body search at the airport may be perfectly reasonable to some people for "security". it is totally unreasonable to me. being kept below poverty line because the government refuses to insist that the minimum wage meet that standard is unreasonable to me, and perfectly reasonable to you. so this idea of reasonableness and acceptance plays into freedom considerably- no matter whether you will indulge that idea or not. Either you are free, or you're not. no, either you THINK you are free, or you DON'T. there is no absolute standard for freedom.If you want to find out for sure- just leave your job. If nobody tracks you down and drags you back- you're free. oh people will track you down, all right. landlords. creditors. the IRS. conscription services. your wife. you name it. we are far more "bound" to our situations than we want to admit. Does that mean that freedom is easy, and if you do a, b, c, and d you can have any kind of lifestyle you desire? Of course not, but you're not a slave. nice red herring- but i never said that scut work and slavery were the SAME. i only suggested that one may be no better than the other. you are free to disagree. most people did. and that is fine. i was actually more interested in the WHY people thought so, than the actual argument- which i conceded early on would NOT be seriously considered by 99% of the posters here. i was off a bit. it is more like 90%.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 16, 2013 22:26:09 GMT -5
So say that. "Slavery exists if and only if conditions X, Y, and Z are met. More general concepts such as labour exploitation, perpetual indebtedness, confiscatory taxation, feudalism, etc. are distinct and should not be called 'slavery'."
Concise. Respectful.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 16, 2013 23:29:35 GMT -5
So say that. "Slavery exists if and only if conditions X, Y, and Z are met. More general concepts such as labour exploitation, perpetual indebtedness, confiscatory taxation, feudalism, etc. are distinct and should not be called 'slavery'." Concise. Respectful. indeed. but here is the thing. i don't believe that i ever said scut work WAS slavery. what i DID say is that some slaves may not see themselves as slaves. and i also claimed that some scut workers MIGHT see themselves that way. i also inferred that it was possible for some people who are neither scut workers NOR slaves might see themselves as so trapped to a point of misery that some slaves never feel. in fact, my suggestion that one thing is not worse than the other necessitates that those things ARE different. if they are not, the comparison is meaningless.
|
|