4 ms·

[...] But O good Lord! What strange phenomenon is this? What name shall we give to it? What is the nature of this misfortune? What vice is it, or, rather, what

[...] But O good Lord! What strange phenomenon is this? What name shall we give to it? What is the nature of this misfortune? What vice is it, or, rather, what degradation? To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? Not ruled, but tyrannized over? These wretches have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that they can call their own. They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde, on account of whom they must shed their blood and sacrifice their lives, but from a single man; not from a Hercules nor from a Samson, but from a single little man. Too frequently this same little man is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the powder of battle and hesitant on the sands of the tournament; not only without energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common woman! Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted? If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice? Of course there is in every vice inevitably some limit beyond which one cannot go. Two, possibly ten, may fear one; but when a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man, this cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such a depth, any more than valor can be termed the effort of one individual to scale a fortress, to attack an army, or to conquer a kingdom. What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough, which nature herself disavows and our tongues refuse to name? [...] –Étienne de La Boétie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude (1548)

zlg_codes 3y ago
That was an interesting read! I relate to that very much, thanks for sharing. We read all about the rise and fall of governments, of political goals, of cultures... and yes, there is a certain moral failing or disconnected apathy that allows the greedy and sociopathic to prey upon their own kind. It's rather depressing to think of so many people convinced they can do nothing, by a group of people who is so scared of their people they sign deals with businesses behind closed doors. I'm convinced many of our "leaders" could not argue their positions adequately if they were forced to defend them. I remember reading about events like the Million Man March on Washington DC, and I wonder how America would handle a massive, peaceful demonstration communicating the general discontent of the citizen with this potentially great country. It seems there was a period in American history where the common man COULD and DID stand up for their countrymen, for the health and endurance of the entire country instead of a handful of rich fucks. Why do we not see these shows of solidarity in the modern age? I ask mostly rhetorically but the America of today looks and feels characteristically different from what it sells itself as or even who it was a mere 50 years ago.
- snerbles 3y ago
  > Why do we not see these shows of solidarity in the modern age? When did you last sit down and have dinner with your next-door neighbor? Discuss the local happenings and politics of the neighborhood in person? You might be able to answer that question in the affirmative. But many more don't. We're too busy isolating ourselves from one another to grow any form of culture from which organized efforts would spring.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    Great point, the feeling of community has slowly faded from many parts of the country. Not all, of course. Hard to do it completely. But the loss of "third places" -- places you can exist with others in a non-vocational or business context -- is probably a big part of it. Many places still sort of exist through stuff like farmer's markets, some clubs, libraries, swap meets, etc, but they seem less generalized for socializing. I haven't met with my neighbors or sat down to chat with them. It does feel kind of alien and, dare I say it, rude to intrude on someone's life that way. Maybe it's not really an intrusion, and an atmosphere of fear and distrust has trained us to separate. I remember my parents meeting people and scheduling times to hang out all the time. Children from different families would mingle while the adults mingled, everyone got some dose of community. I couldn't tell you where programming hobbyists meet up in my area. I might have to go up to Tacoma before I find any no-or-low-cost hacker groups. But, don't many communities also have common places they go routinely? I'm thinking gaming and TTRPG, TCG shops might be a good start to build a third place, despite being a business themselves.
Terr_ 3y ago
> If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one [...] Two, possibly ten, may fear one; but when a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man I get that the author is trying to motivate people, but logically that's a straw-man: Nobody actually thinks that the average individual Dirt-Farmer-Guy is being oppressed solely because they're terrified of Shiny-Hat-Guy's bulging biceps (2) and shouty voice (1). No, each Dirt-Farmer's decision-making comes from a fear of very large numbers of violent angry men or institutions capable of destroying them financially and socially, fears which are often entirely justified. If things were truly as straightforward as Étienne is suggesting, he wouldn't need to write about it: He could walk up to any random dude and say: "Hey, you're getting screwed, with two of us we could kick the Shiny-Hat-Guy's ass". And they'd do it, since every single person they'd meet would automatically join the mob or at least stand aside.

zlg_codes 3y ago

That was an interesting read! I relate to that very much, thanks for sharing. We read all about the rise and fall of governments, of political goals, of cultures... and yes, there is a certain moral failing or disconnected apathy that allows the greedy and sociopathic to prey upon their own kind. It's rather depressing to think of so many people convinced they can do nothing, by a group of people who is so scared of their people they sign deals with businesses behind closed doors. I'm convinced many of our "leaders" could not argue their positions adequately if they were forced to defend them. I remember reading about events like the Million Man March on Washington DC, and I wonder how America would handle a massive, peaceful demonstration communicating the general discontent of the citizen with this potentially great country. It seems there was a period in American history where the common man COULD and DID stand up for their countrymen, for the health and endurance of the entire country instead of a handful of rich fucks. Why do we not see these shows of solidarity in the modern age? I ask mostly rhetorically but the America of today looks and feels characteristically different from what it sells itself as or even who it was a mere 50 years ago.

snerbles 3y ago
> Why do we not see these shows of solidarity in the modern age? When did you last sit down and have dinner with your next-door neighbor? Discuss the local happenings and politics of the neighborhood in person? You might be able to answer that question in the affirmative. But many more don't. We're too busy isolating ourselves from one another to grow any form of culture from which organized efforts would spring.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  Great point, the feeling of community has slowly faded from many parts of the country. Not all, of course. Hard to do it completely. But the loss of "third places" -- places you can exist with others in a non-vocational or business context -- is probably a big part of it. Many places still sort of exist through stuff like farmer's markets, some clubs, libraries, swap meets, etc, but they seem less generalized for socializing. I haven't met with my neighbors or sat down to chat with them. It does feel kind of alien and, dare I say it, rude to intrude on someone's life that way. Maybe it's not really an intrusion, and an atmosphere of fear and distrust has trained us to separate. I remember my parents meeting people and scheduling times to hang out all the time. Children from different families would mingle while the adults mingled, everyone got some dose of community. I couldn't tell you where programming hobbyists meet up in my area. I might have to go up to Tacoma before I find any no-or-low-cost hacker groups. But, don't many communities also have common places they go routinely? I'm thinking gaming and TTRPG, TCG shops might be a good start to build a third place, despite being a business themselves.

Terr_ 3y ago

> If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one [...] Two, possibly ten, may fear one; but when a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man I get that the author is trying to motivate people, but logically that's a straw-man: Nobody actually thinks that the average individual Dirt-Farmer-Guy is being oppressed solely because they're terrified of Shiny-Hat-Guy's bulging biceps (2) and shouty voice (1). No, each Dirt-Farmer's decision-making comes from a fear of very large numbers of violent angry men or institutions capable of destroying them financially and socially, fears which are often entirely justified. If things were truly as straightforward as Étienne is suggesting, he wouldn't need to write about it: He could walk up to any random dude and say: "Hey, you're getting screwed, with two of us we could kick the Shiny-Hat-Guy's ass". And they'd do it, since every single person they'd meet would automatically join the mob or at least stand aside.