17 May The Slave State and the Nation State: One and the Same by Bill Buppert
“God knows I detest slavery but it is an existing evil, and we must endure it and give it such protection as is guaranteed by the Constitution.”
– Millard Fillmore
In this day and age when human beings have access to an unlimited fountain of human knowledge vertically and horizontally, one would think that slave people who are told they are free would know the difference. Not so, the government academic complex has been incredibly adept informing legions of both useful idiots and spirited scribblers and talking heads that are happy to massage the message. If one were a bird in a cage since birth, how in the world would you know what your wings are for? Much has been written on the terror of overtly totalitarian societies and various observers from across the accepted political spectrum have thrown barbs at one another over who lords over the worst measure of society.
The worthies in command would have you believe in the nonsense of Left and Right and everything in between, the apocryphal battle between fascism and communism in the twentieth century culminating in the West ironically winning the second half of WWI, the War to Save Josef Stalin, and making the planet safe for communism and the concomitant reaction of Western elites to build garrison states of their own to protect their subject populations from something…
There is no Left and Right but there are coercionists and individualist of which the former must intervene in every human transaction to exist and be made whole and visible.
So let’s make clear what our definitional constructs are before we begin the examination. The Cambridge English Dictionary has the following quaint definition of slavery.
…the condition of being legally owned by someone else, or the system in which some people are owned by others.
What is this notion of ownership?
Ownership is a condition of possession. If one lives in a nation state, you can be abducted at any time by the police authorities who are the pointy end of all political policies. There is a reason modern policing in America is originally a 19th century artifact of slave patrols powered by the Federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. You will note that this Act was merely an updated treatment of the same act from 1793 (I will note this is a mere two years after the ink is dry on the wretched Constitution).
Yet another reminder that the Constitution not only codified slavery but used government money to equip the patrols to repatriate the “human property”. Read Section 3 and 4 of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 to really get your government muscle on. This was approved on 12February 1793 with 48 votes in favor and 7 against and 14 abstaining.
This was the unfinished business of the slave clause from 1787 coup convention:
The Fugitive Slave Clause undoubtedly gave slave-owners something of value. The Articles of Confederation had contained no similar provision, nor had the Articles given the Confederation Congress power over the issue. At most, masters might attempt to exercise their common law right to recapture fugitives on their own, but it appeared that nothing restricted free states from denying that right by asserting that any slave who entered their territory could not be seized and returned.
Both of these laws also made it a crime to abet or provide sanctuary for runaway slaves. This is an important part of the modern police state in America with its huge odious infrastructure of confidential informants, accessories and all the active police state apparatchiks that comprise the bloated malum prohibitum legal/ custody complex in America.
One may look at the enforcers of repatriating the human property to its rightful owners the very birth of the modern police state in the West. No “professional” police force existed in the West before 1829. Many modern police apologist point to earlier origins but it simply has no basis in history.
The Philadelphia Police Department today claims to have been established in 1751, but – again – there were no Philadelphia police patrols in the 1700s, there was something much closer to what we would today consider “detectives.” There was simply no concept of “policing” in the sense of patrolling communities. While widely documented and easily verifiable, this simple historical reality sounds so far-fetched, that many who do not know any better would write it off as a conspiracy theory. And yet, this is what is taught in every introductory criminal justice college course.
Fabrications, lies and distortions should as a surprise to no one in modern America who has made even a cursory examination of American policing history and behavior.
Mr. David goes on to describe this critical linkage to today:
Kappeler notes that scholars such as Turner, Giacopassi and Vandiver all support this thesis of American policing emerging from slave patrols, explaining that “the literature clearly establishes that a legally sanctioned law enforcement system existed in America before the Civil War for the express purpose of controlling the slave population and protecting the interests of slave owners. The similarities between the slave patrols and modern American policing are too salient to dismiss or ignore. Hence, the slave patrol should be considered a forerunner of modern American law enforcement.”
I am simply underlining a point I have made repeatedly, the American police state is not about justice but law enforcement. Law is not even a nod to justice, it is merely the teeth of all political will by the nomenklatura invested with power in the nation state. It is the expansion of the slave patrol system to keep modern Helots in check. The modern bureaucratic methods have provided these government enforcers to go beyond anything imagined by the worst political actors in the nineteenth century.
The sad state of human cogitation demands a reappraisal of the basics. Opposition to human slavery means that it is wrong to:
Own other human beings. There is no corporate entity in America that can actually lay title to a human being and prevent them from opting out from working and leaving when they wish even though they may lose their jobs in the last instance. This is not the case for the government. They have what is virtually a carte blanche capability exercised all the time to officially kidnap people against their will for alleged violations against what is mostly malum prohibitum laws. These people are taken before levels and legions of government employed bureaucrats who determine the amount of wealth or property surrendered against their will or the opportunity to spend time against their will in the vast political gulag system in America. If you think this is hyperbole, remember that more than 85% of all inmates in the Federal system are non-violent offenders. Most inmate, probationers and paroles are guilty of trafficking in illegal vegetation and rendering products in the black market that alter people’s consciousness. The distinction between corporate entities and government coercion is the element of consent and opting out.
I am often amused by the usual suspects mewling about know the law. Anyone who says obey the law should have the entirety of the law printed out and then dropped on their head.
Government in its modern construct is simply a new form of slavery. The distinction between chattel and regulatory slavery is surprisingly subtle. Chattel slavery, also called traditional slavery, is so named because people are treated as the chattel (personal property) of an owner and are bought and sold as if they were commodities. While this may seem a remote memory, the analog serves well to describe the attitude and behavior of robed government employees to their charges brought before them in the American star chambers. Some of these worthies even use it to line their pockets or pump up their dossiers.
Libertarians often view taxation and the use of conscription as forms of slavery but I would suggest they are missing the mark. Whenever one has no legal or decriminalized choice to opt out, this provides the definitional basis for a society based on slavery. The many wonderful abolitionist fighters from the 19th century asked the right questions but didn’t take the question to its logical conclusion. No moral man would suggest that chattel slavery is wrong and tax slavery is not, they are simply different forms of ownership. In this case, the state through the silly notion of implied consent and physical existence in a tax jurisdiction assumes that a human may be compelled to pay through wealth or wages or time for his alleged transgressions against the laws of the nation state even if there is no victim and they are merely corrupt pronouncements by the political class for a whole raft of malum prohibitum crimes.
The government is so drunk on power it doesn’t even realize how it indicts itself with the Department of Fatherland Security training on human trafficking that betrays the construct of the modern nation state. Read the ad copy for the maximum state.
It all boils down to limits on self-ownership. Elegant and simple.
Yes, in modern America, I feel compelled to examine why is slavery wrong.
First and foremost, it abridges self-ownership. By its very nature, it violates the non-aggression principle or zero aggression principle. Self-defense is prohibited by fiat. If you don’t believe this, search for instances where police maim and kill folks running away from them.
Surprisingly, the 19th-century abolitionist movement came to grinding halt in 1865 in the mistaken impression that the Lincolnian project had eradicated slavery but the administration had simply codified it and put everyone on the plantation. The Federal government took the notion of the Constitutional “60 percent” citizen and nationalized the notion and put every American on the plantation. The 19th-century abolitionist did not take the argument to its logical conclusion. If slavery is wrong, isn’t all slavery wrong.
This demands a thought experiment: What is the primary difference between chattel slavery and the regulatory variant in the 21st century in America? Surprisingly, we discover that affluence and slavery can co-exist.
In the modern regulatory slave state, implied consent to the billions of words in the laws and regulations in the American plantation charges every human not with an obligation to liberty but instantaneous surrender to any policing or bureaucratic authority figure proclaiming their need to enforce political will on the unwilling and unknowing. Unlike indentured servitude, modern slavery equals no contract in regulatory slavery in which terms of social contract constantly change to the detriment of the servant. Implied consent equals government manufacture on a daily basis of whatever its evil whims may be.
So if you champion the nation-state as the greatest fruit of mankind, it is strange fruit indeed.And we know why Billie Holiday sang that tragic song.
You cannot have Liberty in this world without what you call Moral Virtue, and you cannot have Moral Virtue without the slavery of that half of the human race who hate what you call Moral Virtue.
– William Blake