Definition of LACKEY, plural LACKEYS (Merriam-Webster)
Lackey
1a : footman 2, servant
b : someone who does menial tasks or runs errands for another
2: a servile follower : toady [I love that "toady" one. Is a servile frog toady? "Feeling a little toady today?"]
A guy I used to know who was a CEO of a local company told me, everyone has a boss. "Even the CEO has to answer to the Board," he said. And in theory at least the Board is answerable to the shareholders (ha ha). So in this world, probably it's true in this vale of tears everyone has a boss of some kind.
That sad fact isn't lost on street people. I was talking to a street person the other day, his name is Mike, he sells flowers on the Avenue when the weather is good, rents a room some time, used to be a nurse. It's this constant requirement in this realm to interact with authority, so I understand it, that drives some percentage of people like Mike out into the street. At least there, so I've heard, there is no boss to answer to. But of course people on the street must answer to the cold wind and rain, the taunting, the asphalt bed, hunger, thirst, alienation... there the price of freedom is really high.
Seems like, for all of us, the kind of freedoms we can have are only relatively free, and all come at a cost. Poets talk about this constantly. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" Chris Christoferson famously sang (wrote?).
The Eagles gave another version:
"City girls just seem to find out early,
how to open doors with just a smile....
Late at night a big old house gets lonely
I guess every form of refuge has its price
And it breaks her heart to think her love is only
Given to a man with hands as cold as ice" (Lyin Eyes, 1975)
Meaning, we're all lackeys to some extent.
Some other philosopher famously asked, "How much wood can a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
When I was in high school there was a guy surnamed Verhyde. So naturally we wondered, "how much hide could a Verhyde wear is a Verhyde could wear hide?"
And the other my good friend @Sagestuff asked, "How much lack does a lackey lack when a lackey does lack lack?"
So let's think about that. Is it like asking, how much can you blame a person for slacking off, when they're working for the Man? Or alternately, how much can you blame a person who totally gives 'er, i.e. puts out 100%, also for the Man? Is one more righteous than the other? What to think of that? To bother, or not to bother...?
On the one hand, lots of us value contribution just as a thing in itself. Lots of us just want to pay it forward, we get joy just in that. Good karma kinda thing.
Then there are the sociopaths, who are a pretty interesting apparently 3% of the population. Initially you don't realize their sociopathic orientation. The guy I was talking to for example, the CEO, turned out later as I discovered he's pretty much a , compulsive liar and so on... career choice: CEO! Ha ha! Big surprise there!
I'm gonna do a whole big post on sociopaths soon. Teaser fact: CEO is a favourite career choice of sociopaths, while others may surprise you.
But for now, the question is, how much do you/can you contribute to the sociopath's selfish, lying, scheming, conniving, cheating and stealing, manipulative projects? And to what extent can you not?
Should the lackey lack lack? Or does the wise lackey overflow in lack? Or wtf?
Seems to me the whole "how much wood to chuck" and "where much hide to wear" and "how much lack to lack" thing is, well, it's a tough one. How do you deal with it, or do you? ha ha
Share your thoughts in the comments below! No comment will be found lacking (except you one you don't write)!
Onward!