What do you mean by "not live without?" Clearly, I can live without meat, I won't die if don't eat it. I may not be as healthy without it, but I probably won't die. But I do need to eat some food. Does that mean I'm a slave to food in general? If so, and given that all creatures need energy to survive, does that mean we're all born into slavery?

Greetings and Felicitations,

The ability to do something does not mean you are free. It doesn't even mean you are free to do it. The person you used as an example is able to kill people but that doesn't mean he is free to do so. A great many people confuse choices with freedom. They are not mutually inclusive terms.
In addition, he is a slave to his collection of gold bars and his butler Alfred. The only thing keeping Alfred from simply taking the gold for himself is Alfred's sense of responsibility to the man. He is actually in much more danger because of that fact. If Alfred decides to take the gold the man will find out very quickly the levels of slavery he has to the creditors. As soon as he can't make his payments everything he owns is going to be gone. The only thing keeping him from jail is the fact that we don't debtor's prisons anymore.

He has chosen to make himself a slave of his wife and child. The fact that he loves them doesn't change the fact. He has chosen to limit his freedom of action in order to get something back. If he is wise in his choice he will marry someone who shares his mindset and embrace the level of freedom that he does.
The problem is even simple to solve. He simply needs to change his car for a camper. This exchange, in combination with wise choices in mates, still gives him far more freedom than the man in the penthouse.

Do we? I used a car as a simple example of a means to allow freedom of movement. If he pays for the car completely he is not enslaved to the maker of the car he is only dependent on the maker of fuel. He has limited his slavery to the maker of fuel because he has created a method that allows him to pay for fuel. He is still enslaved to the maker of fuel but far less enslaved than the person living in the penthouse. He can go anywhere he wants and doesn't have to worry about the police confiscating his items because he misses a few payments.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

Greetings and Felicitations,

You could look at it that way. Especially, if your not capable of providing your own sustenance.
Like I said, "True freedom comes from understanding your chains of dependence."

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

Person B is totally dependent on the power grid, the banks, the super markets, the entire infrastructure which may one day collapse.

While person B may "appear" to be more free, it is temporary AND WILL ONE DAY COME CRASHING DOWN.

Person B might live his entire life without dramatic incident, but sooner or later all good things come to an end. Eventually, people like person B will wish they were more like person A.

So, you are telling me there is no word to describe this type of influence?

I believe it is a form of coercion.

The FEDGOV uses highway tax dollars to get states to pass laws like the 21 drinking age, the seat belt laws, the BAC laws and speed limit laws. I believe this is also a form of coercion. There is no threat of force, but there is a penalty for non-compliance.

Wow, this is the only post I have read from you that was worth reading.

Well said.

So, if you own a car, you are only a slave to the maker of the fuel?

What about the station that sells the fuel?

What about the trucks that take the fuel to the gas station?

What about the driver who drives the fuel truck?

What about the roads that are used for the truck to travel on?

What about your government issued drivers license and auto plates?

What about the mechanic who fixes the car?

What about the place you buy your tires?

What about auto insurance which is required or you can lose your driver's license?

What about the electricity which powers the gas station?

What about banks which finance the gas station and the fuel company and the auto maker and the parts store and the mechanic?


?

You know, that's very interesting. I'm writing a novel which has a main character who is immortal. I must remember to include this factor in his thoughts.

Now in the normal lives of mortal men this would have little if any impact. Even in the turbulent Middle Ages "civilisations" typically lasted several hundreds of years and even then usually tapered seamlessly one into the other as far as the 'common man' was usually concerned. Though it does happen, and far more often to the rich and powerful rather than the poor and inpotent, it is still truly an unfortunate who loses his fortune totally to the breakdown of the system under which he lives

Given the parameters of your position, what other way is there to look at it?

Greetings and Felicitations,

You are correct. All of these things create chains. Most of these things are infrastructure related to the usage of an automobile and I was lazy in using fuel as the prime example.. One does have choices one can make based on these limitations. It just depends on how much effort you are willing to expend to limit them. As I said to Cato, "A truly independent human being is a fearful thing to behold for many people. He, or she, is a rarity." It can be done but the level of self-responsibility and self-empowerment is beyond what most people are capable of creating.

It's like something else I said to Cato. The real issue is making sure that you are cognizant of the bounds you allow to attach to you. True freedom comes in choosing carefully those things that increase your freedom.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

Greetings and Felicitations,

Agreed. There are certain limitations inherent in our physical existence and they create chains of dependence. However, a person is certainly free to ignore those limitations.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

How about, "choice?" Or, "influence?"

Look, Norrin, everything you do in your life has some tinge of the example you gave; there are always tough choices to make. I would rather sleep in every morning, but the world starts working at 7:30 so I've got to get up if I want to make any money. I've got to get up if I want to be productive. I'm presented with a choice every morning, no one forces me to choose a certain way, no one makes up my mind for me, I'm not coerced into choosing a particular way.

To accept that tough choices are a form of coercion brings us to the ridiculous conclusion, for example, that we're all born slaves to oxygen because it constantly coerces us to breathe. It says to us constantly, "Breathe, or I'll kill you." If it were true that we're all born slaves to oxygen, slaves to food, slaves to the sun, then normal life would be slavery. There would be no such concept as "freedom" because we could never be free.

Arguing tough choices are coercion is just another way to avoid taking responsibility for one's decisions. "I was forced to rob the bank because I lost my job. I lost my job because my boss threatened me to show up every morning at 9:00 a.m. and I couldn't do it because the bank tried to coerce me into making timely payments on my car loan. When I didn't, the bank took my car and forced me to rely on public transportation. Then the bus company forced me to walk because the bus shows up on time and I missed it. So, you see, it's really not my fault because everyone forces me to do things I don't want to do!"
What's the penalty? There's no penalty for non-compliance. There is, however, no benefit for non-compliance. In this case, the government is offering a benefit to those who agree to do what it asks. Those who disagree can forego the benefit. Imagine this, your boss offers to pay you a bonus if you keep your desk nice and tidy. Is it coercion when you refuse to keep your desk nice and tidy and your boss doesn't give you the bonus? How about this: imagine your boss offers to pay you some money for coming in to work. Is this coercion? Is there a penalty if you don't come in to work? Is he forcing you to do something you don't want to do?

Not according to your parameters, unless one has the freedom to choose between life and death. Do you believe people have the freedom to choose between life and death?

Greetings and Felicitations,

Absolutely. Its the most basic freedom of all. You have the absolute choice whether you live or die. If you want to live you accept that certain chioces, dependencies and chains are necessary to continue your life. You can, at any time and with minimal effort, choose to stop accepting these dependencies.

Choosing to live is hard work. Some people choose to let others make those decisions and some people choose to make those decisions themselves. Choosing to let others do it is just as valid as choosing to do it yourself. However, and this is the part most people who abrogate that responsibility miss, don't be upset when they come to get you. After all they bought and paid for that privilege.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

My example was being forced to work overtime, or lose your job.

You then compare my example to basic human necessities of oxygen and food.

Working overtime is not a NECESSITY, although it might be for some people.

In my opinion, anytime a person is penalized for some type of behavior which is not illegal, or immoral, then this is a form of coercion. I do not wish to debate it any longer, as this is just MY OPINION.

THIS DOES NOT COUNT REFUSING TO HONOR AN AGREEMENT LIKE A LOAN, OR PAYING YOUR BILLS. It is things like a boos asking you to do something which is dangerous to save time and money. I know of several people who have done very dangerous things in order to save their companies money and keep their jobs.