RE: Buying-in to sellout: Killing the Goose
Why must man be free? Can he not be content with his lot as allotted by the divine or fate? If man truly desires to be free, then he must also be willing to accept the responsibility and consequences of his freedom. Much of humanity decides upon poor choices, incurring debts and costs that can not be repaid to their creditors. Does not the creditors have the freedom to send his thugs to reclaim what was loaned by enslaving his debtors? If the debt can not be repaid within the debtors lifetime, then is it not logical that his children be enslaved also? Or is the conceptualization of freedom via "anarchy" only pertain to the debtors, much like the pricuples, about which communists and socialists ramble? What you preach regarding freedom only for debtors, is nothing more than demand for entitlements, not true freedom.
You think that is 'all I preach' ?
In this post, yes. The post calls for an egalitarian utopia of free men with equal distribution of resources, where no man is in "bondage" or "slavery." The unchangeable reality is that life is inherently unfair, but man is responsible for conducting his life within the parameters of his limitations.
Give everyone equal distribution of all the external resources, and within one year, men will structure their society exactly as it had been, with masters on top and drones on the bottom. A man exists in certain social strata precisely due to his aptitude, tendencies, choices, and cultural background. Human hierachal social structure is not due to high level conspiracy, but due to man's innate condition.
Economic systems and incentive structure affects the degree with which wealth discrepancies manifest, but no system can ever erase the deep core of human condition: man is bound to serve a master. Politico-economic systems only determine what type of masters a man serves.