Skip to content

Slavery as the “ideal” system

October 3, 2015

The more I think of it, slavery (in one form or another) is the ultimate goal or at least, ideal, in this nation’s economics.

It started with slavery engrained in its economy. We tend to think every white family had slaves as family pets, but it was really big business, being held by rich families and their corporations, especially agriculture (and like today, they continuously pit the poor white families against the blacks through blame and fear of crime). It was almost free labor (and they were generally fed scraps or the least desired portions of the meat), which of course was good for profits.
When emancipation was “forced” on these businesses (and the states that supported their practice), then suddenly, millions more people now had to have “freedom” and resources (including jobs/money) shared with them. This of course hurt the economy.

So this is when all the anti-government rhetoric began, and the portrayal of blacks as money-draining (and crime-prone) leeches and menaces to free society were greatly stepped up.
Basically, the nation was divided into this matrix; on the “professional” level, of big bad government against honest, productive “private enterprise”, and on the “everyday people” level, lazy criminal blacks (and any rogue whites who supported them), against the “hard working, productive” white men.

This was repeated, as even segregation and discrimination were forced to end. The rhetoric would be turned up, and eventually forced to be encrypted, as the racial sensitivities of “political correctness” and “multiculturalism” forced more direct references to race from political discourse. (And they deeply resented these things ever since!)
Now, the rhetoric became mostly economic (which is what it really was about all along) as well as morality (when even many whites began en-masse rebelling against the old religious-based mores of society), but since economics was initially framed along race, then race still had to be tied to it, in the titanic teamup of the government and minorities against business, and “the good people”. Communism also entered the picture, giving a larger framework in a foreign enemy “big government” could now be tied to. Young whites also continued to rebel, and so “hippies” were condemned by the older guardians of society.

So when the quality of life began greatly decreasing in the 70’s and afterward, with every city bombed out at the core, prices going up, while quality goes down (everything made cheaper in quality; “planned obsolecence” becoming the standard), and most importantly, jobs disappearing (often shipped out to other countries for what else but cheap labor; and those that remain having more responsibilities placed on the workers), and money even taken out of the country by moving enterprises over there, as well as to avoid US taxes, the rhetorical mechanism was long in place to blame this all on the minorities, who (in the rhetoric) force the taxes to go up, by gaining “free handouts” from that old enemy, the “big government”, and essentially “forcing” these businesses and landlords to cut back quality or jobs and resources while raising prices; basically punishing everyone for the perceived offenses of these so-called “leeches”.

They really can’t help it. It’s “the market” that determines that they must do all this to maintain profits; and while the CEO’s are deemed being worth more and more, and this cannot be figured into the problem; they “deserve” it.
Banks and the large automobile manufacturers will gain such a hold on the economy that they become “too big to fail”, and so must be bailed out by the government (to prevent total economic collapse), and then executives use the money for five and six figure recreations, but that’s their right. (Don’t you dare “envy” or “covet”, we are sternly scolded!)
If you must blame someone, this is really all that “socialist” president’s fault! As well as the “takers”, which this time are the unions (who often had their pensions used by the companies as well), in the case of the auto companies; and the “undeserving” loan recipients (many, minority), in the case of the banks! (And notice, in these latter cases, it’s not even the “nonworking” “welfare” recipient anymore! It’s people who “just” do “their 40 hours” a week, “turning a bolt” [which they already make way too much for], wanting even more, and yet not doing “more” like these poor, vilified CEO’s who push themselves with 80 or more hours. [even though it’s not healthy for them or their families, and thus not the model for what people “should” be working. Yet, it’s fixed that this is increasingly, practially the only way to stay afloat in this economy]).

We see right here the division of the entire populace into these two classes; one having unlimited rights and privileges, and the other being subservient; and somehow forfeiting the same “rights”. (We should be aware that this upper class basically sees itself as “the people”, as in “We the People”, not the rest of us. So while they speak of “freedom” and other things granted us by the Constitution, they believe only they have really “earned” it, to reference the old saying that freedom must be “earned”. Likewise, one could really argue the Africans and native Americans had already forfeited their lands and freedoms by their tribal life being “unproductive” in contrast to “Christian” Europe. Some Christians even add their pagan worship to that).

The “truth” always hurts the lower classes or races, matching the Calvinism-infused “manifest destiny” the colonialists (Puritans, etc.) appealed to, and the “presuppositionalism” modern “Reconstructionists” cite as one of their pillars. (So it should figure, what they are trying to “reconstruct” might ultimately include! The theology also includes the notion that “God causes the sin, but man is responsible”, so the “cursed” groups can still be despised and blamed as if they could help their condition).
Yet the government stepped in wrongly trying to make things “equal”, and this is what has caused all our economic problems.

This is just a repeat of the sentiments marking slavery, and its end.
(Only now, under the guise of “freedom”, they can claim these classes, unlike race, are formed solely by the person’s own efforts to achieve. But one group, marked by race is having problems achieving, and so this becomes the justification to bring race back into the equations more directly, under the guise of what they call “culture”, and continuing to appear to blame the government and one of its “parties” for giving them “free stuff”, and in fact being the true “racists” trying to “enslave them a new way”).
Ever since the loss of the Civil War, diehard Confederates vowed “The South Shall Rise Again”. That regime was seen as embodying the true values of the original nation, and so this “Lost Cause” refuses to be given up, as people try to restore those “values” one way or another, starting again with economics.

So even the hard working middle class will argue in the CEOs’ favor, that they “delayed gratification”, and so deserve it all, and if that middle class observer’s finances are too tight, it’s because of the common enemy of both him and the big businesses; the government and these “vast hordes of leeches”.
They didn’t “delay gratification”, which insinuates that they must “pay” now, through low paid subservience, but the government keeps trying to interfere, and that’s why everyone is getting punished, and the “angry middle class” blames the poor.
(These articles: http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html #3: http://www.salon.com/2014/07/16/i_was_poor_but_a_gop_die_hard_how_i_finally_left_the_politics_of_shame show this dynamic back in slavery days, and now, where people identify with the power structure screwing them over, even thinking these leaders as “better” than even themselves, so that their enemy and/or scapegoat becomes one’s own).

Then and now, this is why the rich always end up being defended as “earning” everything they have, and are thus the real “victims”, and would share the wealth if they weren’t so taxed and regulated by the “liberals” in order to give it all to the “undeserving”.

So three mechanisms of virtual slavery have arisen. One, the drug war, which was targeted at minorities, and then justifies trapping them in a cycle of lifelong legalized discrimination, for being imprisoned, then then having a conviction record.
Of course, this comes nowhere near restoring slavery, but it’s a way of getting as many as you can into the system (and also bolsters the case that “the people” are so “crime-prone”, filling prisons disproportionately. And once tarnished and hardened like that, they will become more likely to fall into cycles of crime and public assistance).

The next one is the “prison industrial complex” (see also https://erictb.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/review-the-new-jim-crow/#comment-3218) where prisons are privatized, becoming “big business”, under the profit motive, and thus have a big motive to try to get more young people into prisons.
When I first heard of this, it was a story actually about mostly white kids in Pennsylvania, which IIRC was one of the early instances of this system. But of course, it will greatly benefit from the drug war, funneling mostly black kids into the system.

The other is financial debt, egged on by increasingly high interest (which was directly condemned by the Bible, yet conservative Christians; often the most virulent defenders of “capitalism” during the Cold War, didn’t seem to think anything of this). Not just for home, car and other credit, but even student loans, with education increasingly being the main key to “pulling up your bootstraps”* (it wasn’t always like this), but now made financially astronomical; about as much as a nice home or more, and almost impossible for many to ever pay off completely; being trapped like this, with part of their every dollar essentially owned by these institutions, perhaps for life. (And anyone notice how much money colleges everywhere have been putting into expansion of campuses and other fancy new additions, often causing controversies in the neighborhood, at schools such as NYU and Columbia? This may provide nice amenities for students and faculty alike, but still, that’s a lot of money they are tossing around, while it’s “scarce” for everyone else, including students plagued with increasing debt. Who do you think the cost of this is being passed down to? Even if they get the money from government grants, then there’s another destination of tax money!)
Banking overdraft fees are high (and this is “market” rate; i.e. what they all do!), so that a few of them can add up to $100’s. As one meme says, it’s basically punishing people for not having money. This then adds up to a sort of “domino effect” and now makes them have less to pay all their bills, and more likely to overdraw again. They may reason this this is to deter people “irresponsibly” overdrawing all the time, but then it’s like punishing everyone for the abuses of some; sort of like some dysfunctional family, prison, or boot-camp type discipline. People should really think about things like this, when they insist only “government” control is too heavy handed and lacking in alternatives.

Banks collected over 30 Billion in overdraft fees last year...from people who had no money

This domino affect pushes many people to circumvent it through what else, but more credit. More debt! (Just pushing it back a bit, but it meanwhile increases with the interest!)

So it’s a catch-22, where conservatives say people struggle because they are being lazy and not striving to succeed enough; but then the reason you’re struggling is because you put yourself in debt, trying to pull yourself up by the bootstraps!
(In addition to this, “planned obsolescence” continued to reach new highs, eventually becoming technological, as we depend more and more on electronics, which are deliberately made obsolete so that you have to keep buying new ones. One large company reportedly sends out software “updates” that actually kill the device, forcing you to buy a new one, when it gets a certain age! Yet, these are good, honest, “productive” enterprises who “deserve” every penny they get!)

Now, this one also doesn’t trap just minorities, but then class division was really what’s more important than race division anyway; it’s just that race was initially an easier, pre-made distinction, and it was easy to take them as slaves, and they could pull other strings like using certain scriptures to seemingly justify it. But now, race continues to be a good deflectionary tactic, as it was even in past centuries, to have everyone blaming the other race for the financial problems.
Nothing has changed; we’re seeing all the same tactics over and over.

*(In passing, you hear both sides saying “education” is what needs to be fixed in order to solve “the black problem”, but when blacks say this, they mean the quality of education, which was always inferior, with poor materials and infrastructure itself. When conservatives say this, they’re referring to the “lowering of standards” where kids are being [supposedly] wrongly passed through without meeting the actual qualifications, in order to make them “equal”, when they really are not. However much this may actually be done or not, when it is, it is likely to compensate for the poor quality. So to complain about making it too easy for them, without addressing the crumbling system, is just another ploy to keep the people down, and make it look like its just their own “inferiority”, and that inequality is thus quite “fair”).

So this system truly has everyone by the throat, and rather than the government “persecuting” it and giving everything to minorities; it itself is often bought out by these private interests. They have now created a virtual “ice age” of apparent scarcity (i.e. reaction as if that was the case, such as cutbacks, hoarding, etc.) and struggle in what was supposed to be the most properous nation in the world, and yet many will still blame it all on the minorities, and call into question the character of the whole “group” or groups (which now includes “illegal immigrants”, of course), and this will point to what, other than how good it would be if all these “problem people” were somehow corralled, like they were in the glory days of the nation’s early history.

People are faced with a choice, which is what political debate has been divided on:
Admit the system as founded was wrong
Contend that it was right.
The former is what the liberals have done, and the latter is what conservatives have been doing, though [most] having to hide the real conclusion, and some may not even have thought enough to be aware of what it really leads to.

Under the premise of “exceptionality”, blame for the economic problems can never be placed on the early nation for founding its economy on slavery and oppression in the first place. No, it’s continuously excused with “the good outweighs the bad”. But all of these problems today, which they are the biggest complainers of, are never seen as part of that “bad”; only blamed on others. (And then, the “black problems” they also point out are not seen as part of that initial “bad” either; only blamed on blacks themselves and liberals, with the blacks accused of being the ones “excusing” themselves and blaming everyone else!)

“The Market” is just blind “nature“, which people think justifies all their actions. (Along with “survival of the fittest” and the rest of the philosophy you might read in the works of Rand and others). It is in contrast to “integrity”, where we bring an ethic of justice and care into our participation in nature. This is what people are missing, in all their rationalizations.
It is basically a denial of “responsibility” (another term they like to toss at others a lot). It’s the corporate analogue to the “everybody’s doing it” excuse children might use. “It’s not my fault I’m raising prices, lowering quality, or taking jobs and money out of the US economy. The Market made me do it”. (And of course, it’s really those dumb “takers”‘ fault the market is so messed up like that in the first place).

But then “nature” is what the “problem people” in crime and assistance are following as well, and we think this makes them “animals”, but the “civilized” so-called “productive” or “makers” are following the “animal” drive just as much.

The problem is, everyone wants to follow “nature”, and justify themselves in doing it, while condemning the way others follow the same instincts. This I call “inertia”. No one wants to “move” from the course (of behavior or beliefs) they are on.
The assumption is that integrity is basically defined as nature itself; like nature comprises integrity. That the more you can justify your actions with “it’s just nature”; the more your drives match up with nature, the more you can claim “integrity” (under the premise of “innocence” of any “wrongdoing”), which includes “justice” (the actions are justified, and so “justice” has in fact been done). But this leaves out the “care” half of it.
People want to act totally on nature, yet think they have “integrity”.

Man’s desire is to “BE” good, without DOing good, or to be judged as “good” without ACTUALLY being good.
Then, they assume the reward of this state of “good” is prosperity and rulership in the world.

So we say it’s an “exceptional” nation, and colonialism and slavery don’t matter, because of all the other “good” we did (typical using one’s own assortment of “works” to justify falling short in other areas; like people do with God); and look, these crime and poverty ridden people today are just using that as an excuse for their ongoing “problems” and demand for “free stuff” (we project this “excuse”-making onto the other, because “excuses” are only legitimate for us).
So the added insinuation of this (uttered only by the most radical white supremacists): “see, they were justified in enslaving these people, and it’s you ‘egalitarians’ who’ve ruined everything by forcing their freedom on us”.

The sole aim of pure, unmitigated “nature” is survival, at any cost, including the instinct of “control or kill them before they control or kill you”. So following nature alone will naturally hypothetically gravitate toward some form of total control (which is the reason radical “Right” ideology always ends up becoming just as “authoritarian” as the worst Leftist regimes when given the power. The “libertarian” and “populist” [“anti-government”, etc.] language they employ now is just their pleas for their own “freedom” [only] under those more powerful than they are. If their way of thinking were to gain control, then the so-called “persecuted” become the persecutors, and the first sign of this is how they already scoff at the supposed “victimhood” of others lower on the chain than they are, and the fact that they so detest any real authority above themselves in the first place).
People just want to live out their instinctual drive for survival with the least opposition (hence, “inertia”).

So they may not actually, consciously be trying to restore chattel slavery, but the point is, that it is the hypothetical ideal, which some could even argue would solve our financial problems.  (But most won’t bring themselves to say it that way). So instead, they use these other means to try to get as low and subserviant a work force as possible, and have as many of them as they can, blaming each other, or those even lower than they are, so that they can see and do nothing, as the situation gets worse and worse.

The goal is that more people should wake up to this, and not depend solely on the government to fix it up (as again, it has been largely bought out by corporate interests, so they’ll only end up doing just enough for those lower down, to have everyone blaming them for benefitting from all the government “control” over everyone else, and the problems of the struggling likely won’t even be solved). There should be a mass outcry against the cost of education and loan interest if nothing else.

And also, against the 150+ year old blaming game itself! This should take precedence over complaining about “inequality”. For how can we expect to be taken seriously continuing to ask for “equality”, when political discourse is filled with loud rhetoric claiming we’ve already been given too much, that’s “free” and “undeserved” even, and is what’s destroying the economy (with some going as far as to say that whites are the “persecuted minority” now!) and we hardly even ever respond to it?

This should raise the consciousness of the problem, and lead to better solutions, without just running to the government, and thus keeping the rhetorical ball of deflection rolling.

Advertisements

From → Politics

6 Comments
  1. Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom

    What they’re not telling you, is that the “unequal” status, as they would have it, the more they get their way, is not real freedom either. (Especially the financial aspect, as articulated above. But of course, it looks like “freedom” compared to literal chattel slavery, and they insist it is freedom, and those on the bottom end of inequality simply squandered all their opportunities, waiting for “free handouts”).

  2. Having just posted my Amazon review of Dog Whistle Politics (see https://erictb.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/book-review-dog-whistle-politics), I see a couple of books by Robert Reich, which I’ll have to get. The three year old Beyond Outrage: What has gone wrong with our economy and our democracy, and how to fix it, and the new Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few.

    From the latter, p.91ff (bold added):

    People are “worth” what they’re paid in the market in the trivial sense that if the market rewards them a certain amount of money, they must be. Some confuse this tautology for a moral claim that people deserve what they are paid. One of the most broadly held assumptions about the economy is that individuals are rewarded in direct proportion to their efforts and abilities—that our society is a meritocracy. But a moment’s thought reveals many factors that play a role in determining earnings—financial inheritance, personal connections, discrimination in favor of someone because of how they look, luck, marriage, and perhaps most significantly, the society one inhabits.

    If the rules governing how the market is organized took into full account the benefits to society of various roles and occupations, some people would be paid far more. Social work, teaching, nursing, and caring for the elderly or for children are among the lowest paid professions, yet evidence suggests that talented and dedicated people in these positions generate societal benefits far out of proportion to their pay.
    On the other hand, the worth to society of many CEO’s, hedge fund managers, investment bankers, “high frequency traders, lobbyists, and high end corporate lawyers may be less than they command in the market. Much of what they do entails taking money out of one set of pockets and putting it into another, in escalating zero-sum activity. High frequency traders, for example, profit by getting information a fraction of a second earlier than other traders, necessitating ever greater investments in electronic systems that give them that tiny edge. Similarly, squadrons of corporate lawyers are paid substantial sums by their clients because squadrons of corporate lawyers on the other side are paid vast sums to attack them and defend their own clients.
    People in these professions do not generate discoveries that transform society or create works of art that enrich and deepen human consciousness. Their innovations are financial and tactical—finding new ways to squeeze more money out of a given set of assets, including employees, to expropriate the assets and incomes of others.

    The prevailing assumption that individuals are paid what they’re “worth” is a tautology that overlooks the legal and political institutions defining the market. Most fundamentally, it ignores power. As such, it lures the unsuspecting into thinking nothing can or should be done to alter what people are paid, because the market has decreed it.
    CEOs of big companies, by this reasoning, are worth every penny of their compensation packages, which fifty years ago averaged twenty times that of the typical worker but now average almost three hundred times. CEOs must be worth these sums or they wouldn’t receive them. Any reduction or limitation on their pay would deter them from working as hard and as well as they do, to the detriment of all who depend on them. By their same logic, the denizens of Wall Street must be worth the tens or hundreds of millions they are paid every year because people are willing to pay them that much. Limiting their pay would reduce their incentives, distort the market and cause the financial system to become vastly and perhaps terminally inefficient.
    This fabricated logic is a substitute for clear thought. Large corporations have increased their profits and stock prices through their influence over the basic rules of the “free market”—property, market, power, contract, bankruptcy, and enforcement. A growing portion of the compensation of top corporate executives and Wall Street bankers, hedge fund managers, and private equity managers—who together constitute the majority of the top one-tenth of 1 percept of earners—turn on these rising profits and stock prices. To this must be added the political influence of corporate executives and Wall Street traders and managers over specific rules pertaining to fraud, conflicts of interest, insider trading, and limited liability, which also affect their compensation.

    It should be clear from this that virtual slavery is the ideal system they are trying to push us toward as much as possible. And people are still too busy listening to the “dog whistle” rhetoric that actually says the money is all flowing downward to the undeserving poor, that they refuse to see all of this! “Don’t covet!” is their last defense; believing even in their own unworthiness, in addition to everyone below them. Yet they fear only big government is what we should worry about. They don’t see these private forces as being bigger than even the government, or even if it is, well, “the market” determines they should be. But “the market” won’t stop them from tyrannizing everyone else. They have that same drive of “nature” that is posessed by the leaders of dictatorial governments, and the outcomes will be little different.

    Also saw this one that looks really good:

    Under the Affluence: Shaming the Poor, Praising the Rich and Sacrificing the Future of America
    by Tim Wise
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0140EELYW/ref=pe_851910_155117130_em_1p_0_ti

  3. Been seeing on FB, people again calling blaming corporations or the rich in general for the financial problems is “envy”, and one said them taking jobs out of the country is just “businesS”, and what they’re spposed to do, or the stock/shareholders would fire them. So of course, they’re in the process of arguing about all the poor, or even “half the country” getting “free stuff”.

    If that’s business, then we need to just confess that the true ideal that “works” is a corporatocracy/plutocracy/oligarchy that rules through finance.

    But we must stop blaming the poor (whatever reason they are poor; or struggling middle class too) and constantly focusing on them (to the point of overgeneralizing abuses) as if they really are the ones draining all the money. They have not gotten all the money, and what money they do get, they quickly put right back into the economy (i.e. spending it). They aren’t sitting on it, or taking it elsewhere (with any pressure from stockholders). That is just a deflection, and if this system were so true and right, why would these lies be necessary? There’s obviously something they’re trying to hide. (Divide and conquer, so that all the angry middle class goes and attacks the poor, thinking that will get them their money back, while nothing changes, or in fact gets worse; just like when conservative presidents and congresses were in).
    So “winners win” as one person says, but at least admit then that their “winnings” are what’s draining the economy; deserved, right, natural etc. or not. (And this isn’t just “CEOs”, but perhaps more than that, the entire Wall St. system)

    And in this vein, also been seeing a meme on how “half” of Americans are “on assistance”, yet claiming to be “victims” and “poor”, yet living better than the “poor” in many other nations, and having representatives in government. Yet this “half” figure (basically Romney’s “takers” number) includes stuff like Social Security and Medicare (which we’ve paid into), and the conservatives, including some rich even, are just as much crying “victim”, that the entire other half of the nation is taking everything from them, yet they still have their “American Dream” or more, as well as representatives on their side of the government.

    So then, I find this excellent one:
    Why is it easier to believe 150,000,000 Americans are being lazy, rather than 400 Americans are being greedy?

    Also:
    How to Shut Down Your Right-Wing Uncle Complaining About ‘Free Stuff’
    http://usuncut.com/class-war/shut-right-wing-uncle-complaining-free-stuff/

  4. Charles Barkley: ‘All Politics Is Rich People Screwing Poor People’
    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/03/08/charles-barkley-politics/

  5. Like any number of us raised in the late 20th century, I’ve spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald J. Trump’s rise I now understand.
    -Harvard professor Danielle Allen
    How did Hitler come to power? He led the National Socialist German Workers Party. He said he would redistribute income, take profit from industries, nationalize trusts, increase old-age pensions and offer free education’ all accomplished through a large, powerful, centralized government. If that sounds familiar, it’s how Obama came to power and the platform of the Socialist Democrat Party!
    Being Libtarded response to OCCUPY DEMOCRATS

    In a discussion on this meme (which takes the typical approach of getting hung up on the term “socalist”, thinking that means “left” or “liberal”; and it’s also a pattern of them reprinting liberal memes and answering them), one person, basically on “my side” of the debate, after I pointed out the second dimension of “authoritarian” said

    “The only thing what is similar is the appeal of Hitler to the working class and socialists.”

    To which, I respond:
    i.e. “populism”. That’s a third dimension of the spectrum. But populism will always turn back to its opposite, corporatism, when the necessary power is gained (and libertarian sentiments can give rise to authoritarianism, when those who “can”, use their “freedom” to then rule over others, or they want to rule and so need some moral leverage to overthrow the rule that is over them; i.e. *they’re* trampling on *our* freedoms”).

    Another person continued to conflate conservativism with libertarianism (“splitiing” off Trump as “fascist”, but “by no means republican”), to which I pointed out that they all turn into each other under the right circumstances.

    He responds
    “The ideal of the libertarian platform is to only have enough government to protect someones rights (life, liberty, property)
    your freedom ends where mine begins. if you attempt to “rule over me” in any way then you have violated my freedom. your freedom does not mean you are free to violate someone else’s freedom.
    if you think that is libertarianism then you are mistaken. maybe you are thinking of the more extreme anarcho capitalist.
    the heart of america, conservatives and liberals is the philosophy and ideals of libertarianism.
    thomas jefferson, george washington, john locke, all share libertarian ideals.”

    My response:
    That’s a moderate ideal of libertarianism, but what I was saying, was that it can still BECOME the “anarchist” extreme; or the definition of “your freedom/my freedom” even disputed (like the whole “freedom must be earned” thing, and “these people are ‘takers’, we’re ‘makers’, so WE’ve ‘earned’ freedom, and THEY’ve forfeited it”, and in the past, they’re not totally human, God is delivering them into our hands as slaves, etc. People can come up with any sort of rationale to redefine things).
    Again, that may not be the ideal, but it was the actual PRACTICE back then (“states rights” orignally centered around their “freedom” to deny other people’s freedoms!) and it seems many want to go back to this in one way or another (20% of Trump supporters reportedly believe slavery shouldn’t have ended! And economics was always at the center of it all).

    He pointed out that he’s from Georgia, and “surrounded by rednecks, none which support the idea of owning someone else.”

    Of course, if you ask any given people, you might not run across the 20%. Some may simply not admit it, to you. Also, slavery wasn’t every day people owning other humans, so no, they probably do not want to own slaves themselves. It was a corporate (capitalist) system, and that many of these people DO favor, strongly, in the name of “the traditional values of America” (which included slavery, and the “rights” of these businesses to profit from it).

    That’s where, what I was saying, the “libertarian” ideals become authoritarian, because if someone creates a corporation, they’re seen as a “maker” who should be supported in gaining as much power as he can, over how many other vulnerable people he can. Just as long as it’s not chartered as a “government” agency. (Yet it can influence and buy off govt, though!)
    Not only economics (including debt), but the prison industrial complex, are ways they are attempting to trap people in slavery-like states (and in either case, the people in the trap in some way bear the blame for being in that position, so it doesn’t compromise the ideal of “freedom”. They’ve “forfeited” it through their own actions of lack thereof!)

    He still insists this has nothing to do with “libertarianism”, and tells me how it is supposed to work:

    “In a free market with no regulations the mass has the most power…in a government controled regulated market the power will be given to whomever the government chooses. and that is where we are today.

    and the idea that a man should be in prison because of something he did to himself is absurd. it is his body and his freedom. most people in prison are non violent criminals and should not be there. the authoritarian view point that we hold today is the problem. not the libertarian that we are striving to acheive.”

    That’s the IDEAL of libertarianism, but there’s a big difference between ideal and PRACTICE. So who’s to say everyone will follow that ideal?
    The original point of the discussion was on leaders (Hitler, Trump) appealing themselves to others by giving them nice ideals. When they get the power, then what they actually DO will be quite a different story. Within the “mass”, you have some who want control and will rise up and take it, and others who are more passive, and just want to follow, (and many inbetween). That’s how it happens, and what’s going on now. (And then, again, the rulers justifies themselves by saying the masses were too passive or “lazy” or whatever).

  6. In addition to the three mechanisms of virtual slavery restoration I mentioned above (drug war, prison industrial complex, debt), another one I had never realized, but have been hearing about lately is the bail industry. On TV, someone gets arrested, you just go “bail him out”, and that’s that. But this reflects a time before today’s “ice age” where everything costs way beyond what many people can afford (or reflects people who may have more money in savings. That bail bonds is a big industry I could tell in my Five Points interest when seeing how modern day Baxter St. above Bayard is lined with bail bonds offices, facing the back of the Criminal Court across the street. So I imagine, for some the street is a place of misery just as much as it was 120 or more years ago!).
    So people are trapped in jail long before they even have a trial (which is often backlogged and can take months as it is. Now consider a person caught up in this actually being innocent all along, or not even deserving that much time even if guilty!)

    Anyway, it seems someone out there; Mark Zuckerberg, finally wants to do something about this:

    Mark Zuckerberg And Priscilla Chan Are Funding The Fight To End Money Bail
    One of the biggest donors to Civil Rights Corps, a startup nonprofit that could help take down the bail bonds industry.
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chan-zuckerberg-bail-industry-criminal-justice-reform_us_59dcda8de4b0b34afa5c78c5

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: