The Classic Liberal Blog

"A slave is one who waits for someone to come and free him"
~ Ezra Pound

Part One: Thoughts About Character

I am fond of saying America doesn't need better political parties, laws, or candidates. America needs better Americans. As in republicans (note the small 'r'). Dennis Prager was cited the other day for this proposition:

That is what happens when the state gets bigger — you become smaller. The dream of America was that the individual was to be a giant. The state stays small so as to enable each of us to be as big as we can be. We are each created in God’s image. Stompin' Leviathan

Inscribed over a library at Alexandria were the words, "Clinic for the Soul." It was thought by the wise founders of that great City that the soul was liberated through knowledge -- Gnani Yoga to Indian adepts. Today we live in a society of Amusing Ourselves to Death: the stomach, the genitals and the ego are consulted for guidance on all manner of questions. If we speak truly of the soul, I can't hear it. I hear the shrill agitation of brats, not the wise counsel of men.

Before you say, 'Cicero, it has always been that way', I say Yes, human nature has always been that way. As "Tully" put it:

Men decide far more problems by hate, love, lust, rage, sorrow, joy, hope, fear, illusion, or some other inward emotion, than by reality, authority, any legal standard, judicial precedent, or statute.

The difference, I think, was that three generations ago the average American never heard of someone paying his freight for him. The idea of electing a president who promises to solve personal problems by "taxing the rich" would have been seen for what it was: crime. The idea of selling your shadow of a soul to such a person would have been seen for what it is: servitude. That is the difference. The strength is in character purpose: do you propose to make the world better through your better character, or do you propose to make the world better by violating the Commandments?

Part Two: The Slave Mentality

As Orwell made clear to us, unless we pay attention to what is being said, scheming men and women with ambitions over the lives and property of others, will interpret words in such ways as to convey the opposite meaning most of us attach to those words. This is true with the American state – particularly through its definers and obfuscators in the judicial system – in telling us the "true meaning" of the 13th Amendment. This provision was only intended to prohibit private forms of slavery; the state was not intended to be bound by its otherwise clear language. Thus, the 13th Amendment did not end slavery, but only nationalized it. The state is to have a monopoly on trafficking in slaves!

Compulsory systems of military conscription, jury-duty, school attendance, and road-building duty, have long been upheld by the courts as not being barred by the 13th Amendment. So, too, has that most far-reaching form of involuntary servitude, taxation. When the state desires your nonconsented services, the courts – consistent with their record of expanding state power while giving very restrictive interpretations to individual liberty – are quick with the "newspeak."

As the war in Iraq continues apace, and with Massa Bush suggesting a seemingly endless presence in that country, proposals for expanding the present state-slavery racket are being voiced. Bills have been introduced in the House (H.R. 163) and the Senate (S. 89) by so-called "liberal" Democrats urging a renewal of military conscription. What is worthy of note is that a number of the sponsors of this proposed legislation are African-Americans – Charles Rangel, Sheila Jackson-Lee, John Conyers, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Elijah Cummings, and Alcee Hastings, among others. Jesse Jackson has also urged a reconsideration of the draft.

They have defended this proposal as a way of focusing attention on whether Blacks, Hispanics, and low-income people would – as in the Vietnam War – bear a disproportionate share of the burden of military service. If conscription was applicable to all, with no special exemptions or deferments allowed, it is argued, the system could be operated in a "fair" manner.

"Fair" is one of those four-letter "f" words that I discourage in my classroom. Within a few days of being introduced to my strange ways, students learn to omit that word from class discussions. The word "fair" is an expression of teenager justice, carrying no more meaning than to say "I don’t like it." "If you consider something to be ‘unfair’," I ask my students, "tell me, specifically, why you think such a state of affairs is wrong." It is more important to ask whether the state should be impressing anyone into forced servitude than it is to debate the "fairness" of who is selected for sacrifice!

And yet, it is to the doctrine of "equality" that many advocates of the "fairness" argument repair. Those who regard liberty and equality as synonyms – instead of understanding their contradictory, irreconcilable nature – tend to believe that, as long as an oppressive measure is forced upon all, without regard to distinctions, there is no problem. Such attitudes are generally shared by statists, whose responses to a tax, a restriction, or a mandate that is borne by only one group, is to urge governmental impositions upon all. The chuckleheaded branch of "feminism" – whose members cringe in terror at any expression of "liberation" – insist that, as a matter of principle, women should share with men the abuse by the state. To egalitarians, the "equal protection of the laws" is to be furthered by universalizing oppression, rather than ending it as to everyone!

If, on the other, it is [their] purpose to criticize "privilege," [they] might want to begin with a definition of that term. One dictionary defines it as "a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit."

"Granted" by whom? [I]t should be evident that it is the state ... that involves itself in conferring benefits and immunities upon its well-connected supporters, just as Congress grants to itself and its members special privileges not enjoyed by the rest of society. If it is [their] desire to end such special dispensations, he might begin by cleaning up his own house.

A conservative Bill Buckley, and a self-styled "progressive" Bill Moyers, have previously clucked the virtues of service to the state, a fact that should help you understand why, in the words of a friend of mine, the late James J. Martin, the political "Left" and "Right" are simply "two wings of the same bird of prey." All political systems and ideologies have, at their base, an implicit belief that human beings are expendable resources to be exploited on behalf of whatever ambitions those in power might have. If the state needs more money, tax those who produce wealth. If the state wants to conduct a war, appropriate the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people to be slaughtered in its service. If the state wants privately owned land, take it ...

"Do you own yourself?" ... "If you do claim self-ownership," I ask, "how do you tolerate the state controlling your life through various laws? And if you do not claim self-ownership, what possible objection can you raise to anything another might choose to do to you? If you do not want to own yourself – and to insist upon the control that goes with such a claim – should you be surprised that others might choose to assert a claim of ownership over that which you have rejected?"

It is frightening enough to hear proposals for our universal enslavement coming from people who pretend to be representatives of our interests. It is equally disturbing that such dehumanized thinking can be defended by so many out of what can only be regarded as a twisted sense of community. Those who embrace such offerings without giving much thought to their meaning should understand that the most important quality we hold in common with our neighbors is a need to defend one another’s individuality. Being converted into humanoid servo-mechanisms of the state perverts, not fosters, our sense of community.

Similar Posts:

• Agitation: The New Political Paradigm