If an individual does not, for whatever reason, live within his means, then he may 1) seek charity, both public and private, 2) increase his earned income, or 3) decrease his spending of stored value (capital).
No one, not god/God, man, nor system has "enslaved" him, per se.
Stop being unfair to those who have no direct responsibility in an individual's particular circumstances. In essence, you are declaring the all humans are born in debt (i.e. slaves) to any and all that are in need. I reject that.
Of course, if the Society in which he lives does not provide all individuals with economic freedom* (i.e. a free market in labor), then he might be unable to improve his lot.
That is what Populism from the Right, and ultimately revolution against the State, is for.
I apologize if I am tl;dr, but I feel your error is essential.
*see positive (material welfare) vs. negative (Constitutional) rights
Much depends on the nature of the specific tax. For example, Income tax should have been found un-Constitutional, as it violates the takings clause because "income" is "property".
"Theft" and "slavery" here are emotional and ill-defined terms at best, and mis-used, imo.
Agreed about Marxist/Marxism especially 100+ years post, but I think peeps who consider themselves such today are mostly defined by 1) all "property", whether privately or publically owned, is "theft", 2) all work product is owned by the worker "creating" it, regardless of labor contract, which is essentially a purchase by the employer of that same work product, 3) no line of distinction between the public sector and the private.
Yes! Marx was Hegelian, but his biggest problem was Lenin. Marx didn't think human societies were ready to form his communes yet.
I think his error was more fundamental, but I'll demur going further.
Needless to say by now, I think Ayn Rand was closest to the truth and would be happy to discuss at another time.
Thank you for reminding me to read Rudolf Steiner. He's on my reading list.
I think you are less confused than you think! In any case, it *is* all individual opinion.
I totally agree. But I would like to add some perspective. Anyone can do what they want with it.
'Wage slave' has some meaning, in that nobody goes to work just because they love their work. Some even hate their work. People go to work to make a living. But, yes, they have a choice of where they work (presuming they will hire them at the place they want to work). But here's the really BIG choice: Quit the job and provide for yourself by some other means. I've done it, and it sure changes your perspective. What good does it do to complain about the boss, when you're the boss? Or that you're underpaid, when how much you make is entirely dependent on your own capabilities and drive? But I am not a wage slave.
The point I keep trying to make, that many refuse to even try to comprehend, is that slavery can be as much in the mind as in the law. The southern plantation slaves, and most other slaves throughout time as far as I can tell, were not so much bodily enslaved as emotionally enslaved. Shackles and chains were only sometimes necessary. Mostly, masters believed that slaves truly were incapable of caring for themselves and were in need of 'supervision'. Unfortunately, they convinced most slaves of that. The plantation is a sure thing. It may suck, but it's a sure thing. Being free is no picnic. Nobody to blame. No right to expect someone else to see to your needs. Yes, THAT is freedom. No, it is NOT pretty. Freedom is relying on yourself and making it work, such that when others attempt to apply emotional shackles, you can just tell them to kiss off. I can't be fired. I can't have my support withdrawn, because nobody supports me. I am emotionally enough independent to the point that, if someone attempts emotional blackmail, I will just walk away. And yet, I am closely bonded to people who I know do not play those games. It's not about agreeing, it's about respecting each other's emotional freedom.
So, shackles and chains were outlawed in 1865. But emotional slavery continues on unabated. But I escaped that plantation decades ago.
Thank you, M. The Radical Individualist. I have enjoyed your excellent writing both here and across Substack, and am considering a subscription. I am an Objectivist, Capitalist, (classical-)liberal, quite extreme (radical?) libertarian, atheist, strict constructionist.
If you have time, will you please elaborate, in response to this post, what you mean to say with this sentence?
"Did you think that only ‘conservatives’ do that?"
Specifically, what substance should I glean from it about you and your base/target-audience?
Thanks for the compliments, and thanks for the question.
" Many teachers are disseminating disinformation and misinformation. Did you think that only ‘conservatives’ do that?" What was I getting at? Perhaps I should have delved into it more. And maybe I will, in a subsequent post. For now, I'll say that I was referring to the multitude of teachers who teach from a socialist/totalitarian point of view. Many teachers do not enlighten students concerning the issues but instead inform them of the 'correct' point of view. Examples of indoctrination in lieu of education would center around abortion, voting, gender dysphoria, COVID, DEI, CRT and education itself (what should or shouldn't be taught and what books should or shouldn't be in the school library).
Even without getting into the merits or lack of merit to any of these issues, I would suggest that the progressive ideology is dominant, even oppressive, in today's schools. The terms 'disinformation' and 'misinformation' were introduced by progressives, I would say as an excuse for censoring opposing opinions. We know that much/most/all of what has been censored is indeed true. The only reason for censoring was to keep people's minds free of information that conflicted with the progressive mantra.
So, what I was getting at is that progressives, while pretending to be concerned with 'disinformation' and disinformation', do in fact spread it at least the rate of conservatives.
Agreed with all, but I apologize for mis-stating my question.
Your last phrase here is what I am questioning. I am *not* a Conservative, but I wanted to know more specifically to what *Conservative* mis-/dis-/mal-info you were referring, especially vis a vis the "rate", which I take to be volume.
Thanks, again, M. Rad. And no response necessary: you are on my list! Keep up the excellent writing.
Thanks for this informative article
A black person told me that Biden is obviously Pennsylvania KKK
But blacks vote for him
Wage slavery replaced chattel slavery
And tax slavery
A person if they accumulate enough wealth can purchase their freedom like bondsmen and slaves did in the ancient world
FU money so to speak lol
I need to read that book
Uncle Toms Cabin
Yes, read it. People say it's outdated, but it's a window into the issues of the nineteenth century.
There exists no such thing as "wage" slavery.
If an individual does not, for whatever reason, live within his means, then he may 1) seek charity, both public and private, 2) increase his earned income, or 3) decrease his spending of stored value (capital).
No one, not god/God, man, nor system has "enslaved" him, per se.
Stop being unfair to those who have no direct responsibility in an individual's particular circumstances. In essence, you are declaring the all humans are born in debt (i.e. slaves) to any and all that are in need. I reject that.
Of course, if the Society in which he lives does not provide all individuals with economic freedom* (i.e. a free market in labor), then he might be unable to improve his lot.
That is what Populism from the Right, and ultimately revolution against the State, is for.
I apologize if I am tl;dr, but I feel your error is essential.
*see positive (material welfare) vs. negative (Constitutional) rights
https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2019/01/why-taxation-is-neither-theft-nor-slavery
Yes they can choose death. Suicide is still legal
I thought we were talking about how to live, not how to die.
Even homelessness is illegal see recent Supreme Court ruling
Wrong. The SCOTUS did *not*.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/politics/supreme-court-homelessness.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
The NYT is wrong, as usual.
Basically, the SCOTUS said jurisdictions can "zone".
If you accumulate enough wealth then you can be free from police harrassment and can choose where and how you live
Not always true for the former (it would depend on one's politics) and the latter I see as justice.
Are you a Marxist?
M. Lentz, I wanted to be clear that I have no problem with anyone being a Marxist, or of any other political persuasion.
But the persuasion of the writer informs the reader.
And I only write here in honest *disagreement*, in both opinion and existential fact (and for both of which I could be in error).
Thank you for the link. I disagree.
Much depends on the nature of the specific tax. For example, Income tax should have been found un-Constitutional, as it violates the takings clause because "income" is "property".
"Theft" and "slavery" here are emotional and ill-defined terms at best, and mis-used, imo.
I am not a Marxist frankly not even sure what a Marxist is
Have not been able to find a good definition and don’t have time to read Marx’s book
I do like Max Stirner ideas the Ego and its Own
Max Stirner and Marx were both Young Hegelians
Stirner founded individualistic anarchism
Also like Rudolf Steiner ideas from the Philosophy of Freedom
Mostly I am confused and don’t like government lol
I like individualism but view it like Rudolf Steiner that it goes across multiple lifetimes
Agreed about Marxist/Marxism especially 100+ years post, but I think peeps who consider themselves such today are mostly defined by 1) all "property", whether privately or publically owned, is "theft", 2) all work product is owned by the worker "creating" it, regardless of labor contract, which is essentially a purchase by the employer of that same work product, 3) no line of distinction between the public sector and the private.
Yes! Marx was Hegelian, but his biggest problem was Lenin. Marx didn't think human societies were ready to form his communes yet.
I think his error was more fundamental, but I'll demur going further.
Needless to say by now, I think Ayn Rand was closest to the truth and would be happy to discuss at another time.
Thank you for reminding me to read Rudolf Steiner. He's on my reading list.
I think you are less confused than you think! In any case, it *is* all individual opinion.
I totally agree. But I would like to add some perspective. Anyone can do what they want with it.
'Wage slave' has some meaning, in that nobody goes to work just because they love their work. Some even hate their work. People go to work to make a living. But, yes, they have a choice of where they work (presuming they will hire them at the place they want to work). But here's the really BIG choice: Quit the job and provide for yourself by some other means. I've done it, and it sure changes your perspective. What good does it do to complain about the boss, when you're the boss? Or that you're underpaid, when how much you make is entirely dependent on your own capabilities and drive? But I am not a wage slave.
The point I keep trying to make, that many refuse to even try to comprehend, is that slavery can be as much in the mind as in the law. The southern plantation slaves, and most other slaves throughout time as far as I can tell, were not so much bodily enslaved as emotionally enslaved. Shackles and chains were only sometimes necessary. Mostly, masters believed that slaves truly were incapable of caring for themselves and were in need of 'supervision'. Unfortunately, they convinced most slaves of that. The plantation is a sure thing. It may suck, but it's a sure thing. Being free is no picnic. Nobody to blame. No right to expect someone else to see to your needs. Yes, THAT is freedom. No, it is NOT pretty. Freedom is relying on yourself and making it work, such that when others attempt to apply emotional shackles, you can just tell them to kiss off. I can't be fired. I can't have my support withdrawn, because nobody supports me. I am emotionally enough independent to the point that, if someone attempts emotional blackmail, I will just walk away. And yet, I am closely bonded to people who I know do not play those games. It's not about agreeing, it's about respecting each other's emotional freedom.
So, shackles and chains were outlawed in 1865. But emotional slavery continues on unabated. But I escaped that plantation decades ago.
It takes me awhile to determine trust in a writer. Today, you’ve earned it.
Thank you. I work to earn that trust.
Amazing article, thank you!
Thank you, M. The Radical Individualist. I have enjoyed your excellent writing both here and across Substack, and am considering a subscription. I am an Objectivist, Capitalist, (classical-)liberal, quite extreme (radical?) libertarian, atheist, strict constructionist.
If you have time, will you please elaborate, in response to this post, what you mean to say with this sentence?
"Did you think that only ‘conservatives’ do that?"
Specifically, what substance should I glean from it about you and your base/target-audience?
Thanks for the compliments, and thanks for the question.
" Many teachers are disseminating disinformation and misinformation. Did you think that only ‘conservatives’ do that?" What was I getting at? Perhaps I should have delved into it more. And maybe I will, in a subsequent post. For now, I'll say that I was referring to the multitude of teachers who teach from a socialist/totalitarian point of view. Many teachers do not enlighten students concerning the issues but instead inform them of the 'correct' point of view. Examples of indoctrination in lieu of education would center around abortion, voting, gender dysphoria, COVID, DEI, CRT and education itself (what should or shouldn't be taught and what books should or shouldn't be in the school library).
Even without getting into the merits or lack of merit to any of these issues, I would suggest that the progressive ideology is dominant, even oppressive, in today's schools. The terms 'disinformation' and 'misinformation' were introduced by progressives, I would say as an excuse for censoring opposing opinions. We know that much/most/all of what has been censored is indeed true. The only reason for censoring was to keep people's minds free of information that conflicted with the progressive mantra.
So, what I was getting at is that progressives, while pretending to be concerned with 'disinformation' and disinformation', do in fact spread it at least the rate of conservatives.
Agreed with all, but I apologize for mis-stating my question.
Your last phrase here is what I am questioning. I am *not* a Conservative, but I wanted to know more specifically to what *Conservative* mis-/dis-/mal-info you were referring, especially vis a vis the "rate", which I take to be volume.
Thanks, again, M. Rad. And no response necessary: you are on my list! Keep up the excellent writing.
I received the book Uncle Toms Cabin
Have started reading into
I like how it puts people in context
Take your time with it. It doesn't read quickly like most modern novels do. But I think you'll learn a lot about the tine.