2. If you define renting yourself to an employer as being slavery, then yes, it's like that. If you don't define it that way, then it's not like that at all.
So far, you have defined it that way, but given no reason why I should. For that matter, in your first post, you said, "workers should be in control of them [companies]", with no justification for that "should", either.
And the same with your reply, the parent to this comment. You give nothing but a "should" with no justification in 3, either.
You gave a very concise statement, with not a lot of argument. I get that; I even value it. But when you want to convert the not-yet-believers, you need to do better than a bunch of dogmatic "shoulds" and "that's like slavery".
I have no interest in converting anyone. I am answering questions as accurately as I can, as I always do.
I don't quite follow your disagreement, but I appreciate the way you talk. I don't mean I disagree with you, I don't quite understand what you're getting at.
I said that this
> It's inconsistently in favor of freedom. "Renting yourself to a dictatorship is not freedom"? What if I want to? Should I not have the freedom to do so?
Works as well for Slavery. And it does. What if someone wants to be a slave? Should they not have the freedom to do so?
I feel like that's a reasonable argument, and don't see any reason to adjust it.
I see. With that understanding, yes, the form of the statement is the same.
The difference, to me, is that I can see how renting myself to a corporation (yes, it's a dictatorship) can result in more net freedom for me on the axes I care more about, but I cannot imagine the same being true of slavery. So, yes, the form of the statement can be the same, but the underlying reality seems to me to be quite different. (People by the millions voluntarily left the family farm to go work for a corporation, but at least in modern times, nobody voluntarily enters slavery.)
So, yes, "complete freedom means that I should be free to do X" may be logically true for all values of X (or at least those that don't impinge on someone else's freedom). But as a practical argument rather than a purely logical one, people only care about acting in ways that they view as increasing their well-being. Some actually view working for a corporation as doing so; nobody views slavery that way. So some of us care about the freedom to work for a corporation. Saying that we should not have the freedom to do so feels restrictive in a way that is different from saying the same about slavery.
I said that working for a boss may be, for example, more financially secure than working for a coop or employee-owned business or starting my own business. I may value that financial security more than I value the fulfillment of not being under a boss.
Not having a boss is good. But there's more than one thing that's good, and I may value other ones more highly.
So far, you have defined it that way, but given no reason why I should. For that matter, in your first post, you said, "workers should be in control of them [companies]", with no justification for that "should", either.
And the same with your reply, the parent to this comment. You give nothing but a "should" with no justification in 3, either.
You gave a very concise statement, with not a lot of argument. I get that; I even value it. But when you want to convert the not-yet-believers, you need to do better than a bunch of dogmatic "shoulds" and "that's like slavery".