Let’s make sure we both agree on the definition of freedom.
Freedom: the power to act, speak, and think as one wants.
Do we agree on this definition?
Discussion
good call. we likely do not.
its because of the constriction of "as one wants". which is already self-limiting.
for example,
I dont think your view of "some slaves think theyre the freest" can be consistent with your own definition.
since they likely speak, act and think as they want...
as they *think* they want perhaps
Yes I believe freedom/slavery is a spectrum.
A man paying 100% taxes on his labor is a complete slave. A man paying 40% taxes on his labor is a partial slave.
People today generally can act, speak, and think more freely than people did 500 years ago. However, in general, richer people can speak, act, and think more freely than poorer people. Rich people have more power to do the things they want to do. They have the power to escape slavery more often than poor people.
Let’s use the most extreme cases as examples. Say you’re a multi billionaire. You want to drive your car and park it wherever you want. You also don’t feel like carrying insurance or a drivers license. You can literally drive your car, park it on a firelane, get a ticket, and then pay it off. The fine is insignificant to you. Even if they towed your car, paying to get it back is insignificant. If anything, you can just buy another car. You are not restricted by these things the way poor people are.
by your own definition it doesnt matter whether they pay 100% taxes or not at all.
what matters is if one can do what they want to or not.
therefore "freedom", or lack thereof, is the difference between what one wants and what one can do.
no wants and no means, complete freedom.
lots of wants and no means, no freedom.
seems pretty arbitrary.
Lots of wants AND the means is the most freedom because wants can change. You may have no wants today, but you may have new wants tomorrow. The one with money is better equipped to attain those wants.
Again, freedom is the power to act, speak, or think the way one wants.
If you buy into the spiritual brainwashing they feed the poor people then yeah it seems arbitrary. That’s what the elite in power want us to believe. But I don’t. I think true freedom is being able to choose what you want to do. More money means more choices. If we follow your logic, then throwing away your money would give you more freedom. Release all attachments. That would inevitably lead to death. The ultimate freedom right? Not a noble goal. But even if that is the ultimate freedom, the most free person would have all the means in the world and still choose death. A poor person choosing death isn’t as free because his choices are limited.
Even if you released attachments, you’re not free from suffering. You’re not free from disease as you freeze to death due to your release from material things like shelter. You’re not free from hunger and loneliness. A poor person can’t become free of cancer the way a rich person can.