I mean, I see what you're doing there. But it is more of a fallacy of language to get to accusing me of rationalizing human slavery. So that is a bit crappy.
Again, "the economy" is just supply/demand. "The economy" exists with or without humans. Animals are subject to natural resources around them. A human living "freely" in the forest is subject to it.
What you did in your later lines was fulfill my exact original recommendation to OP -- they are not talking about "slave to the economy", they are talking about "slave to the slave masters who manipulate our economy to a greater extent than we have resources to overcome".
It's all semantics, but phrases like "slave to the economy" come off as something a 13-year-old shouts after seeing a couple pop-psych youtube vids.
Again, "the economy" is just supply/demand. "The economy" exists with or without humans. Animals are subject to natural resources around them. A human living "freely" in the forest is subject to it.
What you did in your later lines was fulfill my exact original recommendation to OP -- they are not talking about "slave to the economy", they are talking about "slave to the slave masters who manipulate our economy to a greater extent than we have resources to overcome".
It's all semantics, but phrases like "slave to the economy" come off as something a 13-year-old shouts after seeing a couple pop-psych youtube vids.