Moral priorities: ‘If we free the slaves, who will pick the cotton?’

By David McElroy · April 30, 2012

If you were a slave owner in the United States in the 19th century, you probably owed your wealth and continued income to the continuation of slavery. If someone made the case to you that slavery was morally wrong, your first thought probably would have been, “But if we free the slaves, who will pick the cotton?”

The idea of ending slavery was a scary thing to many people in Europe and North America in the 18th and 19th centuries. Many people owned human beings who had been brought from Africa in chains. Those people worked in their fields and did all sorts of manual labor for them. The idea was deeply ingrained in society and it was accepted by many people as right and moral.

The abolition movement was a challenge to all of that. The abolitionists didn’t try to explain to plantation owners how they could earn a living after the slaves were freed. They couldn’t offer completely pragmatic plans for how society was going to go through the transition from slavery to universal equality of rights among races.

They simply made the case that slavery was a moral abomination. Some of them used gentle persuasion. Some of them preached fiery sermons, but still advocated peaceful change. And some, such as John Brown, tried to spark slave rebellions through violent means.

It’s obvious why slave owners were afraid, because they would be giving up the labor that worked their fields and did all sorts of work to support and enrich them. But many of the slaves were afraid of the end of slavery, too. Slavery was all they had ever known. They didn’t know how to take care of themselves. Some of them — especially those with “good” masters — were content to toil for someone else and not worry about abstract notions such as freedom.

But many people who weren’t either slaves or slave owners were also opposed to the end of slavery, because it meant a huge change in the social and economic structure — and that can be a scary thing. They had no idea how that would work, particularly in places such as the American South, where slavery was such a foundational part of the economy. Because those people couldn’t see how a free society would work — and because slavery was the system they knew and were comfortable with — many of them opposed a change.

When I talk today about the immorality of the current political system — a system that demands obedience to a coercive state — I hear the same concerns and fears that the abolitionists heard. I hear from some people who are so invested in the current system that they honestly can’t conceive of how a voluntary system would work. I hear from others who are afraid things would be far worse in a free society. (Some of those actually think I’m a utopian and have too much trust in human beings.)

But I mostly just hear from people who don’t see how society could possibly work without coercion. I see them as the modern-day version of those 200 years ago who were asking, “If we free the slaves, who will pick the cotton?”

There are plenty of people who have written extensively about how voluntaryism can work. If you’re interested in all the pragmatic ideas about how things might be set up, there are plenty of people thinking about that and writing about that. But that’s not the case I’m making. I’m only making the case that compelling people to obey you against their will — making up rules to force them to obey and stealing their money — is immoral. It’s a form of slavery. It’s just as immoral as the African slave trade ever was. One day, I believe it will be seen in the same way.

I’m not a utopian. I don’t believe in the inherent goodness of human beings. I believe that humans are essentially depraved creatures who are going to do whatever they can get away with doing to each other. It’s the advocates of democracy who are the utopians. They’re putting their faith in a system doomed to fail — and they’re putting their trust in human beings not to do to each other what human beings always eventually do when they’re given power over each other.

I have enough faith in the operation of the market — and the ingenuity of people pursuing their own self-interest — to know that people can voluntarily provide for their own needs without a coercive state getting in the way. But even if I weren’t sure of that, I’d forcefully advocate for the end of the coercive state, not because it’s pragmatic, but because it’s the morally right thing.

Change isn’t going to be easy. The abolition of slavery wasn’t easy. The transition period was rocky (and we’re still paying the price for it in this country more than 150 years later). But change has to come. The sooner we get started on it, the sooner we can get rid of the moral evil of some people controlling other people against their will.

We ended one form of slavery. It’s time to end this form of slavery. It’s time to end the coercive state.

Note: If you’re interested in more about this, see previous related article about “Who will build the roads?” and the first step toward becoming an escaped slave, in addition to a look at the morality of taxation.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts