> > >>>>> ...

Don Galt <DonGalt@atlantis.colorado.taggart>:
> > >>>>> And yet you chose to use the ackward and irrelevant term "obedient
> > >>>>> servent" when employee would work just fine.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Your purpose was either to wiggle out of the discussion, or to
> > >>>>> misrepresent the nature of the relationship.

gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> > >>>> Both of your suppositions are incorrect.  The phrase was pretty
> > >>>> much a throwaway, that is, I didn't expect such a reaction to
> > >>>> it, but I did have a particular point to make and the excited
> > >>>> denials which it evoked indicates that it went home.

jmhall@apex.home.net:
> > >>> The problem is that you were making a particular and
> > >>> calling it a general.

gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> > >> I don't think so, of course.  I've given a lot of thought
> > >> to employment, having had my face rubbed in it off and on
> > >> for 40-odd years.

jmhall@apex.home.net:
> > > I'll conceed the 7 or 8 odd years and note your experience
> > > is a particular--as is all of ours--and note you seem to
> > > have ruled out yourself as a source of part of these
> > > problems. Never having worked with you I can say nothing
> > > but that would be something you would need to work out
> > > between you and the others you've worked with which
> > > resulted in the conditions you describe as general
> > > characteristics of emplyment. Perhaps you were not
> > > quite as intellegent or creative as you thought.

gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> > I wasn't talking entirely about my own fate but about my
> > observations of what happened to other people as well.
> > The politics and sociology of business life are very
> > interesting to me, but it's hard to find anyone to talk
> > about it with.
> >
> > I did manage to get off the leash on several occasions, and
> > if I'd been a little bit luckier or a little bit smarter I
> > could have probably stayed off for good starting quite a while
> > ago.  A lot of people I observed didn't seem to have that
> > choice.  In any case, a lot of them signed up for the leash
> > quite willingly, which I think increases, rather than
> > decreases, the obedience of their service.

jmhall@apex.home.net:
> Which of course is, again, you inferring the
> leash as opposed to merely noting that such
> a situation is a leash for you.
>
> I think a lot of music is total garbage but
> that doesn't mean what others hear when that
> particular music is played is garbage.
>
> Since we do in fact have to work preference
> still matter and claim that even a majority are
> leashed because they choose employment over
> self-employment is highly problematic and
> not really even useful rhetoric here.


What I observed were a lot of people apparently suffering and
complaining because their lives were ordered by largely
authoritarian bureaucracies in apparently stupid and
certainly painful ways, a la Dilbert, but not believing they
could make an adequate living in any other way.  It seemed
like something different from a matter of taste.  And I think
the ways in which people work are related to their apparent
need for other authoritarian modes of organization, especially
the various governments they live under and support, which
are really quite pervasive and have, in fact, great public
support even if that support is sometimes ambiguous.