In a country that claims to be a democracy, the idea is supposed to be that the will of the people is followed by its elected representatives, which suggests that the people actually have a say in how they are governed – that their government may only impose such laws as the majority agree on. In fact, this is a delusion. Governments have become our Masters, and we have become their Slaves… and caged pigs… and the relationship of Master and Slave exists almost everywhere on the planet, to one degree or another.


The Slavery Contract

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”  –  Benjamin Franklin

It’s no secret that governments tend to be fond of passing laws that obligate their citizenries to the government. In fact, most countries operate a system of direct taxation, which, in itself, allows a government to enact a host of laws obligating the individual to the government, complete with significant penalties for failure to comply.

And, of course, governments, when deciding what sort of general behaviour should be tolerated by its citizenry, tend to legislate less for recompense to those whom a citizen may have wronged and more for recompense to the government itself, even if it has not been wronged in the slightest.

Generally speaking, the larger the country, and the older the country, the more extensive the laws.

Of course, in a country that claims to be a democracy, the idea is supposed to be that the will of the people is followed by its elected representatives, which suggests that the people actually have a say in how they are governed – that their government may only impose such laws as the majority agree on.

Well, there’s nothing unusual in that concept. In fact, all contract law is based on the principle that a contract is created that two or more parties agree to. And, with the passage of further laws, the contract would be updated.

However, if I were to ask you to show me a copy of your current contract with your government, I’m guessing that not only could you not produce one, but that it never occurred to you that you should expect one.

That being the case, the only way that we could cobble together a contract would be to list a set of general principles under which you are presently governed. We can use US Law as an example, but much the same laws are common in many other countries.

For the sake of convenience, we shall use the terms “Servant” and “Master” to describe you and your government.

  1. The Servant may not leave the Master’s property without permission.

In order to travel outside the US, you are required to present your government-issued, identifying document for approval for you to leave, even briefly. The decision as to whether you may leave is unilaterally for your government to decide.

  1. The Servant may not receive income of any kind without disclosure to the Master. 

All income that you receive, whether it be through wages or the sale of goods or services, must be reported to your government.

  1. The Servant shall pay a large percentage of all income to the Master. 

The amount taken from you will be determined unilaterally by your Master.

  1. The Servant may not own anything that the Master disapproves of. 

The Master shall have the authority to declare any commodity or good unlawful.

  1. The Master shall have the authority to fine or imprison the Servant. 

If the Master determines that the Servant has violated any of rules #2-4, he shall be entitled to fine the Servant or lock him in a cage for a period of time to be determined by the Master.

  1. The Master shall have the authority to monitor the Servant at all times. 

The Servant’s activities shall be monitored by the Master, through telephone, texts, emails, social media, and other forms of communication.

Of course, these are just the basics, but you get the idea. When looked at in these terms, it becomes difficult to maintain the self-deception that “I live in a democracy. My government exists to serve me, not the other way round.”

Interestingly, in most countries, a contract such as the above does exist under the guise of “Law.” And yet, this is not a contract that the Servant agreed to. It existed before he was born, and he was obligated to adhere to it merely by being born in a given jurisdiction.

Moreover, the Master has the right to change the contract, to the detriment of the Servant, at will and may do so unilaterally. The larger the country, the greater the degree to which the Servant is unable to take part in the discussion as to whether a proposed change in Law has his approval.

Not surprising, then, that the larger the country, the more numerous the laws are likely to be and the more imposing they are likely to be on the Servant.

Still, the relationship of Master and Slave exists most everywhere on the planet, to one degree or another.

And it’s understandable if the reader concludes, “Yeah, well, it’s the same no matter where you go. Whattaya gonna do about it?”

And yet, that’s not exactly true. It’s not the same everywhere.

There are countries, for example, that have no direct taxation of any kind. The individual, therefore, is not required to disclose his income to his government.

Similarly, in countries where there’s no tax on property, the government doesn’t have the power to confiscate property for failure to pay a tax.

Also, there are borders between some countries that are “porous.” Nationality documents are, in some cases, merely waved at border agents and, in some cases, dispensed with entirely.

Most governments declare some items to be illegal, but the First World appears to have a lock on regulating or outlawing virtually every commodity.

And, of course, the monitoring of the populace is quite unequal. The more sophisticated the technology in a country, the greater the surveillance. This does not mean that you have to live in a hut in the jungle to escape surveillance; it means that many countries simply cannot afford to fund or choose not to fund maximum surveillance.

The bad news is that, in any country, we’re enslaved by our government to one degree or another. The good news is that we can, at least at the present, vote with our feet and choose to reside in a location where we have greater autonomy – in some locations, far greater autonomy.


Most of us would like to assume that we’re smarter than pigs, but are we? Let’s have a look.

Pigs are pretty intelligent mammals, and forest-dwelling wild pigs are known to be especially wily.

However, there’s a traditional method for trapping them.

First, find a small clearing in the forest and put some corn on the ground.

After you leave, the pigs will find it. They’ll also return the next day to see if there’s more.

Replace the corn every day. Once they’ve become dependent on the free food, erect a section of fence down one side of the clearing. When they get used to the fence, they’ll begin to eat the corn again. Then you erect another side of the fence.

Continue until you have all four sides of the fence up, with a gate in the final side.

Then, when the pigs enter the pen to feed, you close the gate.

At first, the pigs will run around, trying to escape. But if you toss in more corn, they’ll eventually calm down and go back to eating.

You can then smile at the herd of pigs you’ve caught and say to yourself that this is why humans are smarter than pigs.

But unfortunately, that’s not always so.

In fact, the description above is the essence of trapping humans into collectivism.

Collectivism begins when a government starts offering free stuff to the population. At first, it’s something simple like free education or food stamps for the poor.

But soon, political leaders talk increasingly of “entitlements” – a wonderful concept that by its very name suggests that this is something that’s owed to you, and if other politicians don’t support the idea, then they’re denying you your rights.

Once the idea of free stuff has become the norm and, more importantly, when the populace has come to depend upon it as a significant part of their “diet,” more free stuff is offered.

It matters little whether the new entitlements are welfare, healthcare, free college, or a guaranteed basic wage. What’s important is that the herd come to rely on the entitlements.

Then, it’s time to erect the fence.

Naturally, in order to expand the volume of free stuff, greater taxation will be required. And of course, some rights will have to be sacrificed.

And just like the pigs, all that’s really necessary to get humans to comply is to make the increase in fencing gradual. People focus more on the corn than the fence.

Once they’re substantially dependent, it’s time to shut the gate.

What this looks like in collectivism is that new restrictions come into play that restrict freedoms.

You may be told that you cannot expatriate without paying a large penalty. You may be told that your bank deposit may be confiscated in an emergency situation. You may even be told that the government has the right to deny you the freedom to congregate, or even to go to work, for whatever trumped-up reason.

And of course, that’s the point at which the pigs run around, hoping to escape the new restrictions. But more entitlements are offered, and in the end, the entitlements are accepted as being more valuable than the freedom of self-determination.

Even at this point, most people will remain compliant. But there’s a final stage: The corn ration is “temporarily” cut due to fiscal problems. Then it’s cut again… and again.

The freedoms are gone for good and the entitlements are then slowly removed. This is how it’s possible to begin with a very prosperous country, such as Argentina, Venezuela or the US, and convert it into an impoverished collectivist state. It’s a gradual process and the pattern plays out the same way time and again. It succeeds because human nature remains the same.

Collectivism eventually degrades into uniform poverty for 95% of the population, with a small elite who live like kings.

After World War II, the Western world was flying high. There was tremendous prosperity and opportunity for everyone. The system was not totally free market, but enough so that anyone who wished to work hard and take responsibility for himself had the opportunity to prosper.

But very early – in the 1960s – The Great Society became the byword for government-provided largesse for all those who were in need – free stuff for those who were disadvantaged in one way or another.

Most Americans, who were then flush with prosperity, were only too happy to share with those who were less fortunate. Unfortunately, they got suckered into the idea that, rather than give voluntarily on an individual basis, they’d entrust their government to become the distributor of largesse, and to pay for it through taxation. Big mistake.

From that point on, all that was necessary was to keep redefining who was disadvantaged and to then provide more free stuff.

Few people were aware that the first sections of fence were being erected.

But today, it may be easier to understand that the fence has been completed and the gate is closing. It may still be possible to make a hasty exit, but we shall find very few people dashing for the gate. After all, to expatriate to another country would mean leaving all that free stuff – all that security.

At this point, the idea of foraging in the forest looks doubtful. Those who have forgotten how to rely on themselves will understandably fear making an exit. They’ll not only have to change their dependency habits; they’ll have to think for themselves in future.

But make no mistake about it – what we’re witnessing today in what was formerly the Free World is a transition into collectivism. It will be a combination of corporatism and socialism, with the remnants of capitalism. The overall will be collectivism.

The gate is closing, and as stated above, some members of the herd will cause a fuss as they watch the gate closing. There will be some confusion and civil unrest, but in the end, the great majority will settle down once again to their corn.

Only a few will have both the insight and temerity necessary to make a dash for the gate as it’s now closing.

This was true in Argentina when the government was still generous with the largesse, and it was true in Venezuela when the entitlements were at their peak. It is now true of the US as the final transition into collectivism begins.

Rather than make the dash for the gate, the great majority will instead look down at their feed and say, “This is still the best country in the world,” and continue eating the corn.