Special intro for mises.org readers:
This may not be the most enlightening thing for anyone who may chance across on a site such as this, and it was not written for you. It was written for the common man in the world above. who has not had his eyes opened to reality. For the so called "patriots" who pay taxes as a cheerful duty, and who think there is no other way. It does assume that government is necessary, but again, for those of you who want no government you must join with those of us who want a government that barely escapes being a government at all. the idea of immediate emancipation is irrational. first the monster must be starved, shrunk down to size and then slain... if that is your goal. So focus on the things that you agree with and pick up on the tactics of this arguement. I believe it is one that will see the way to a smaller more just government in my eyes, and when that day comes I look forward to a debate with the anarchists over the debate with the socialist.
preface,
the following may not be the most eloquent or stylish
expression of ideas, but the ideas are inspired from the last 2
centuries greatest minds and I believe God himself. saying this puts
all the more pressure on me for the following to be smooth and flawless
on the technical side. But I have finally caved and conceded to the
fact that I am not a good enough writer to do the ideas justice, but
the weight of the idea is such that it must be brought fourth no matter the degree of quality of expression is lacking.
PART I
Writing in 2008, it is easy to find people who are absolutely opposed
to slavery, but I have not had such luck finding people who are opposed
to 50% slavery, or 35% slavery, or even 10% slavery. The concept of
slavery is that man “A” works, and the fruits of his labor are taken
against his will by man “B.” Does it matter if only half of his fruits
are taken, or maybe only a fifth? Would there be an abolition movement
today if slavery only existed on one day of the week, while the
remainder of the week slaves were free to leave the farms and
plantations and work for themselves?
I know it is coming, so let me put to rest the socialist complaint of
our current system right now. The socialist would complain about the
capitalist system where a man works for a company producing $2,000
dollars of profit but only getting $700 in his paycheck. The socialist
might complain that this is partial (or fractional, if you will)
slavery, but I must point out that it is not, because chains are
necessary for slavery. Under the capitalist system there is no force
compelling man “A” to work for man “B,“ nor is there a law fixing the
price for which man “A” must work -- except for the current minimum
wage laws. “A” is free to work for “B” and can quit at anytime under
most circumstances to work for “C,” unless there is a contract stating
otherwise.
A more accurate way of looking at the employer-employee relationship is
to see it as a partnership. The employer provides the business plan and
the means of production and whatever other details are necessary, and
the employee provides the labor. If I were better at math I’m sure I
would be able to find some kind of 10/90 or 15/85 split in the business
between the employee and employer, where each is able to terminate the
partnership at will.
Under a slave system the servant is not at liberty to quit or to
negotiate the split of the profit. There is coercion and a threat of
violence in slavery. With 100% slavery, the slave must work and
produce, and the master will take all the profits. In a 50% slave
system there is coercion to force the slave to give 50% of his
production to the master. In either case the slave has no choice, but
must yield to the demands of the master or else face punishment.
Now we must come to the question as to whether or not a man who is
coerced into working for free for the master only on Monday is really a
slave or not. If not, where is the line drawn? If he is forced to work
for the master Monday and Tuesday, would that count as slavery? And if
not, can it be considered freedom in either case? Where shall the line
between freedom and slavery be drawn? I am of the school of thought
that if a man is not 100% free (allowed to act without coercion), then
he is a slave.
But can slavery actually be justified? Would it be acceptable to own a
slave and to say to him, “You will give me all you earn from Monday’s
work each week and keep the rest when the profits from Tuesday through
Friday’s labors are enough to provide you with a mansion, luxuries, and
comforts equal to or surpassing mine.”? For a person to nod in
agreement is to not oppose slavery at all as an institution, but to
only oppose the condition of a slave. Thus it would also be fine to
hold a slave in bondage all week long so long as his material condition
were at some acceptable level. I would have to disagree. I do not put
such high and weighty value on material possessions, but in the spirit
and in the freedom to choose. Even if the slave has a mansion and all
the latest technologies and greatest comforts of the age, it is not
acceptable that his will be negated or that his labor or wages be
confiscated. Under a “Monday Only” slave system the slave is unable to
keep that profit made on Monday. If he is sick Monday and unable to
work, his labor will be confiscated from the following day’s work
whether the slave wants to give those profits up or not.
I have been flirting with, and will now discuss, the old defense of the
brutish institute of slavery. The defenders of the institution would
defend slavery on the grounds that the slave was better off as a slave
than as a free man. They would say that the master provides the slave
with the necessities of everyday life (food, clothing, shelter, basic
medical care, etc.), and if the slave were free he would not be able to
provide those things independent of his master. If a reader is only
interested in the end condition of the slave he might come to the same
conclusion and agree that slavery is justified. He would certainly have
to agree that “Monday Only” slavery, where the labor and production of
a man is bound and confiscated for the first day of the week, but the
production of the slave the other four days is enough to provide him
with all those aforementioned luxuries, is justifiable and even
preferable to no slavery where the man’s labor is never confiscated,
but is only enough to give him a humble means of existence.
As I have said above, I cannot support these ideas and all I can say to
those who do is that they have an inflated value of material well being
and a deficiency in regards to the value of free choice. As far as I am
concerned, it is not the hard work involved in picking cotton, or the
deplorable conditions that slaves endured in the 19th century, but the
confiscation of their labor and deprivation of the choice to do with
that labor what they would like that is the evil of slavery. It would
make no difference to me if a slave were put up in the best hotel in
Las Vegas and required to count the stitches in the carpet and then
given access to the best spa at the end of the day, it would be slavery
nonetheless and equally as wrong.
It is for this reason that I oppose the Income Tax System and look
forward to the day when a man’s wages are his own to do with as he sees
fit. The income tax is the reincarnation of slavery, though it may only
be “Monday Slavery” or “All of January and Half of February Slavery,”
it is slavery nevertheless. The income tax is the most direct form of
slavery in America today, as it directly takes away a person’s labor
against his will. This should be abolished.
It is not only morally wrong, but also a form of slavery to take a
man’s paycheck by force, never mind taking it before he even has it in
his hand. Money is labor. No matter how it is reduced, some sort of
physical activity had to be done to produce an income. It is a very
direct conversion for most of us; we work and, in exchange for that
work, we are paid money. But even for the landlord or the heir, money
is still backed by labor -- no one gets rent property for nothing, it
must be bought. It is bought with money that was earned through labor,
either that or was given as a gift or in the will of a relative. In
either case, labor is being confiscated. I can not say for sure because
I am not in the position to know, but it would seem that it is less
painful when the labor confiscated is removed through the years in the
case of the landlord or through the labor of a parent, but it is still
confiscation and, though it is not direct, it is enslavement. However,
there is another reason to do away with the income tax in the case of
wealthy business owners and landlords; people are both smart and
inclined to make more rather than less money. In the case of a
landlord, for example, the landlord does not pay taxes, but becomes a
tax collector; raising the price of rent and adding “taxes” into his
expense list to be covered by the renter just as he would “new carpet”
or a “new door.” The same principal can be applied to corporate income
tax, where the expense of the tax, like all business expenses, is
passed on to the consumer.
Indeed, all taxation is the coercive deprivation of labor, whether it
is the income tax or more subtle forms of partial slavery like the
sales tax, property tax, tariffs, or others. But my superior moral
fiber only extends so far, and being human, there is a hint of
despotism in me. Government, though it is evil, is necessary, and must
be funded. This funding is going to come from taxation. Therefore,
while fractional slavery is condemnable on moral grounds, it can be
justified at a very limited level, to provide those functions that, it
could be said, could not be adequately provided for by the private
sector. (Such as roads, emergency services, and defense.)
Due to both the necessity of taxation to fund our government and the
nature of taxation itself, we should be very stringent with our
government’s fiscal policy. Though we might like the idea of government
undertaking an action which we may believe will have a positive impact
on society, we should keep in mind that it takes funding and that the
funding will not come from only those who support that particular
action of government, but also coercively from those who do not support
that action.
When we vote for government functions that are not absolutely essential
and that private enterprises could, if given half the chance, handle
sufficiently, we are subjecting our fellow citizens to unnecessary
confiscation of their labor and fractional slavery. It is also
imperative to realize that our fellow citizens may, in turn, use this
as license to commit the very same atrocity to us somewhere down the
line, for the sake of "providing" for society.
this is a response to one of my more moderate friends in a private
message. I thought it to be worthy of general publication, so here is a
short excerpt.
One of the main tenants of my philosophy is that we do not have
positive rights but only negative rights. Not the right to have food,
medicine or shelter, but the right not to be assaulted, murdered,
robbed, trespassed against or kidnapped and confined. these
restrictions are not just restrictions against other individuals like
the common criminal, but also the state. the state can not rob me of my
gun (2nd amendment) they can not imprison me for something I have
written or said, or for my religious convictions or who I choose to
keep company with (1st amendment) they can not invade my home to house
soldiers (3rd amendment) nor can they tresspass or steal things from me
(4th amendment [without warrant] ) and so on... but whether I eat or
not, that is more or less up to me, and the tender hearts of my
neighbors family and friends.