Yes.
So I have I.
Some people really do just need to burn down the pancake factory and then get upset that they can't get the pancakes from that factory anymore. There's a certain country doing exactly this right now. Some people just need to learn by experience.
At every point people can always want whatever they want, but that doesn't mean it can come to pass as it may not be in the realm of possibility. I could want to go to the moon right this minute but it obviously isn't going to happen. A person about to die in a prison cell may want to get out but that's probably not going to happen. They are free to want it and by that, they necessarily also want to suffer from the perceived lack of freedom. Or, they can want what is in the realm of possibility, and have their wants met. Prison or the mundane existence of earth's gravity, you have the option of wanting what is possible or what isn't possible. Wanting the suffering of the lack, or enjoying what is given. But neither I nor anyone else can make someone want what they don’t. I can just point out that there are options and it's on the individual then to then weigh if the options are truly in the realm of possibility for them - I can't make that choice for them either.
I’m not sure how this point has any relevance to this discussion. No one brought up demands.
I'm just trying to rephrase "can't have your cake and eat it too" as I'm starting to suspect that idiom is either too... abstract or too worn out to really land for people anymore. Maybe both. If you want two mutually exclusive things, at least one of your wants will necessarily go unmet. If you don't want both mutually inclusive things, you're in for a bad time. Wanting what isn't the realm of possibility will lead to suffering. Not wanting the unpleasant but unavoidable part of something you really want will also lead to suffering.
Extrapolate a bit why don't you? If a group of people create a space with certain rules, it is a "public" space for people who agree to follow the rules.
People are not animals. You have opted into being controlled. There's plenty of ways out but people generally want the benefits of living under certain control more than they want freedom.
You can't resist a system and simultaneously demand the right to enjoy the fruits of that system. Like I said, the more you are willing to tolerate inconvenience, the freer you are. This includes acceptance of anything from having less luxury, to acceptance of premature death. Everyone is absolutely free to live in accordance to their tolerance - they have no choice in the matter.
It's not actually, it's exactly as simple as I made it. Enough people wanted to violently coerce. Not enough people wanted to resist.
You are right that in your space you are free to be pantsless and as such I wouldn't impose my presence and sensibilities upon you. In fact I would defend your right to be pantsless in your space. However if you decided to come to my space, I would insist on pants - failure to comply would be you imposing your wants on me without consent, putting your wants above mine. If you think that I should be okay with you being pantsless, why? Who are you to tell me how to live my life? Why aren't you accepting people living differently from you? Me not wanting pantslessness in my presence only impacts you if you force yourself into it.
oppressive systemic forces that dictate the society he lives in necessitating him having one or else his access to material necessities be threatened.
The fact that the society was built to work like this shows that enough people wanted it more than they wanted something else. Why should one individual's wants matter more than the wants of a collective? Isn't that just you trying to impose your wants on everyone else?
Here's a conundrum: what if most people wanted to organize the society in a certain way? They are doing what they want. Are they not allowed to do that? People who make complaints about not being able to do what they want rarely seem keen to grant others the same privilege.
Also, the guy in the comic is doing exactly what he wants - it's just that he probably wanted a job more than he wanted to not wear pants. The issue isn't not being able to do what one wants, the issue is that people don't want any inconvenience for doing so. The more you learn to tolerate inconvenience, the more free you are to do whatever you want. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You can't both resist a system and then demand to be able to enjoy the fruits of the system you are resisting.
I'm going to make a guess that majority of people looking at this question have grown up in countries with Christian cultural background. Meaning even if they aren't religious, their more or less subconscious believes about the nature of reality may involve some vague ideas about souls, absolute good and evil and so on. Separate entities in a hierarchical world. From that perspective, reincarnation is never going to sound anything but magical.
But if you drop your belief in you as a separate entity, literally everything is a "reincarnation" of you, if you want to use that word. But it's not the "you" that you think you are. Reality is prior to your thought about it, as thoughts are just imperfect reflections of reality.
You get a disconnect when you try to take a concept like reincarnation from a thought-framework such as Buddhism, without being REALLY FUCKING INTIMATELY STEEPED IN IT, and then try to fit it into whatever dualistic worldview you're likely holding in this largely Chisto-capitalistic world that is hell bent on making sure you always feel separate, alone and not enough.
It really is like taking a power plug from the EU and then being surprised it doesn't fit in the socket in the USA. And then going off about what a stupid design EU has while not ever even considering if the socket is even meant to receive that kind of a plug (because in YOUR opinion, your socket must be perfect in every way and could never ever be questioned).
Get Waking Up by Sam Harris... Or read Adyashanti, Rupert Spira, Loch Kelly, Jayasara, Kiran Trace, Christopher Wallis, Bernardo Kastrup, many more. It's all available out there but unfortunately a lot gets dismissed because "nooo muh materialistic worldview that is required for the current capitalistic hellscape that's slowly destroying our world can't possibly be wrong". So many people are pushing the collective cart towards doom, complain about the doom and the cart but never question what they so deeply believe that they won't just stop pushing.
Reasons vary between people. It's not important. If you want to know, ask the people in question.
Don't think everyone SHOULD be doing it like you. If you feel like being upbeat, be upbeat. ACCEPT not everyone is but they don't get to force their view on you either.
It's naive to think one way is more "right" than the other.
If we want to go the route of the Responsibility of the Individual: Resolve to not get your political etc. news from social media. Draw a line for yourself: cool to get gaming news from random influencers online? Probably. News about global events? At this point might be better for most people's mental health to ignore them and focus more locally. However, read how to read a book, make your best effort at finding a reputable news organization and check those for news if you must have them. On same vein, if you don't read at least some article about an event being discussed on social media, DON'T COMMENT. Don't engage with that post. If it really grabs at you, go find an article about it from a trusted source, and depending on how much it animates you, try to get a bigger picture of the event. Assume that vast majority of ALL CONTENT online is currently incentivized to engage you - to capture your attention, which is actually the most valuable asset you have. Where you put your attention will define how you feel about your life. It's highly advicable to put it where you feel love.
Responsibility of the Collective: Moving in hierarchies, we can start demanding that social media moderators (or whatever passes for those in any given site) prevent misinformation as much as possible. Try to only join communities that have mods that do this. Failing that, demand social media platforms prevent misinformation. Failing that, we can demand the government does more to prevent misinformation. All of those solutions have significant issues, one of them being they are all very incentivized to capture the attenttion of as many people as possible. Doesn't matter what the exact motivation is - it could be a geneinly good one. A news organization uses social media tactics to get the views so that their actually very factual and dilligently compiled articles get the spread. Or, they could be looking to drive their political agenda - which they necessarily do anyway because desire to be factual and as neutral as possible is a stance as well. One that may run afoul of the interests of some government that doesn't value freedom of press - which is very dangerous and you need to think hard for yourself how you feel about the idea of the government limiting what kind of information you can access. For the purposes of making this shorter, you can regard massive social media platforms as virtual governments too. In fact, it would be a good idea in general.
The thing with misinformation is that many people who talk about it subtly think that they are above it themselves. They're thinking that they know they're not subject to propaganda and manipulation but it's the other poor fools that need to be protected from it. It's the Qanon and Antivaxxers. But you know better, you know how to dig deeper into massively complicated global topics and find out what the true and right opinion about them is. You can't. Not even if we weren't in the middle of multiple fucking information wars. You'd do well to focus on what you can know for sure, in your own experience. If you don't like the idea of individual responsibility though, because "most people aren't going to do it" - your best bet at getting a collective response is a group of individuals coming together under the same ideal. It'll happen sooner or later anyway and there's going to be plenty of suffering before either way.
... I mean this isn't really a conversation about pants but I truly don't care about nudity. I'm from a culture that isn't anywhere near as neurotic about it as certain others. I still prefer some kind of covering on the privates though simply because I don't want ball sweat, urine traces, fecal matter or vaginal discharge on my things.