[roenxi]

> Work makes a mockery of freedom

Being embedded in a flimsy sack of meat controlled largely by deterministic chemicals makes a mockery of freedom. And yet here we are, embodied. Makes a mockery of fairness too.

That paragraph is taking a stand against large organised bodies, without taking a sufficiently nuanced opinion on what 'freedom' means. If we take part in a larger body than ourselves, we lose a bit of ourselves (quite a lot, really) to the larger body. That is forced upon us by the inescapable fact that individual humans are delicate and feeble, so there need to be a lot of us to get things done. It is impossible to gain freedom from that.

We don't get sewerage systems, international trade or defence forces by people acting individually. The only point of contention is whether joining specific groups is mandatory or not (eg, opting out of the control of a state bureaucrat is largely impossible). Even the most hardened individualist has to admit a company gets a lot more done than an individual.

[trevyn]

>Even the most hardened individualist has to admit a company gets a lot more done than an individual.

I think a big part of the argument is that "getting a lot done" may not be as valuable as we have been led to believe, and the things that we give up may be more valuable than we have been led to believe.

If we assume that a human often does what is in the best interest of that human, it is not at all surprising that we may have been misled by our fellow humans about where value lies.

[jancsika]

> It is impossible to gain freedom from that.

Your sudden shift to such a low-level critique makes it impossible to, say, distinguish a c-corp from a coop (or even c-corps of different sizes, for that matter). Both are merely "impossible to gain freedom from" in your sense.

It's like a submitter defending a spaghetti patchset by talking about the complexity of modern chipsets.

[roenxi]

Paragraph says work makes a mockery of freedom - it doesn't distinguish between working for a coop or working for a c-corp either. Neither does the article as far as I can tell, although it is a bit complicated for me.

[pfalcon]

> controlled largely by deterministic chemicals

I wonder if that's a typo, but there's no determinism all the way up from position of an electron in the core, and thru protein binding, which is also non-deterministic. That's why they run that COVID Folding@Home stuff - to assess how well vaccine particles can bind to a virus thru variations - lone "hit" or "non-hit" don't matter much.

That non-determinism alone is a great source of suffering, even before we get to "embodiment" and "need to feed that embodiment". ;-)