by Mark Waybill

Created on: November 24, 2009

The notion of the glorious nature of freedom is one which seems to pervade just about every demographic of society. It is an idealistic notion founded upon superstitions, fears of oppression uses wrongly and some modern social values. Freedom is one of those things that should not be glorified, because like containment, it is not good or bad. As such it is obviously better to be rich and controlled than poor and free.

However it must not be forgotten that poor and free is an impossible state. A poor person has no money to buy things, do things, etc beyond a small amount, and as such is hardly free. Whereas a rich person has money to buy things and do things to a far greater amount. The richer you are the freer you are. So at least in the present state of society the question should be 'Is it better to be poor and manipulated or rich and free?' and it is not hard to see why the latter becomes the obvious choice.

As it is thus impossible to be both poor and free (or relatively so compared with richer people) in today's society, one must look to a theoretical society in which poor people can exist freely. Such a society would have to take one of a number of forms, the one that seems most obvious being one where the upper classes, by way of their own social norms and religious or cultural systems values, have become entrapped by their own powerful culture and are now little more than a cult worshipping past leaders. Thus they are rich but tied to their palace of worship to the aforesaid leaders and if they left they would be considered blaspheming the Bill Gates and Henry Fords of the past.

Whereas in this theoretical society the peasant class live in a free way. To do so requires that they not farm, for this ties them down to a particular spot and makes them dependant on it. Therefore they must be nomadic peasants, herding sheep or living by hunting and gathering. But somebody must feed the upper class in their palace of worship. Therefore only some of the peasants could be free, others must be villeins tied to the palace for life.

Even in this theoretical situation it would be better to be rich. Being enclosed within the confines of a palace is alright when one considers that without it peasants fall ill more often, and with inferior medical treatment, and also the peasants lead a more active outdoor life, which exposes them to more hardship and pain. Whereas the rich people worshipping the industrialists of four centuries ago live in comfortable chambers, luxuriously furnished and with views over the peasants farmlands. They eat good food, drink good wine and sing songs all night long.

Thus it is obvious that it is better to be rich and manipulated rather than poor and free, but of course it must not be forgotten that in today's society or indeed in any society of the past I am aware of, the poor are manipulated and the rich free, relatively speaking.

Learn more about this author, Mark Waybill.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.