Venting is taking away someone's freedom of choice considered controlling domination

[Darkover]

Prisoners have no freedom of choice, and no freedom at all outside of the few meager choices they are allowed in prison, and even those are revoked for those in solitary confinement. They are not free at all but they are slaves to the government

prisoners, especially those in solitary confinement, experience a complete loss of freedom. Their autonomy is stripped away, and they are left with very limited choices, if any. In many ways, the system of incarceration does mirror slavery, as prisoners are subjected to the will of the state and lose control over their lives.

The comparison between prison and slavery is not without merit. Slavery historically involved not just forced labor, but the total control of one person's life by another. In prison, the government or the state exercises a similar level of control, deciding where prisoners live, what they eat, how they work (if they are allowed to), and even limiting their access to human contact or sunlight. Some scholars and activists argue that this level of control and exploitation, particularly in systems where prisoners are forced to work for little or no pay, does indeed resemble modern slavery.

Prison reform advocates have long critiqued the way many prison systems function, especially in the context of mass incarceration and racial disparities, which can feel like systemic oppression.

Yes, taking away someone's freedom of choice can be considered a form of controlling domination. When someone is deprived of their ability to make decisions or direct their own life, they are subject to the will or control of another party. This form of domination involves imposing one's authority over another, restricting autonomy, and limiting the individual's ability to exercise their own preferences or desires.
Many people believe that individuals should have autonomy over their own lives, including the right to choose when and how to end them, particularly in cases of terminal illness, chronic suffering, or extreme mental distress. However, most governments impose restrictions on assisted suicide and euthanasia, citing concerns about ethics, potential abuse, and societal values.
We are absolutely NOT free

you think your free no your just a slave to the government in the name of national security
at moment war could break out and you would be conscripted
governments can impose conscription or mandatory military service during times of war, effectively taking away individual choice about whether or not to participate. Conscription, or being drafted into military service, is one of the clearest examples of how personal freedom can be overridden by the state in the name of national security. In such cases, people are often forced to fight, sometimes even against their will, under the threat of punishment if they refuse.

 

[Seered Doom]

Taking away someone else's freedom of choice would be considered abuse in most any case

 

[Unspoken7612]

It's complicated. Many different actions can be called "taking away freedom of choice": speed limits, selling things rather than giving them away, imprisoning a serial killer, banning cannabis, immigration restrictions, nuclear non-proliferation agreements, etc.

Whether those actions constitute "abuse" is more complex. Imprisoning someone who has previously committed murder and has a high chance of killing again is a proportionate response to achieve a legitimate end. Telling your partner you'll leave them unless they overcome their cocaine addiction is a proportionate response to achieve a legitimate end. On the other hand, imprisoning someone for failing to mow their lawn would not be proportionate or achieve a legitimate end, and taking away your partner's phone to stop them from contacting their friends because you want them all to yourself is not a proportionate response to achieve a legitimate end.

 

[Forever Sleep]

We still get the choice though... It's just that the consequences of that choice may not be so great. You can choose not to work but that means, you won't have money- unless you are entitled to benefits or have wealthy and supportive relatives. Realistically though, not everyone can choose not to work and receive benefits. So- then- who is it insisting that some people work? Surely- it's those that aren't working and need their money?!! Is that fair?

Some people truly can't work. What about the (probably) billions who don't want to though? Some of them will have to- surely? Most of them will have to in fact. How would you decide who's allowed to stay NEET and who has to earn their way in life?

It's like- I do understand these arguments. Boo hiss- wage slavery. I agree- it's shit but- what's the alternative? Is it really our governments insisting that we work? They don't actually insist that we all work though. Some people are granted benefits, houses to live in, food. It's actually your government that's giving you those things! That it has forcibly taken from people who are working. To an extent- Robin Hood fashion. Although admittedly, it probably isn't enough to live on comfortably. None the less- people who don't know you from Adam are funding your life and they don't get a choice in that. If they don't pay their taxes- they actually might end up in jail!

Realistically though- what do you want the government to do though? It has a bunch of people it needs to keep alive and in order. I don't actually understand economics but I suppose it all comes down to trade. I'll do this or swap this for currency. How else could it work? You'd need certain things we all depend on to happen by magic- building and maintaining houses, roads, sewers. Food production, waste collection, manufacturing, entertainment. How do you get those things if people aren't working? Do you expect people to provide them to you for free? These wage slavery arguments may be true but, I don't see them having a solution.

Even when it comes down to suicide- we could all potentially try to kill ourselves today. Some of us might have more difficulties than others if we are under some kind of suicide watch but- we could actually try. It's what we have left available that makes it tricky.

But then- that isn't as simple as people seem to think it should be. I expect there are members who would like to see nembutal available over the counter to everyone. It's so obvious that wouldn't last 5 minutes though! The first 7 year old that gets ahold of it would cause riots in the street no doubt.

I just don't think people think very practically. Like- they have legitimate grievances that I do understand but- it's much more difficult to come up with adequate ways to solve them. Neither the problems of wage slavery or assisted suicide are easily solved. Asides from antinatilism I guess. Don't bring anyone here to suffer all this shit to begin with!