The Entitlement Society is the New Slavery

NOTE: A reader on my other blog, The Road to Concord, asked me why I always cite the definitions of the words I use in my posts.  I explained to him that, as a matter of sound reasoning, we should always do this: it serves to make sure everyone following the discussion has a better chance of sharing the same understanding of what is meant by the terms used.  But I also told the reader that – sadly – I have found it is necessary for nothing more than the simple fact that too few Americans actually know what the words they use actually mean.  This got me to thinking that I shouldn’t define fewer words, but more.  In fact, I have decided to dedicate an entire series of posts to this subject as it relates to the issues of our day.  This is the first in this new series.

Under the “BASIC PRECEPTS” tab in the header of this blog, I wrote a post that explains it is not what we call something that defines it, but the form and function of that object; its nature.  This should be self-evident to us, but it isn’t.  If I showed you a picture of a cat and said that it suddenly becomes something else when I call it a gato (Spanish for cat), you would not accept my assertion.  You know it is still a cat.  Likewise, if I show you five pictures of different types of cups, none of them looking anything like the other, and I told you that one was a cup, but the others were actually a hammer, a bat, a ball and a bicycle, you would not accept that, either.  Even though they do not look anything alike, you still know that the five pictures are all cups.  This is because you instinctively understand that it is the form and function, the nature of a thing that defines it: not the word we use to identify or discuss it.  So I wonder why it is so many people cannot see that the ‘entitlements’ they seem to think they ‘deserve’ or have ‘earned’ are actually a modern form of slavery?

The 13th Amendment says:

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Let’s start by looking at the word ‘servitude:’

Full Definition of SERVITUDE

1:  a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one’s course of action or way of life

2:  a right by which something (as a piece of land) owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another

I am going to assume that we all understand that ‘involuntary’ means ‘against your will.’  So, if you happen to be one of ‘the rich’ who are being ‘taxed’ so that those who are ‘less fortunate’ can be given something they did not earn, this is involuntary servitude.  It meets the precise definition on both counts.  That ‘rich’ person is not at liberty to do with their property (i.e. money) what they wish, and that same property is being taken for the enjoyment of another.

In a nation of laws – where the Constitution is understood to be the supreme law of the land – the 13th Amendment is sufficient to declare any and all forms of welfare and public assistance to be unconstitutional.

But let’s not stop there; let’s go all the way to the definition of ‘slave:’

Full Definition of 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

Most people think of a slave as someone who is owned, and that is certainly the primary definition the founders intended when they wrote the 13th Amendment.  However, look at the other definition in the bold letters.  Given that the founders also included ‘involuntary servitude,’ this second definition is actually incorporated into the 13th Amendment as it means nearly the same as ‘involuntary servitude.’  In practical application, there is no difference.

Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that the 13th Amendment – written to end slavery in America – deals with the prohibition of forcing one person to work for the benefit of another.  This is the very essence of the welfare or Entitlement State – otherwise known as socialism — and it is slavery by definition.  Hence, those who defend and promote socialism in any of its many forms, and by any of the many euphemisms by which we call it, are essentially advocating for a modern form of slavery.

Interestingly enough, they are also trying to make a moral argument for doing so – just as many slave owners did to justify their practice when it was still legal in this country.

This is why definitions matter: because, when we understand them, they help us to see the mistakes in our logic and reasoning.



  1. From what I gather, only indentured servants were supposed to be legal “slaves” in order to pay off their debts. Also, from what I have read, it seems that this was the case until a black man petitioned the court to not allow his indentured servant freedom. I can’t recall the fella’s name, but the idea seemed to have caught on…

    1. Indentured servitude used to be the way people paid for their transport and training in a trade. Yes, it was legal, but not involuntary servitude. In the case of an indentured servant, that person willingly entered into the agreement and was receiving something of value in return.

      There were several cases that happened in close proximity to each other similar to the one you sighted. My memory for names is bad, but I think the master in question was named Johnson, or something like that. His servant — from what I remember — left before completing the full term of his service. He sued and the court granted him ownership of his servant for life. BOTH men in this case were black.

      Now, here is the problem: technically, the servant in this case violated his contract with his master. In this sense, the court’s sentence would NOT be prohibited by the 13th Amendment (read it closely). What MIGHT come in to play is the notion of cruel and unusual punishment — especially if the master were not performing his duties in the contract in a humane way.

      Anyway, hope some of this is of use to you, Kells.

    1. Well, even though it may not have been sanctioned in England proper, slave trading was a sanctioned industry under the Crown and we were colonies of the Crown, so it is also likely that England had a large role in bringing slavery to America.

    1. Ah, but England didn’t really end slavery without a war. All they did was make it illegal in England, proper. In the rest of their empire, it remained perfectly legal. So to give them credit for ending slavery would be like giving the founders credit for ending it, too: whereas it ended in New England, but remained legal in the Hastings (i.e. South).

      Do you see what I am saying? They didn’t really end it as much as they removed the unsavory sight from before their eyes (in mother England). Morally, I do not see any difference, but I am sure others will be happy to split the hairs while dancing on the head of the needle 😉

    1. No lives were lost? Kells, do you think England actually ended the slave trade in this world? Or do you think America might have had something to do with that. When you look to the actual history, the only active push to end it was in America. What many fail to realize is that the Constitution actually ended the importation of new slaves. The same basic group of people who wrote and ratified the Constitution also ended the ability of new States to be slave States. And under the Articles of Confederation, the efforts to end slavery were even stronger. All of this led to the Civil war. And once that war was over, the majority of the Western World started to renounce the slaver trade, and the third world followed (except for those areas controlled by Islam).

      Now, not directly, no, but I would argue that the bloodshed you are looking for in England was actually shed by Americans, in the Civil War. Remember, it was a moral movement, and therefore, it had a global reach. History seems to at least support this argument, and it seems to be that this is because there is something to it. But you are free to believe otherwise — especially on this issue. I am well aware the connection is not rock solid and that I am ‘interpreting’ the matter.

        1. Yes, Lincoln should have allowed the South to secede — but he didn’t. But you have brought up yet another point to the same dilema I just mentioned.

          If you look at the Civil War through secular eyes, then you might think that the South was doomed to lose according to numbers or matters of economics. The problem with this is that this reasoning can’t explain why Israel still exists.

          HOWEVER, if one looks at the Civil War from a Biblical world view — especially in light of what America was destined to do for God concerning Israel — then one might notice that the North lost EVERY battle…until Lincoln submitted to God. I have done some preliminary research here and it was about the time that Lincoln got serious with God that the North started to win — and never lost again. It was also about this time that Lincoln abandoned his indifference to slavery and took up the cause of abolition.

          So, again, you chose how you wish to look at this, but one way will leave you with as many if not more questions than before and the other will answer everything smoothly, consistently and coherently.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s