STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery

[Tenet Nosce]

So, currency is one of the facets of the technological society we collectively agree to live in. But at the risk of going off topic, why do you say that we are forced to take on debt? Western society may encourage it, but it is in no way obligatory- in fact there are many people who live debt free as financial philosophy.

Perhaps this seems an obtuse or overly technical point- but currency is not real money. It is a representation of money. I will try to stay on point myself, but this is one of those little details that I think gets easily overlooked.

But beyond this- taking on personal debt such as credit cards or student loans are definitely not obligatory. Near obligatory debt would be a mortgage or lease contract. And fully obligatory debt would be anything charged to you by the IRS- collectively known as taxes.

I think I might be missing the intention behind your example- If they ran away and were not caught again, then they would no longer be slaves. Of course, up to the point that they actually do run away, they would be slaves. The cost of being caught could bring extreme pain in the form of torture, separation of loved ones or death, so I don't really see that they are free to leave whenever they choose.

The intention is to point out that even a "slave" has free will. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, however you seem to be arguing that free will is what separates a "slave" from a "citizen". I am only pointing out that that slave being forced to work on a plantation has free will as well. There are consequences, as you mentioned. Equally are there consequences- including imprisonment- for those who do not adhere to the debt-based financial system. So who is really free? It is interesting that you are contrasting the terms "slave" and "citizen".

Consider this:

United States Code: Title 18, Section 1581. Peonage; Obstructing enforcement

(a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

(b) Whoever obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in subsection (a).

What is "peonage"? According to West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

1. The condition of being a peon.
2. A system by which debtors are bound in servitude to their creditors until their debts are paid.

Here is some further background/commentary from the Gale Encyclopedia of US History:

Peonage is involuntary servitude, under which a debtor is forced to make payment to a master through labor. It differs from slavery, serfdom, and contract labor by both the necessary element of indebtedness and the indefinite term of service. Prior to 1800, the system was prevalent in Spanish America, especially Mexico and Guatemala. While not wholly confined to blacks in the United States, peonage developed in the South after the abolition of slavery in 1865, just as it had in the Southwest following its acquisition from Mexico. An employer paid fines imposed for a petty crime in exchange for work by the sentenced person. And when agricultural laborers and tenants were advanced cash and supplies, any attempt to leave was interpreted as having obtained credit under false pretenses, which, under state law, was a criminal offense.

Peonage did not lose its legal sanction until 1910, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared such state laws to be in violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments (Bailey v. Alabama,219 U.S. 219). In spite of the laws, as late as 1960, sharecroppers in the Deep South were pressured to pay off old debts or taxes through peonage. Peonage is interpreted in the Constitution (Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1581), as holding a person in debt servitude. This practice, though illegal, is being found again in the U.S. in relation to the smuggling of illegal immigrants into the country. The immigrants are then placed in garment "sweat shops" or other small businesses to work off their transportation debt. The current law states that those found enforcing peonage on another can be fined or imprisoned up to ten years.

I will concede that, according to these somewhat massaged legal definitions, we are neither slaves nor peons. However, I don't believe that most people would have voluntarily taken all these debts upon themselves if they really knew what debt was, and where it came from.

There is a massive amount of propaganda and manipulation aimed at the masses to make this system out to be something different than what it really is. Somebody, somewhere, is responsible for that.

When an 18-year old kid is coerced into taking out large student loans- which will take them the next 10-30 years to pay off- with the impression that there is going to be some kind of "job" waiting for them out there which employs their degree- and then finds that there really is none- that is sounding very close to "obtaining credit under false pretenses" to me.

When the "average American couple" signs their name to a mortgage contract that they can't afford to pay, under coersion from banks, the government, and the media, who are all encouraging them to do so... saying it is the "American" thing to do... all the while setting these families up for a massive collapse resulting in being upside-down on one's mortgage or foreclosure... that is sounding very close to "obtaining credit under false pretenses" to me.

Anyways, for the above situations I simply view these as facets of the society in which we live. I don't know how to describe them except as aspects of participatory citizenship in a society with some form of structured governmental system. We might discuss how such things are for the betterment or detriment of humans, but at the end of the day it is a system with voluntary participants. We can leave the system if we chose to, we have freedom to do so.

We can? Please describe how one could leave the system.

Contrarily the slave on a plantation could chose the same, but not freely, and it might end terribly.

I am not seeing this contrarily. The 9-5er could choose to leave their corporate cubicle job. But many don't. I wonder why this is? I suppose it is because they are not really as "free" as we would like to believe. The American societal structure is specifically designed to get people into so much debt between the ages of 18 and 25, that it will take them the next 40 years AT LEAST to get out from under it, if they are not dead of some chronic disease of "modern society" by then.

As for social security cards, taxes and et cetera- yes, those things are included in our society today. You can't have the American society without those things in the same way that you can't get physically fit without working out.

You can't? Then what do you mean by "American society"? My understanding- or at least what I have learned- is that liberty and freedom are the core principles of "American society". It is more than a bit odd to me when I see/hear people arguing that we "need" social security, taxes, etc., in order to be free. That is nonsensical to me.

A ponderance: There was a time in American history where neither federal taxes nor social security existed. Are we more or less free now, as compared to then?

I would submit that all of the services and pleasantries that Americans have come to enjoy can be provided for under a completely voluntary system.

You don't have to be an American though, and you don't have to be physically fit (not in any way trying to imply those things go hand in hand, lol)

Saying that I "don't have to" be an American is like saying that slave "doesn't have to" work on the plantation. Frankly, I find this attitude which says, "If you don't like America, then leave." is quite antithetical to the core principles upon which this nation was founded. It is curious to me how things have become flip-flopped such that desiring even greater levels of liberty and freedom has become "un-American" in the eyes of many card-carrying, flag-waving, citizens.

There is one caveat though. Conspiracy theories about shadowy supreme lords running everything behind the scenes aside, we exist in a participatory government. If enough people want to change the law, the law will change. We elect officials, vote on referendums and et cetera.

Most respectfully- I find this "participatory government" bit to be mostly a sham. In consideration of all the shenanigans that have gone on- and continue to go on- in our political process, it seems rather obvious to me that strings are being pulled in the background. What is more- back in the early days of America, everybody knew about this, and expected it. It is only fairly recently that this idea has come about that there is really nobody lurking in the shadows and that the government is really in control.

And it is even more recently that anybody who would suggest otherwise is labeled as a "conspiracy theorist" and "un-American". If such is the case, then all of the "Founding Fathers" of America are equally "un-American". How does that make any sense?

Do the people have the power to change the law? No- actually that power is delegated to Congress. This is exactly what I mean by people thinking we have one system, when we actually have another. For example, we do not live in a "democracy", we live in a "constitutional republic". Why, then, are all Americans taught this lie in school?

Even public demonstration (protests, movements, etc.) that does not directly participate with government can change the societal climate and sway political leaders (E.g. backlash against Veitnam war and military draft, more recently Arab spring).

I agree with this. But for the sake of discussion... what makes you so sure that these protests and movements you describe aren't successful only to the degree that they are "allowed" to be successful?

To sum up my feelings on the matter, slavery exists where entities are forced under pain of death, etc. to do the bidding of another or group of others, as a loose definition.

Got it!

It's a strong term and has a specific meaning, and IMO it's a disservice to people who exist under *real* slavery systems to say that tax laws, etc, make one a slave.

I would suggest it is a disservice to create a false separation between the "enslaved" and the "free" people of the earth.