I know you’re all (i.e. the fictional populous of the inside of my cranium) whingeing about the lack of posts recently, so I thought I’d use all three of my little grey cells, hit you with a big fat headline and then (as is traditional) get bogged down in the mind-numbing tedium of the detail before admitting, on balance, when all is said and done, there are arguments on both sides.
The familiar argument for this comes from Nozick – that if we are taxed, we are not free since we must work surplus labour in order to pay our taxes. I disagree with this idea – however, from a strict act utilitarian point of view, is it not equally valid to argue that work itself is an inhibition to freedom? Clearly, the advantages of all sorts of productive labour are clear both economically, socially, psychologically and educationally.
But, is it not equally valid that work is an imposition on (and here I throw my nice post-structuralist anti-essentialist baby, kicking and screaming, out with the bathwater) on some essentially hippie, loved up and absolutely free (bordering on anarchistic) human essence?
I’ll leave the readers to decide that one, mostly because its one of those arguments which I have a feeling I have probably got completely wrong.
On the other hand, freedom – and in particular freedom of expression – arguably occupies a somewhat fraught relationship with modern globalised capitalism. This is clearly demonstrated in the – and I never thought I’d use this word about my blog – scandal surrounding earlier posts about customer service training. I find it an intolerable intrusion on my freedom of expression that my personal opinion – as an employee engaged in a merely financial relationship with a large company – is negated and unpublishable should it go against the brand image of that company.
Personally, I find this utterly unacceptable. There is no reason that someone giving me money in return for my labour, however powerful, should have any hold over my personal opinions or my freedom to express them so long as they don’t contradict the laws of the land, are not provably false or explicitly libel an individual or institution.
I invite anyone sufficiently better informed on the law – or best practice – to reply to any of the above.
Byeee!
