Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it. This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice. If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...
Comments
You keep what you can hold. Or aka, you keep what you can kill.
Chickens are really primal. I mean, there's no thoughts in their heads (seriously, chickens are dumb) but they have strong instinctive behaviors. The roosters fight and roosters and hens set up a strict "pecking order". The roosters will call the hens if they find food, often not eating themselves (after a selfish puberty stage when they are horrible). They make the same sounds and have the same behaviors as the hens when they have a brood of chicks, calling them to eat and clucking.
Being on the bottom of the pecking order isn't so bad if the lower roosters can get away. I have a big pen for them but the other roosters are too aggressive and Jeff ends up hiding in a nest box or something. Lower ranked chickens can starve to death simply because they aren't allowed near the food.
So Jeff and Puffy Head are separate. I'm trying to find someone to take my two biggest roosters (yard ornament, stew pot or fly tying... all the same to me) and then I'll put these two back with the flock.
In a sense, it is because of the animal kingdom, where progression is based upon heirarchy and birth luck than say individual skill and abilities. I like the human ability to forge their own identity. If a person isn't strong, then he can become strong, if he is good enough. Both pragmatically and ethically.
Nature is a bit more hardcoded than that. But it still affects us. We can't become stronger if we also don't become wiser. As with the Arabs, strength is born from certain philosophical beliefs and actions. Strength in objective Nature standards is not just from false pride, belief in one's own status, and boasts.
I was thinking about the unexpected fascination of a game that simulates farm chores in conjunction with the more usual science fiction situation where space is glamorous and preferred over being stuck on a planet surface. I thought I'd reverse that.
My "farmer" is a graduate of an agricultural university, child of the lower classes who finds herself able to afford the fee to make a land claim due to the death benefits from her father and contributions from her mother and brother. She'd expected to work on someone elses farm, not join the landed gentry herself.
Once her claim is made she has an allowance of highly automated options and a time limit to prove out her claim so that she holds it permanently.
There are, however, people who want her to fail...
So I like it when authors include the details, the trivial, the things that make us human, and rare facts in their stories. It links me stronger with the character, because if the character is learning then so must I, to feel a deeper connection and empathy with the character's situation.
That's why I tend to love hierarchy of power novels and storylines. Where the main character becomes more powerful, more wise, and more complex as the story progresses. Every new surprise I receive is also a new surprise that the character receives, so thus we progress, so to speak, on the same path as fellow travelers.
Another story aspect I like, although not necessarily connected with farming, is the dual perspective/universe technique. Fundamentally, it seems to me the ability to tell two stories from two people, using first hand impressions and (telepathic) thoughts and descriptions of others. Let's say... a powerful lord attempting to solve a problem, with all the perspectives of that feudal setting. Then we skip to the perspective of a peasant girl with her problems and immediate concerns, then we link the two and have them help each other out when both were in a bind.
I love those things. It is one way to refresh the main character of a story, because after 3 or some such novels you are getting tired of the same character. But in life, we always meet new people, it is what makes life exciting. New people, new beliefs, new events, etc. Recycling things over and over, can make a person very bored. Even if he was economically successful. Powerful characters inevitably fall into the "too much power, nowhere to spend it" syndrome. There are plenty of people in need of help, that can help you in return, and I'm not just talking about Iraqis, Afghanistanis, and Kurds either. Those with power inevitably must use that power, or lose it. But the universes of authors tend to be static more often than not, on the whim of the author. Thus we can have a stability of sorts that is unworkable in the real universe.