]
Hmmmm, I think if were going to continue the freedom thing, we should reach an all-encompassing defintion of "freedom". 'Cause think of it this way-Yeerks value their freedom as much as, if not more than us, but to them that means they have to take a host, otherwise they don't have the freedom of sight, hearing, hands...
food for thought. 
I second that. Exactly. It all depends on what is meant by freedom, as often obtaining one kind of freedom is at the expense of another kind of freedom either for you or for somebody else. "Freedom" is such a broad thing.
And how much do we humans (American or otherwise) really value freedom? How much do we really have it? I imagine most people on this board attend a job, or school. Most either do or will in the future pay some of their money to another group of humans who will decide what to do with it (taxes). This group is very marginally influenced by each individual, as each has one out of several million votes. Often at one particular time the group of individuals in power isn't the group you yourself would support, as is the case with any Democrats in America at the moment, for example. Yet you still allow them to take decisions for you, restrict your freedom by obeying those decisions, etc.
Most of us would probably support the imprisonment of serial killers, restricting their freedom. OK, you can make an argument they are hurting others: but I imagine most of us would also support the illegality (and imprisonment of offenders) of hard drugs like heroin and cocaine. Why, if we believe so strongly in freedom? They're only harming themselves: isn't it their choice? I imagine most of us also support the keeping of domesticated pets .e.g. cats, dogs, horses etc. even though this restricts their freedom. I know I do, I have a horse and a dog.
The latter is closest to how the Yeerks view us, of course. I'm not saying I disagree with any of the above things. A world where every individual had true and total freedom of mind, speech and body would be a) impossible (because so much of how we behave is shaped by instincts and upbringing) and b) utter anarchy. I'm just using this to illustrate my opinion that the idea of freedom being so important is flawed.
And the thing with the bio-stasis and Ramonite- I imagine they would use that if hosts were constantly trying to commit suicide, certainly bio-stasis would prevent that happening. So the fact that they don't suggests it isn't as common as has been suggested on here.
But we would probably do the same thing.
If this is referring to what the Yeerks do: I second that. But there is no 'probably' about it: horses, dogs, cats, zoos, aquariums, farm animals, are all instances where we use our brains against other species because we can, and restrict their freedom. And it is about our feelings about our own rights or freedoms: to have the freedom to own a guard dog, or a family pet; the freedom to participate in showjumping; the freedom to visit the zoo and see animals up close. If anyone made a law against any of these things, chances are a lot of people on this forum, including me (although some zoos and circuses I would gladly see banned), would oppose it. All these, I would argue, are much more trivial than the freedom to move and see and hear.
