With regards to the literal definition of slavery I would argue it is not only restricted to chattel slavery, since that would deny most cases of forced and unfree labour. That someone can control a person, effectively owning them, without a mandate from any government or law is precisely the point. It shows the need for a more democratic approach to work and makes evident a discrepancy within self proclaimed free and democratic societies. That is what I think is the point being made by OP, not to belittle those who live under oppressive dictatorships (which is horrible and often an order of magnitude worse), but to remind those that don’t that for big parts of their lives they are not truly free themselves either.
I understand what’s being said, I just don’t find it valid or useful. People’s choices being limited is not to be equated with slavery. Someone having influence over someone is not to be equated with slavery. Living in a dictatorship is not to be equated with slavery. Slavery is slavery and working at a job is neither slavery nor living in a dictatorship.
Further, democracy is not some absolute freedom void of all controlling influence from others. Choices are limited under democracy too. I think the word you’re looking for is anarchy.
It is more than fair to disagree, after all there is somewhat an hyperbole hidden behind wordings like “a form of slavery”. However, I do think the sentiment is an important one: that freedom and democracy are usually exempt from our work lives, even if we are living in democratic countries, and that it does not need to be as such.
Oh people can absolutely leave jobs. It’s eating they can’t stop doing. I mean they can stop that too, I guess.
If we’re going to invoke literal slavery then I don’t think self immolation is off the table to mention either.
With regards to the literal definition of slavery I would argue it is not only restricted to chattel slavery, since that would deny most cases of forced and unfree labour. That someone can control a person, effectively owning them, without a mandate from any government or law is precisely the point. It shows the need for a more democratic approach to work and makes evident a discrepancy within self proclaimed free and democratic societies. That is what I think is the point being made by OP, not to belittle those who live under oppressive dictatorships (which is horrible and often an order of magnitude worse), but to remind those that don’t that for big parts of their lives they are not truly free themselves either.
I understand what’s being said, I just don’t find it valid or useful. People’s choices being limited is not to be equated with slavery. Someone having influence over someone is not to be equated with slavery. Living in a dictatorship is not to be equated with slavery. Slavery is slavery and working at a job is neither slavery nor living in a dictatorship.
Further, democracy is not some absolute freedom void of all controlling influence from others. Choices are limited under democracy too. I think the word you’re looking for is anarchy.
It is more than fair to disagree, after all there is somewhat an hyperbole hidden behind wordings like “a form of slavery”. However, I do think the sentiment is an important one: that freedom and democracy are usually exempt from our work lives, even if we are living in democratic countries, and that it does not need to be as such.