Primary

A Cavalcade of Collectivism: Legislated Slavery, Creeping Censorship and The Confiscation of Offshore Wealth

So many things are happening now that, as I take time off to participate in the Tea Party in Newport News, Virginia on April 15, I have decided to devote just brief commentary on a selection of events.

Legislated Slavery

Presumably to give themselves more time to sweeten the idea of slavery or indentured servitude for future “volunteers,” Congressmen have dropped a provision from the GIVE Act, HR 1388, to establish a commission to study the idea, and included it in HR 1444 and called the provision the “Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act.” “GIVE’ is the acronym for the hokey, cumbersomely named “Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act,” passed by the House in March. That bill is intended to rope all Americans into servitude, regardless of age. The HR 1444 commission’s focus, however, is specifically Americans about to embark on adulthood. It is to ruminate on:

“The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

“Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.”

This bill and its predecessor are absolutely immoral and antithetical to the idea of this country being a society of free individuals. What I found especially curious about HR 1444 was the term “social fabric” and the idea that it needed “strengthening.” Are the bill’s sponsors and advocates worried that the nation’s “social fabric” is coming apart at the seams? They would do well to worry, for there are signs it is, and they would need to look no further for its cause than the floor of the House, the scene of so much fiscal improvidence, theft of wealth, abridgement of liberty, and collectivist arrogance (not to mention pork barrel corruption).

But, whether or not HR 1444 reaches the Senate and passes there unmolested, the more unsettling news is a phenomenon I call “SDS: The Next Generation.” The White House and cabinet, agency, and department realms are now top-heavy with the Left of Old, from the 1960′s and 1970′s. Barack and Michelle Obama, ideally representing that next generation, are the plastic figures fixed atop the wedding cake. And far, far below in our “social fabric” is the generation educated and indoctrinated by the lefties who careered into education,

  • SworC

    If indentured servitude is slavery under another name, then it is rife in our society. What works against any country being a “society of free individuals” is the notion that you can pay people who work for you so poorly that they can scarcely afford the necessities of life and are free only in the sense that they are not locked up in chains.

    England in the 1700′s is hardly what one would call a “society of free individuals”. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution and certain agrarian “reforms” people who had only their labour to trade found themselves in extremely parlous conditions. As people flocked to the cities in the hope that they might obtain employment in the factories and mines, the laws of supply and demand ensured that whatever they were paid in wages was barely enough to keep them alive. This gave rise to a class of people known by the Marxists as the proletariat.

    This mass poverty fuelled a rise in crime as people turned to petty larceny merely to survive. The prisons were full to overflowing as legislators increased the harshness of penalties to include the possibility of being hung for the theft of a loaf of bread. As the prisons were overflowing and with the loss of the American colonies as a place to send excess prisoners, old ships were used as prisons and eventually this led to the establishment of New South Wales as a penal colony to which prisoners could be transported.

    The United States began with such promise of a “society of free individuals”. However, much of the wealth generated was accumulated by the use of slave labour. The emancipation of the slaves, following the civil war, had the same effect on wages through supply and demand as did the Industrial Revolution in England. It is therefore, not surprising that the United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. So much for being a “society of free individuals”.

    I live in Australia, which once boasted an egalitarian, and free society, despite its beginnings as a penal colony. An agricultural labourer, on the lowest rate, in this country, is paid at least twice, in real terms, what one could be paid in the USA. That is the basis of a “society of free individuals”; fair and just wages. There are forces at work here that are working to overturn the basis of our “society of free individuals”. These forces have their nest eggs among the rich and powerful. Don’t misunderstand me. I have no objection to people having wealth. What I object to is an apparent sense of entitlement, among such people, over and against those who do not have wealth.

    On Christmas Eve, 1974, Cyclone Tracey devastated the city of Darwin. Thousands were rendered homeless. Almost immediately emergency services were mobilised and an army of military and civil personnel invaded the city and in a short time things were back to normal. This was contrasted in 2005 by the devastation visited on the city of New Orleans by the Hurricane Katrina. It was ages before any organised relief appeared. The news was haunted by spectres of thousands of people in school and public halls, nowhere to go, nothing to do. Unable financially to do anything for themselves because of their abject poverty. Eventually most of them moved on. There was nothing there for them anyway and not many of them owned their own homes.

    The key to a society of free individuals and it’s basis is anything but the Law of the Jungle. If freedom is left to chance, as it is under the Law of the Jungle, slavery for many, in one form or another, becomes the inevitable result. So am I advocating Communism? Certainly not. For freedom to survive and flourish there needs to be a system of just laws and fair rewards. Wages that are so low that they provide a bare subsistence will never produce a “society of free individuals”. But if I set the fox to guard my henhouse, I am bound to be ruined. A divided and conquered workforce is the basis of a ruined state. How can this be otherwise when less than 10% of the population control more than 90% of all economic activity and rewards? This is not a “society of free individuals”.

    The head man an isolated island owns everything. He pays his people for their work in his store, on his farm, in his factory, on his fishing trawlers. If he pays them fairly, wages that reflect truly the contribution of his workers, he is not going to be extremely rich. On the other hand his workers are going to be able to buy the things produced on his farm, in his factory, by his fishing boats, in his store. If his workers are allowed to buy or build their own homes and freely move about the island they would be a society of free individuals. If on the other hand the head man paid such wages that the people were too poor to afford to buy the produce of the island, and if as a consequence the head man chose to sell to another island there will no longer be a “society of free individuals” but a society of cowed and beaten individuals (or a revolution) which is precisely where the US is today.

  • writeby

    One problem: As the Industrial Revolution progressed and capitalism grew, crime fell.

    “From the middle of the nineteenth century the annual publication of Judicial Statistics for England and Wales [reported] all forms of crime appeared to be falling.

    [...]

    “Assuming that theft can be generated by economic hardship, the economic
    downswings of the second half of the nineteenth century were generally
    not as serious, widespread, or life threatening as those of preceding
    centuries. Violent behaviour … seems, … to have been brought under a greater degree of control. …”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/crime_01.shtml

    Indeed, from 1810 to 1890, as London grew in population from @100k to over a million, crime fell. Drastically.

    As for capitalism operating under the “law of the jungle,” the folks in the 19th century were far more civilized than today. Theodore Drieser’s early 20th century screed novels notwithstanding, the law under which capitalism operated (& operates when allowed) was the law of value (ability + character).

    Moreover, much of the poverty during that time was a leftover from feudalism and monarchy or, as in NYC’s crowded tenements in the late 19th & early 20th century, a product of political bigotry & corruption. Of, in short, political power (force).

    Today, we operate under the law of that same power–and _that_ *is* the law of the jungle.

    I understand, though; you just want a little bit of force. Well, one need not be a communist to advocate the same principle.