Can we really say that the USA isn't currently a slave/serf state?

[SapereAude]

Home ownership- we don't really "own" our houses. If you don't pay your property taxes your home is taken away. This would mean that the home that you bought doesn't really belong to you. It belongs to the government. If you pay your taxes, maybe they'll let you keep it.

Productivity/unions- we have no "right" to work anymore. Unions are a major contributor to political campaigns. In most states a union can disallow you from working if you do not pay their dues. In some states you will be allowed to work without joining but you must still pay the dues.

Productivity/job specific licensing-many states now have laws that you can't work in certain menial labor jobs without governemt issued licenses. In my state you can't work in am establishment that serves alcohol without purchasing a permit (which you must have on your person at all time for inspection) and you cannot work in an establishment that serves food without purchasing a government permit (which you must also have on your person at all times for government inspection).

Productivity/business "ownership"- there is no longer a "right" to work for yourself either. If you start a business you must get permission from government agencies on local/state&federal levels. This permission is of course, expensive in many cases.

Productivity/business ownership, the meddling of neighbors- in my state your right to do business is in some part decided by your neighbors. If you are a food industry business that plans on serving alcohol a large notice is put up on your storefront- the intention being that neighbors can decide they don't want your business to operate. The catch of course is that you are not allowed to apply for a liquor license until you have already purchased or signed a lease for the property. If your neighbors don't like your business plan they can prevent you from opening.

Freedom of speech in business ownership- some states have restrictions on reasonable non-fraudulent advertising, For example in some states you are not allowed to in any way convey the existence of drink specials. Not on your phone message, your website or your signage. Also, there are restrictions on how much alcohol signage a bar is allowed to have. I'm sure other industries have similar restrictions, I just happen to be most familiar with my own.

Freedom of trade in businesses- businesses are forced to go to great lengths and expenditure to accomodate customers they may not see any gain in catering to. ADA compliance laws, laws on "transgendered sensitivity" in restroom accomodations, laws on providing diaper changing stations and breastfeeding areas, etc. For example a little known part of the HCR bill stipulates that places of business must provide a private room specifically for breastfeeding employees(whether you have any or not)- and specifies that the private room cannot be part of the restroom.

Freedom of choice- employers and employees- further on this road to serfdom we see the laws that are in existence and that are in the works to make employers responsible for just about all aspects of an employee's outside life. It is my understanding that I am employing someone to do a specific job for me and that is what I am paying them for. But now we have mandatory unemployment, disability, paid sick leave, paid "family" leave, bereavement leave, domestic violence leave (yes-it is true-in some states now if an employee claims to be in a domestic violence situation you must give them leave), soo employers must provide healthcare too and mandatory paid vacation is on the table as well. So this tells me I am now paying for my employee's entire existence. So if I am responsible for my employee's entire existence and the government owns me and my business.... what follows? Is that not serfdom? One could say that one missing trait of serfdom is the lack of freedom of mobility but it seems that is being restricted more every day in the form of government mandated permits/licenses not being transferrable from state to state.

Working for free is illegal- this is the biggest one of all. Most people don't know that it is illegal to work for free. The government hasn't been too diligent in enforcing this in the past but many politicians are promising that it will be strictly enforced in the near future. By making it illegal to work for free is the government not saying outright that they own each and every one of us as individuals? That our work is not ours to give but theirs to allow or disallow? I think for me this may be the most frightening.

Subsistance living- we cannot even avoid these government entanglements by not taking part in active trade. Hunting/gathering/poaching laws make this impossible too.

If our labour is not ours to give, and the fruits of our labour are not ours to keep and our rights to non-interference, non-association are denied are we not fooling ourselves about the nature of this nation? I ask this because generally on these boards our country is still referred to often as "reasonably rights respecting".

It seems to me like the statement about how if you bring the frog to a boil very slowly they'll be screwed before they know what is happening.

This post is me thinking out loud, it isn't some paper or blog entry or anything. I was just working on my paperwork and noticing how many silly government documents I'll be renewing soon at great expense and thought I'd throw this out there and see if anyone else had a different take on the matter.

[DavidOdden]

Alright, but then all nations are slave/serf states. And yet some are more flagrantly slave/serf than others, where they don't have a pretext of you owning your home, where you have no right to keep your home at all, a right than can be defended in court.

(What exactly are you talking about when you say it's illegal to work for free?)

[SapereAude]

(What exactly are you talking about when you say it's illegal to work for free?)

That according to the Department of Labor it is illegal to work for free. This has come up as unpaid internships, trial days and "stages" are the norm in my industry.

There are a couple exceptions:

1) you may work for free for a non-profit

2) you may work for free for a for-profit under the conditions that the business gets no tangible gain from your work and is in fact impeded by your presence, that you are not doing the work a paid employee would normally be doing and that the company gains no advantage by the unpaid person's presence. It is even, in fact, illegal for an intern to make coffee.

here's some links:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=unpaid%20inte...mp;CM=SearchWeb

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aTLABvxLIVcA

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/john-stossel...-are-exploited/

http://www.neatorama.com/2010/04/04/are-un...nships-illegal/

http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2009/09/interns/

Those are the first things in a long list that comes up in a google search.

Regarding your first statement, about the US having a least a pretext.. isn't that worse? Adding falsehood to tangible injury? A govt that has their only legitimate function as being the protection of its citizens' rights pretending rights are still there that don't in fact exist seems to me the worst of all...?

Definition of pretext I am going by here: made-up excuse: a misleading or untrue reason given for doing something in an attempt to conceal the real reason

Thank you for responding.

[flatlander]

Excellent points. We do not live in a free country, whether we speak of the USA or Canada where I live.

Some further government intervention that I live with (which make the USA seem like a capitalist paradise by comparison):

Sales of liquor are extremely strictly controlled here. The provincial government has a monopoly on the wholesaling of beer, wine and spirits. The government also controls most of the retail sales of liquor. It owns many very large liquor stores, staffed with government unionized employees that are paid more than double the average wage of "private sector" retail workers. Bars are allowed to have "offsale" stores attached to them and they sell a very limited selection of beer, wine and spirits. Further, these stores are required to sell at a lower "daytime" price when the government stores are open and a higher "night" price when the government stores are closed. Only recently have two privately owned "specialty wine stores" been permitted to open, that's two stores in a province of over one million people. As one would expect with such a government-controlled marketplace, we have some of the highest liquor prices in North America, if not in the world. I have bought a bottle of wine at a Wal-Mart in Montana for $10.00 that sells in my home province for $35.00. All Canadian provinces have government controlled liquor sales.

In Canada, all goods sold are required to have English and French labelling. Some exemptions are made for niche import products.

In Canada, socialized "universal" health care has led to long waiting lists, poor quality care, doctor shortages, medical diagnostic scarcity, powerful public sector unions that control the nursing and medical technicians and support staff. Health care worker strikes are commonplace. This hellish situation is what Americans can look forward to under Obamacare.

I could list many more but you get the point. We may not live in outright dictatorships but we are far, far from being free. I keep thinking that "Liberal Fascism" is the best way to describe the modern Western welfare state.

[FeatherFall]

No, not so long as the draft is unenforced. Taxes are theft, not slavery. The government never makes you work, they just take your stuff if you do. The US is an extortion state. Once they mandate that you work you're a slave - at least, that's my position. There is a lively debate about this in some other thread somewhere.

[aequalsa]

No, not so long as the draft is unenforced. Taxes are theft, not slavery. The government never makes you work, they just take your stuff if you do. The US is an extortion state. Once they mandate that you work you're a slave - at least, that's my position. There is a lively debate about this in some other thread somewhere.

That's an interesting delineation. It sounds right on the surface, but still seems like a "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" technicality.

Generally, you need to work to exist and if you do then they take away what you worked for. In combination with reality you are forced to work for others. In actuality though, as long as there is still cradle to grave welfare, you still have a choice not to work. A sad, sad choice between becoming a moocher, looter, outlaw or martyr, but still a choice, I guess.

[ZSorenson]

It never wasn't. Or rather, has always had structurally what you describe.

Look at the writing of the Constitution - the struggles between the slave-owning Republicans - and the corporatist Federalists.

It seems like the intangibility of the West, plus the semi-professionalism of America's early professionals (lawyers, academics, bureaucrats), plus the advent of brand new forms of commerce, production and trade, plus the inexplicable Marshall court, all combined to allow late-19th century American capitalism. The US was only barely ever based on principles of freedom, and a wave of intellectual opposition rose against it from the onset.

The constitution was originally purely a political document. The only principles were pragmatic considerations on the use of power. Empower the central government so it would tower over any other pretenders to power, then split it up against itself so that it couldn't exercise that power. The Bill of Rights was an addendum, demanded by those skeptical of the entire system of federalism. The individual rights determination was a product of the Marshall court's unexpected prominent role.

The 'founding values' of America were identical to Whigism. There were flashes in the pan - Tom Payne, Ethan Allen - and a general culture of individualism - but the political and economic leaders were pure whigs. The 'founding values' of America are better than most of what's out there in history, but they're hardly that wonderful.

Instead, I'd look towards late-19th century American thought. Also, the 1920's opposition that inspired Ayn Rand. I think in that time period you have the birth and death of the cultural movement. But Ms. Rand gave us Atlas Shrugged which is sort of the immortal monument to the freest time in human history.

The sad thing is that although there were men in real life 'cut from the cloth' of Nat Taggart (Vanderbilt for one), they never quite dominated the scene. They always had to compete with the opposing side. Though I don't think the world of AS implies otherwise.

[FeatherFall]

It sounds right on the surface, but still seems like a "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" technicality.

Usually I'll take extortion over slavery, even though I don't think its a whole lot better. I think the distinction takes into account the fact that we are more free, but we still have mountains to move.