Whereas socialists condemn slavery of the past, they seek in the present (and into the future) to bind slaves to their ever-changing concept of the “common good.” Ironically enough, as a percentage of his productivity, the average slave up through the nineteenth century actually kept more than three-fourths of his productivity, considerably more than the average taxpayer today.
Moreover, the average slave reserved the option to eventually buy his freedom: indeed, many slaves became freemen in just this fashion. However, it’s virtually impossible today for the average taxpayer to ever reclaim his freedom; he’s met everywhere with superficial justifications for his continued enslavement to the consensus, the “common good” and the tax collectors who enforce their will.
Whether the layman, the intellectual or the politician, slavery has never been a question of morality, but rather about how close the slave ought to be to his master, and what ends his work ought to serve. Whether at the behest of a planter or a government, the matter is hardly about whether man ought to be in chains, but whether he should know who holds the keys.
From this particular point of view, virtually every argument ever waged against slavery has amounted to form over substance. Whereas the abolitionists, the apologists and the propagandists decry the indignities of the past, they are generally nowhere to be found on its contemporary forms. I suppose it’s all too convenient for them to denounce the past; after all, there’s nothing they can do to change it, they don’t need to burden themselves with any actual work, and yet they get to hold their heads high as champions of the righteous cause. In this way, they feel like heroes without ever having done anything; while ignoring the indignities of their time, which have merely assumed fresh disguises; and while even condoning the very same institutions which have, in historical context, met with their unqualified disapproval.
This implores us to examine the following question: Why is it that, in the estimation of self-described socialists, financial slavery is preferable to chattel slavery? It’s certainly not because it is less violent: after all, their ongoing protests against police brutality suggest that they at least appreciate the kind of force required by government just to make this all work. It’s certainly not because slavery by way of the government-manipulated financial system is any better or more ethical than chattel slavery.
Is it because chattel slavery is just a more conspicuous form of slavery, as opposed to the convoluted system which has since replaced it? Perhaps, but it may also be the case that the socialists don’t condemn slavery at all; on the contrary, they merely prefer the kind of slavery which best serves them and their personal interests.
After all, if the socialists had any genuine ethical concerns about slavery, they would at minimum offer their slaves the option of buying their freedom back; but dare to ask them what it might cost to buy back your freedom, and you’ll invariably be met with the incredulous looks of crooks and thieves in disbelief that you would even pose such a ridiculous question.
They’re never prepared to answer that question, because it’s not slavery nor any ethical dilemma which concerns them; they’re too concerned with sparing themselves the agony of having to witness other people succeeding in life and enjoying their freedom, their property and the product of their own labor.
Ultimately, even if you present the socialists with a blank check in return for your freedom, they’ll consider it nothing more than a downpayment on further subjugation, yet another excuse to fleece the public. After all, they’ll claim that their slaves were wealthy enough to make the offer, and therefore wealthy enough to suffer even more at the hands of the tax collector.
Under socialism, there is only the elusive target of nirvana, the empty promises of better tomorrows; yet, in the pursuit of those promises, the people are conned into relinquishing the right to pursue those aspects of life which make it all worthwhile.
The socialists will stop at nothing to deprive the people of every last right, every last freedom, and every last penny. They will continue their onslaught until every last smile is wiped off the faces of their subjects, who by then are measured not by their wealth, but by their audacity to find any pleasure or personal enjoyment in their lives: these will invariably become the “privileged” people who, as the socialists will describe them, are taking life too lightly in the face of so many social indignities.
In their estimation, every living day ought to be hell for those who don’t sympathize with the agenda, who haven’t suffered enough already, or who dare to speak out. Neither their work nor their lives, nor those of their heirs, will ever suffice to end the siege upon the public and its liberty.