I think (of course I do ;)) freedom is getting redefined to such precision that the ‘project management approach to life’ being dictated to us actually transgresses our liberty, sometimes temporarily and in some other instances for a long time to come.
For instance, the corporate governance codes, anti-trust laws, competition protection laws in the macro sense and an individual’s employee agreement in a micro sense both has provisions in the order of limiting the other activities that the entity / individual can engage in. This is often done with the plea to protect various ‘good of the society’ in the macro sense and the ‘interest of employer’ in case of an individual employee.
So if we all agree with such laws and rules of anti-conflict of interests then why are the very glamorous political personalities of our states not subjected to these laws?
In my opinion, in any state where a political position is defined as not of power but to serve the public, the person so elected to such position shall be asked to first declare all income generating assets and activities and then except for simpler things like an insurance policy, savings account or mutual fund investment, stop and detest and from all other income generating activities before commencing his / her work at the public office.
How simple it is to understand that if an individual can’t fulfill his job at two full time employers at the same time, then , of course an individual can’t serve the public and his own personal business interest at the same time.
And, to the extent doing business is taking advantage of opportunities and exploiting gaps in the current social – economic structure, will the ‘public servant’ not be in a better position when he does not have the dilemma if whether he should, for example, fix the drainage system as soon as there is an apparent maintenance requirement , or wait till the system actually needs an expensive overhaul so one of his contracting companies can benefit.