Friday, August 04, 2006
William Lloyd Garrison
I'm reading a biography of the abolitionist Lloyd Garrison which spends some time delving into the issues the abolitionist movement faced when trying to change a political fact of life - government support for slavery. Work within the system? Stand outside and be the gadfly/conscience of the people? The libertarian movement faces these same issues, and I hope to find some insight, or at least comfort that this problem has been faced before and has been overcome.
Anyway, I went looking for some of Garrison's writings and found this short editorial bit, which seems appropriate to my search. Replace 'slaveholding', 'slavery', etc. with 'taxation' to give it a more modern libertarian feel.
Abolition at the Ballot Box (1839-06-28): by William Lloyd Garrison:
Once more, I beg not to be misapprehended. I have always expected, I still expect, to see abolition at the ballot-box, renovating the political action of the country—dispelling the sorcery influences of party—breaking asunder the fetters of political servitude—stirring up the torpid consciences of voters—substituting anti-slavery for pro-slavery representatives in every legislative assembly—modifying and rescinding all laws solely by a change in the moral vision of the people—not by attempting to prove that it is the duty of every abolitionist to be a voter, but that it is the duty of every voter to be an abolitionist. By converting electors to the doctrine that slavery ought to be immediately abolished, a rectified political action is the natural consequence; for where this doctrine is received into the soul, the soul-carrier may be trusted any where, that he will not betray the cause of bleeding humanity. As to the height and depth, the length and breadth of CHRISTIANITY, it is not the province of abolition to decide; but only to settle one point—to wit, that slaveholding is a crime under all circumstances, leaving those who believe in the doctrine to carry out their principles, with all fidelity, in whatever sphere they may be called upon to act, but not authoritatively determining whether they are bound to be members of the church, or voters at the polls. It has never been a difficult matter to induce men to go to the ballot-box; but the grand difficulty ever has been, and still is, to persuade them to carry a good conscience thither, and act as free moral agents, not as tools of party. ¶ 3:14 AM
Anyway, I went looking for some of Garrison's writings and found this short editorial bit, which seems appropriate to my search. Replace 'slaveholding', 'slavery', etc. with 'taxation' to give it a more modern libertarian feel.
Abolition at the Ballot Box (1839-06-28): by William Lloyd Garrison:
Once more, I beg not to be misapprehended. I have always expected, I still expect, to see abolition at the ballot-box, renovating the political action of the country—dispelling the sorcery influences of party—breaking asunder the fetters of political servitude—stirring up the torpid consciences of voters—substituting anti-slavery for pro-slavery representatives in every legislative assembly—modifying and rescinding all laws solely by a change in the moral vision of the people—not by attempting to prove that it is the duty of every abolitionist to be a voter, but that it is the duty of every voter to be an abolitionist. By converting electors to the doctrine that slavery ought to be immediately abolished, a rectified political action is the natural consequence; for where this doctrine is received into the soul, the soul-carrier may be trusted any where, that he will not betray the cause of bleeding humanity. As to the height and depth, the length and breadth of CHRISTIANITY, it is not the province of abolition to decide; but only to settle one point—to wit, that slaveholding is a crime under all circumstances, leaving those who believe in the doctrine to carry out their principles, with all fidelity, in whatever sphere they may be called upon to act, but not authoritatively determining whether they are bound to be members of the church, or voters at the polls. It has never been a difficult matter to induce men to go to the ballot-box; but the grand difficulty ever has been, and still is, to persuade them to carry a good conscience thither, and act as free moral agents, not as tools of party. ¶ 3:14 AM
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I recieved an email about this I'd like to address. The writer said "Replacing" taxation with African American slavery may be an affrontary to the memory of African American slaves and their descendants.
My reply:
Thanks for your comment.
Consider that many descendents-of-slaves, searching themselves for
more and ever more freedom - not content with a mere ending of chattel
slavery but desiring freedom from those who want to send them to
unjust war and/or make them pay for such wars - may find my
substitution a rally-cry rather than an affront.
I'm not sure I can help what other people find offensive. My goal
certainly isn't to avoid offending people - though neither is it to
*gratuitously* offend them. I offered the replacement as a token of
the depth of my feelings about slavery and taxation - I hope that
anyone reading it can understand that rather than searching for
possible insult offered to people long-dead whose battle I would
*gladly* have fought had I been alive in Garrison's day.
How do you feel about the term 'wage slavery'?
My reply:
Thanks for your comment.
Consider that many descendents-of-slaves, searching themselves for
more and ever more freedom - not content with a mere ending of chattel
slavery but desiring freedom from those who want to send them to
unjust war and/or make them pay for such wars - may find my
substitution a rally-cry rather than an affront.
I'm not sure I can help what other people find offensive. My goal
certainly isn't to avoid offending people - though neither is it to
*gratuitously* offend them. I offered the replacement as a token of
the depth of my feelings about slavery and taxation - I hope that
anyone reading it can understand that rather than searching for
possible insult offered to people long-dead whose battle I would
*gladly* have fought had I been alive in Garrison's day.
How do you feel about the term 'wage slavery'?
The correspondent replied:
In regards to "wage slavery" (an apt description of most of my working life), I don't believe that in modern America it comes even close to the horrors of slavery in early America. While I am an enthusiastic foe of wage slavery, I don't believe it is as bad as plain and straightforward slavery, although wage slavery is more insidious I'll grant you.
My reply:
OK, but don't you think there's some chance that the same people who would be offended by *my* equating slavery with taxation would be just as offended by your equating *a job* with slavery?
In regards to "wage slavery" (an apt description of most of my working life), I don't believe that in modern America it comes even close to the horrors of slavery in early America. While I am an enthusiastic foe of wage slavery, I don't believe it is as bad as plain and straightforward slavery, although wage slavery is more insidious I'll grant you.
My reply:
OK, but don't you think there's some chance that the same people who would be offended by *my* equating slavery with taxation would be just as offended by your equating *a job* with slavery?
The latest excahnge reflects a growing misunderstanding. I believe he thinks I have claimed that 'tax slavery' or taxation is *as bad as* the slavery of the 19th century. But here is the exchange:
Him:
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t liken or compare wage slavery to the violent slavery of early America, other than to say it wasn't as bad.
Me:
Right - and neither did I. The quotation I used was about the changes in attitude Garrison thought neccesarry to abolition, not about how horrific slavery was. I would not presume to suggest that taxation is as horrendous as the open slavery of the 19th century.
But you do use the term 'wage slavery' (you did when speaking to me, at any rate). Your complaint with my post was that I might offend some people by substituting the term 'taxation' for 'slavery', thus comparing the two. But when you say 'wage slavery', aren't you making the same sort of 'substitution'? I say 'tax slavery', and you say 'wage slavery' (I think mine makes more sense, because I go to jail if I refuse to pay taxes, while you simply collect unemployment if you refuse to work, but that's a discussion for another day, perhaps) - but we are both using the same term for a present ill. I think we can both agree that neither wages nor taxes can compare in horror to the chattel slavery of the 19th century, but if you object to the term 'tax slavery', you ought not use the term 'wage slavery' yourself.
I hope that was clear! It's been an interesting conversation.
Post a Comment
Him:
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t liken or compare wage slavery to the violent slavery of early America, other than to say it wasn't as bad.
Me:
Right - and neither did I. The quotation I used was about the changes in attitude Garrison thought neccesarry to abolition, not about how horrific slavery was. I would not presume to suggest that taxation is as horrendous as the open slavery of the 19th century.
But you do use the term 'wage slavery' (you did when speaking to me, at any rate). Your complaint with my post was that I might offend some people by substituting the term 'taxation' for 'slavery', thus comparing the two. But when you say 'wage slavery', aren't you making the same sort of 'substitution'? I say 'tax slavery', and you say 'wage slavery' (I think mine makes more sense, because I go to jail if I refuse to pay taxes, while you simply collect unemployment if you refuse to work, but that's a discussion for another day, perhaps) - but we are both using the same term for a present ill. I think we can both agree that neither wages nor taxes can compare in horror to the chattel slavery of the 19th century, but if you object to the term 'tax slavery', you ought not use the term 'wage slavery' yourself.
I hope that was clear! It's been an interesting conversation.
Links to this post:
<< Home
