[photochemsyn]

We could examine this by comparing 'anti-freedom' systems like chattel slavery (Old US South Cotton Plantations) vs. wage slavery (Appalachian Coal Company Towns).

In the former, refusal to work for the masters led to beatings, torture, mutilitaion and death. In the later, refusal to work for the bosses led to homelessness and hunger and death.

Now, one could argue that the coal company town was 'more free' than the cotton plantation, I suppose.

Ultimately freedom requires the dismantling and weakening of hierarchical social power structures. Let's say the people in that coal company town were the ones who elected their bosses, rather than some remote collection of wealthy shareholders.

Wouldn't that be even more free? Democratization of corporations seems like going in the direction of freedom. Germany is ahead in this, as corporate boards in Germany include employee representatives, not just shareholder representatives.

[thegrimmest]

> Now, one could argue that the coal company town was 'more free' than the cotton plantation, I suppose.

Yes! Crucially because its residents were free to leave. Doing something unpleasant or dangerous due to economic necessity is vastly different than doing it in chains.

You're assuming the Appalachian coal company residents had no other options when clearly they did, as evidenced by the patterns of migration to and from these towns. Working in a coal mine was just their preferred choice, given the alternatives available. Many of these men took pride in their work.

[photochemsyn]

I agree, but also that they'd be more free if all the coal workers in a given corporation had the same number of representative voting seats on the corporate board as the shareholders did.

Freedom is a direction, it's a good quote.