This is the second of a two-part post.  In the first part (find it here), I developed a better definition of what we actually mean by slavery. In this post, we are going to hold that definition up against some of the things we do in our society today to see whether or not we actually support slavery.  But first, let’s review the definition we developed:

Slavery is the sustained practice of forcing another person to work — against their will — for the material gain of another.

Now, let’s see what this definition tells us about the practices we support without realizing they constitute slavery. Continue reading PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: What Form(s) Of Slavery Do You Support? – Part II →

Do not just read the title of this post and dismiss it.  You may think you do not support slavery, but are you sure?  Are you really sure?  How much time have you spent thinking about slavery?  Have you spent any time thinking about what you mean by the word?  If you haven’t, you might not want to ignore this post.  After I spent some serious time thinking about what slavery actually means, I was surprised to realize that — at one time in my life or another — I have supported slavery.  But, had you asked me at those times, I would have sworn that I was absolutely opposed slavery in any and all of its forms.  I would have also been wrong.  So, for you, the question you have to answer is this: Do you actually support slavery without realizing it?

This is how the dictionary defines SLAVERY:

1:  drudgery, toil

2:  submission to a dominating influence

3a :  the state of a person who is a chattel of another

b :  the practice of slaveholding

But this is not the full meaning of the word.  We must remember, a word is just a label we use to stand in the place of an object or idea.  It does not actually define that object or idea; it is the form and function of an object or idea that defines it.  So what does the form and function of slavery look like?

Well, the first thing we have to do is decide whether or not slavery requires that one person make a claim of ownership against another.  In other words, is it necessary for me to claim you are my property before you can claim to be a slave?  The answer to this question should be no, but I suspect there will be a few people out there who may not be convinced this is true.  For those people who believe slavery demands that one person must actually claim another as property, let me ask you a question.  Suppose the South had freed all slaves, but then passed laws making it legal for their former masters to use the threat of death to force them to remain on the plantations and continue working the fields under the exact same conditions as before.  Under this scenario, the former slaves would now be free in the eyes of the law, but it would also be legal for their former masters to kill them if they tried to exercise their freedom.  Now, are they free or are they still slaves?  The answer is simple: they are still slaves.  But why?

This brings us to the next question we have to answer to fully understand the form and function of slavery.  An indentured servant is not considered to be a slave, but why not?  So long as a person is indentured, they are required to do whatever the person they are bound to tells them to do.  On the surface, this would seem to meet the dictionary definition of slavery.  However, there are several inherent characteristics of indentured servitude that set it apart from slavery.  In other words, the form and function of indentured servitude is different from slavery.  If we can determine how it is different, those differences might help us better understand the form and function of slavery.  So what is different about indentured servitude?

First, and most important, an indentured servant enters into their position willingly.  There service is part of a contract between them and the person for whom they have agreed to work.  Since they are entering into a contract of their own free will, this gives the indentured servant certain legal rights.  There will be limits to how harshly the master can treat the servant because the servant is not property under this agreement.  What the master has actually bought is a right to the servants labor for a set period of time.  After that period of time is finished, the servant is no longer indentured.  They are set free.  In return for their service, they also receive whatever it was they contracted to receive.  This could be passage to the New Country, training in a skill that will then give the freed servant a life-long career or, in the case of some ancient cultures, it could have just been a way of paying off debts. Whatever the case, the indentured servant is not property, retains certain rights and will gain something of tangible value from their service.

None of those things applies to slavery.  This must mean force is a key characteristic of slavery.  But what type of force?  The indentured servant can be forced to do what they are told, yet that is not slavery.  Why?  Because the indentured servant entered into a contract of their own free will, and in doing so, they agreed to give their master a right to their labor for the period of that contract.  If they change their mind at some later point of time, the contract still gives the master certain legal and just claims to their labor.  So this is not an unjust use of force.  The same cannot be said about slavery.  However, we have found two more key characteristics that define slavery: free will and justification.  Now we have to determine how these two things are connected and how they apply to slavery.

Without going in to another entire post, I will just point you to a series of posts I have already written in which I show that the individual has a right to their own will, and that justice is determined in terms of how we treat the free will of other people.  You can find the series starting here.  The point we need to take away from free will and justice — as far as it relates to slavery, anyway — is that the key characteristic of slavery is being forced to do something against your will.  But we need to expand on this because this use of ‘force’ against us is also connected to the notion of ‘injustice.’  If the indentured servant is forced — by the legal system — to fulfill their part of the contract, that is not ‘unjust.’  They agreed to the terms, therefore, the servant has a duty to fulfill them.  So, slavery is not defined by any use of force, but an unjust use of force against our free will.  Here is where we have to consider what we mean by ‘just’ and ‘unjust.’

Once again, I develop this argument in greater detail in the series I previously mentioned.  You can find the post about morality here.  In a nutshell, justice is connected to the notion of morality.  If we were simply dealing with a case of ‘might-makes-right,’ then we could never oppose slavery.  Whoever was strong enough to control another and force them to do their bidding would be ‘in the right.’  But we instinctively feel wronged when we are forced to act against our will.  This sense of injustice when our free will is violated is universal.  Unless you are a sociopath or mentally disabled, we all feel it.  This is also why slavery cannot apply to animals.  To claim that your rights have been violated, you must be aware that it has happened.  Animals are not conscious on this level.  That means they are not moral agents and, therefore, slavery does not and cannot apply to animals.  So far as this planet is concerned, humans are the only known moral agents in existence.  This means that slavery must be defined in terms of the unjust or immoral use of force against the free will of another person.

But is that the end of our definition?  Is it just the immoral use of force against the free will of another?  Well, let’s look at a few examples to see if they may help us further refine our definition.  Is a violent act against another, such as rape or murder, the same things as slavery?  I should hope the answer to this is no.  Therefore, we must be dealing with something more than just forcing someone to do something against their will, but what is it?  Well, there are two things found in the practice of slavery that may help us answer this question.  First, slavery is generally connected to the material gain of the person who is using force.  Second, the practice seems to extend over a sustained period of time.  Taken together, these two characteristics would exclude acts such as rape and muggings or robbery without excluding any of the actions that most of us recognize as slavery.  Thus, we have the following definition of slavery:

The sustained practice of forcing another person to work — against their will — for the material gain of another.

This leaves us with just one other potential characteristic of slavery we need to address.  In out culture, many have come to connect slavery to racism, but is racism a required characteristic of slavery?  We can answer this question rather quickly.  First, if slavery must include racism, then the South could not be called a slave system.  First, the institution of slavery began in the Colonies when a black man sued for ownership of another black man and won, thus making the second black man the legal property of the first.  Second, there were many black slave owners in the Confederate South.*  Finally, many of the blacks who were sold into slavery were sold by other blacks.  So there cannot be any connection between slavery and racism — unless, of course, we are prepared to say there was no slavery in the Confederacy.

CONCLUSION: slavery is the sustained practice of forcing another person to work — against their will — for the material gain of another.

In my next post, I will explain just how far-reaching this definition actually is.  It is in my next post on this subject that you may be surprised to learn you have been supporting slavery in many, many different forms.

*NOTE: You will find many articles claiming that the stories about black slave owners in the South are ‘myths.’  The fact is, history simply does not agree with these claims.  There are historic documents that clearly show free blacks owned other blacks as slaves.  This could only happen in slave States, which were all in the South (i.e. Confederacy).  Historic documents are irrefutable, especially when placed against contemporary editorials.  Sadly, this means the articles you will find claiming to have ‘debunked’ the ‘myths’ of black slave owners amount to little more than Left-wing propaganda.  But please, don’t take my word for it, research it for yourself.  Just take care to find and consult actual documents and records from the period in question: read the real thing, not what some ‘history professor’ tells you they say.

The ‘Supreme Court’ has refused to hear another 2nd Amendment case.  In reality, what they are doing is destroying the 2nd Amendment.  They think they can keep their hands clean by allowing lower courts to destroy it and then just refusing to hear any appeals based on those lower rulings.  In their perverted minds, this allows them to say they didn’t destroy the 2nd Amendment, but they have.  Not to act is to act.  But they have done something much worse; something their depraved narcissism prevents them from seeing.  They have destroyed the Supreme Court in the process.  The Supreme Court has one and only one purpose: to defend the Constitution,  Once the Justices refuse to do so, they have nullified their entire purpose for being.  But I want to make my case very clear, so let’s illustrate my argument by applying the Court’s tactic to cell phones and see if you still think I am being too extreme in my condemnation of the Supreme Court.

First, here is the story:

OUR GUN-SHY JUSTICES

This latest refusal deals with a law that says gun owners must keep their weapons disassembled or in some way that prevents them from being used while in their homes.  OK, now let’s apply this to your cell phone.  What if they had passed a cell phone control law that says you had to de-activate your cell phone service every time you disconnect from a call or the internet?  The argument is the State is protecting you from brain cancer — and especially your kids, who we all know will use your phone without permission when you are not looking.  It also protects your child’s mental development.  Too many video games have been shown to cause development problems so, again, this is to protect your children and other innocent people who may find and use your phone when you lat it down.  So the law is for your protection and the protection of children and innocent bystanders.  After all, we know cell phones are killing thousands every year from brain cancer and video games lead to mental problems and violence.

Now, you think this is an infringement on your rights, so you challenge the law in court.  It gets to the State Supreme Court where the government argues that this law does not infringe on your rights.  Making it so your phone is automatically disabled every time you disconnect from a call or the web and then forcing you log on to your computer and enter your password every time you want to use your phone is just ‘prudent’ protection against cell phone cancer and video game disorders.  There is no infringement on your right to use your phone.  You are still free to own and use it, you just have to take these reasonable precautions.

You still believe that your rights have been infringed, so you appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, but they refuse to hear you.  This leaves the State law in place.  So, it is now official: the cell phone control law stands and your rights are still intact because you can still own your phone.  Please do not worry, the State will never pass a law telling you how many minutes you can use on your phone every day.  After all, there is no connection between the amount of use and the risk of brain cancer or video game disorders.  So this si the last time you will have to worry about restrictions on your cell phone.  Also, we will never let the State come after your battery, or limit how long it can last.  it isn’t like your battery harms the environment and should be switched to some sort of green solar power unit or anything like that.  This is just an innocent law to protect children and innocent people from video game disorder.  If you do not like it, you must hate children and video game addicts — you racist hater!

So, do you see why there is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court refusing to hear your case against this cell phone control law yet?  Oh, and if you think this is a false analogy, think again.

 “The right to use a thing comprehends a right to the means necessary to its use, and without which it would be useless.”

–Thomas Jefferson

When a person places a restriction on your right to use or exercise your right, then tries to tell you that they have not infringed on your rights, they are lying!  You may voluntarily agree to restrict the use of your rights, but no one has the authority or power to force such a restriction.  This is very easy to understand — if you are intellectually honest.

If I tell you that you are not a slave, but you must do anything and everything I tell you to do or you will be thrown in jail, will you then accept my claim that you are not a slave?  I have not claimed to own you.  I have not said you would lose your life or free will, so you still have them.  In fact, I can say I have done nothing to restrict your life or will.  You can either do as I say or go to jail, but if you go to jail, that will not be my fault: it will be what you chose to do.  So, either way, I have not restricted your life or free will in any way.  they are still yours to exercise however you wish.

Do you see the flaw in that argument?  Yes, you may not be owned, but your only choices are to do as I say or go to jail.  No matter how loudly I scream otherwise, I have infringed on your free will.  I am the tyrant in this case because I have infringed on your Natural Rights.  Well, the same applies to our cell phone illustration.  A right to own a cell phone implies the right to use it.  If I cannot use it, then how can I be said to have a right to own it when its function is part of its essence?  You see, it is the exact same: I am claiming that you still own the phone, but you cannot use it unless I say so, and then, you can only use it the way I tell you to use it.  If you do not obey, I take the phone away.  I am not telling you that you do not have a right to own the phone, or even to use it how and when you want.  I am just saying that if you do not use the phone the way I tell you, it will be confiscated.  If that happens, it will be your fault because you chose not to obey me.  Do you see the lie?

Well, the same thing applies to guns and gun control.  The 2nd Amendment is directly connected to your Natural Right of self-defense.  When I infringe on your right to own a weapon and to keep it on your person — even in public — I am telling you that you have a right to self-defense, but only the defense I tell you to use.  In this case, you are either going to let the crime happen to you and then call the police and hope they do justice, or I will put you in jail (provided you survive).  If you claim this denies your right to self-defense, I will tell you it does not.  You can either defend yourself the way I tell you to, or you can do it however you want, but I will put you in jail for it and that will be your choice.  You decided not to obey me, so you are the one who chose to go to jail — not me.  Now, before you object to this explanation, don’t — because this is exactly what the States and Federal Government have done in this country.  This is the exact situation under which many of us live.  They have perverted the law so that your only option is to submit to being a victim, then hoping the police will do something about it after the fact.  In addition to this, the law has been perverted further still, such that the police have no longer have an obligation to protect your life or your property.  So I ask you: do you still have the right to your own life?

All of this has happened because the Supreme Court has failed to hear cases that would allow them to set things right with the laws in this nation.  Since the government was founded to uphold the law for the protection of life and property, and the Supreme Court’s role is to make sure the laws stay true to this mission, by refusing to hear the cases that would allow them to do their job, the Supreme Court has nullified its authority.  It has abdicated its proper authority and declared itself a clear and present danger to the people of America.  In other words, the Supreme Court is in a state of open warfare against the People of America.

If you are one of those who believes this nation was not founded upon Biblical principles, and if you believe there is no Natural Law, and no price for wantonly ignoring it, then watch this video.  This is history, Natural Law and Scripture wrapped into one prophetic message — and that prophecy has been living out in our Nation’s life for nearly one hundred years:

[NOTE: do not dismiss Rabbi Cahn.  Go to YouTube and look up the Harbinger and Shemitah and watch his videos.  Our Nation’s troubles — especially its economic woes — are all connected to Biblical prophecy.  If you doubt this, listen to him and learn how exactly the prophecies have come true and then decide.]

I have been thinking about our society.  I hear many people claiming to support the founding principles and ideals of this once great nation, but I no longer believe the majority of our citizens understand those principles and ideals.  In fact, I no longer believe the majority of us could even recognize what is and is not a violation of individual liberty.  I wonder, if it was done in the name of keeping the nation safe, or saving the economy, would you:

–-Would you support the government being exempt from the law, or from enforcing the law — even if it is in the name of ‘national security?

–Would you support the State governments prohibiting local government from passing local laws, or the Federal government prohibiting the States from passing State laws until the higher governments approve those laws

–Would  you support the State or Federal governments from refusing to pass laws or enforce those already passed unless and until the People agree to surrender their rights?

–Would  you support government bodies calling public meetings to discuss the Peoples’ business at times and places that make it difficult or impossible for the average citizen to attend?

–Would you support higher governments doing away with or over-riding lower government bodies?

–Would  you support higher governments appointing officials over local elected governments, or exposing the States to outside threats because they refuse to enforce the laws?

–Would  you support the government refusal to authorize immigration that benefits the nation while refusing to restrict illegal immigration?

–Would  you support government actions that restrict or over-ride legitimately appointed judges and judicial operations?

–Would  you support judicial appointments being tied to political loyalties?

–Would  you support the creation of higher officials and bureaucracies which then exercise power over the duly elected government entities below them, or which pass regulations with the force of law without legislative action?

–Would  you support the government keeping a military police force, or standing armies in our towns and cities?

–Would  you support the government making the police and/or military independent of local/State control?

–Would  you support the use of foreign law in making domestic legal decisions?
Would  you support mock trials, or the abuse of the system for the purpose of acquitting politically favored persons and convicting political enemies?

–Would  you support the government dictating what nations Americans can and cannot trade with?

–Would  you support the imposition of fees and other forms of taxation without proper legislation?

–Would you support the use of plea bargaining, or trials without jury?
Would  you support rendition?

–Would  you support the use of ‘case law’ to circumvent and/or get around State and federal constitutions?

–Would  you support higher governments dissolving lower governments, or using federal monies to coerce State and local governments?

–Would  you support higher governments assuming the power to legislate for lower governments?

–Would  you support higher governments claiming they do not have responsibilities to lower governments when those responsibilities are stipulated by State or Federal constitutions?

–Would you support government using the tax system to confiscate the wealth of its citizens?

—  Would you support the federal government allowing foreign troops on U.S. soil, or refusing to defend the borders of the nation against peoples who have openly declared hostility toward the Fifty States?

–Would you support the government actively working to create civil unrest for the purpose of furthering political Party agendas which are contrary to the State and Federal constitutions?

Would it surprise you to know that our State and Federal governments have done all of these things in recent years?  No, they may not manifest directly in the way we would expect, but when we look at the purpose or effects of the things our State and Federal governments have been doing to us, this is exactly what their actions end up being.  Now let me ask you another question: do you recognize these ‘charges’ against government?  Do you know where they came from?  If not, give this link a read — a good read:

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Now I have a more important question for you.  Do you realize that every one of the charges the founders listed against King George were based on violations of Biblical principles?  The next time you think that the Judeo/Christian faith has nothing to do with the founding of this nation or the ability of a society to remain free and self-governing, stop and re-think history.  You’ll find that this is what makes America exceptional: that we were founded upon and governed by the principles of the Bible.  Throw God out of the equation and liberty goes with Him — period!