Not that I disagree with the underlying ideas, but I'd argue we're not slaves. I'll concede that in practice we can definitely be thought something more akin to peasants, but what we live in today is not slavery.
Now, is being a peasant, with all the concomitant limitations on one's livelihood any better than being a slave to the mental health of the bright and ambitious? Perhaps not, but it would be significantly more deleterious to their physical health.
I also understand that reasonable people can debate whether physical or mental health is more important.
If I am forced to give any percentage of my income to a government I do not want, I think that is slavery. You wouldn't think it ok if an individual forced you, or the mafia. The government is just big mafia.
But that is not really the nub of it.
Slavery is really a mental state - having been through the system we have been propagandised that the government is a good thing, it's the right way to manage ourselves - anything else is very bad. This is the creation of the slave mentality, putting the policeman inside your head, so that you feel highly uncomfortable just considering non-standard ideas - they are thoughtcrime.
Thoughtcrime egs: that news is just another show, a serious type of advert. That pharmaceutical companies will run world wide campaigns, seconding governments, drafting laws, to poison millions - this will fill up their pipeline with sickness for the coming decades.
If I am forced to give any percentage of my income to a government I do not want, I think that is slavery
This is a good example of what I'm talking about.
Maybe you think of it as slavery, but in reality, it's the very definition of peasantry.
Slavery is you get no money. And by the way, if you disagree with it, the power holder beats the tar out of you. Or maybe s/he just kills you and gets another slave. Whatever's most convenient at the time/place.
Other than money, there are also a host of other differences between how we live and slavery. Including the fact that slaves don't choose their masters. There is no right to leave. Less than expected productivity results in severe beatings. And on and on and on.
Again, peasantry is its own special form of perdition. No need to exaggerate to get that point across. I was only saying that it's clearly not slavery.
There will always be someone more powerful than you. I prefer that I can elect the leaders of the most powerful group. This is why anarchy doesn't make any sense: The government is simply the most powerful violent group. As long as violence exists, any anarchic arrangement is inherently unstable.
"The government is simply the most powerful violent group."
100% right. But let's not lie to ourselves that this is also morally right.
You may kid yourself that you are freely doing something meaningful when you vote to be governed by someone else, but the reality is that is based in fear (of others or the government).
You don't in fact need governance when you meet family members for social occasions. This natural behaviour can scale up.
But no, I don't think we are heading towards freedom. I think government is too powerful. Government would create the anarchic situations to allow for the strong paternal government response. In fact, this is how it has so much power now! It creates the objects of fear, and proposes a responses that just happen to require more from its citizens. More money, more control, etc. Its a one-way street.
Unfortunately, you cannot comply your way out of tyranny - so we are heading towards greater slavery and greater governmental control. This is because people are unable to take responsibility for their decisions - they don't even know what right and wrong are ffs. (Do not do unto others..)
> If I am forced to give any percentage of my income to a government I do not want, I think that is slavery. You wouldn't think it ok if an individual forced you, or the mafia. The government is just big mafia.
The government uses your money to build infrastructure that makes the land the rich own more valuable. The government itself is also a victim.
> I also understand that reasonable people can debate whether physical or mental health is more important.
I'm actually unsure what this means. I take it to imnply that physical health is more important, but I'm not convinced of that. Physical health impacts the individual and loved ones (via emotional labor and support). Mental health impacts the community (mass shootings); it's hard to predict the outcome of poor mental health per individual but it's clear on the whole that it's often the community that pays for it.
Now, is being a peasant, with all the concomitant limitations on one's livelihood any better than being a slave to the mental health of the bright and ambitious? Perhaps not, but it would be significantly more deleterious to their physical health.
I also understand that reasonable people can debate whether physical or mental health is more important.