Introduction
A serf is defined as an agricultural laborer bound to work for their Lord under the feudal system. This typically occurred in the Middle Ages. Serfs could not change occupation, marry, move location, and more without the permission of their Lord. They also were required to donate a major portion of their harvest to their Lord in exchange for protection. Serfs were given very little rights and were treated by the upper classes as less than. In the modern age, government systems like communism and socialism ask people to give up most of their specific rights in exchange for the government to distribute cash equitably and take care of its citizens. Essentially, this creates a new type of serfdom. Is this new system effective?
What defines a Modern-Day Serf?
One of the most important guarantees of freedom is a system of private property. However, in communist and socialist societies there is no such thing. Most planners of these systems of government create power over people by taking away rights for the betterment of the overall population and the success of the system depends on how much power the planner can gather. However, no governing body can create laws that equally favor all parties involved. Instead, the more the state plans for the collective, the more difficult it becomes to plan for yourself as an individual. The will of the authority could begin to shape and guide our lives. The more freedoms given up for the collective, the more they are slowly taken away until our lives are shaped by the government’s will. How much of our lives will we allow the government to have authority over? In summary, our lives can begin to look a lot like serfdom if we give up too many of our rights to the government. Do we want to plan our own lives, or do we want the government to control our lives?
What are Some Benefits and Downfalls of Modern-Day Serfdom?
There are some perceived benefits to giving up specific rights to the government. Some believe that by giving to the government collective property and wealth then income and goods will be distributed more effectively and that things would become fairer. However, the unfortunate reality is that people are inherently selfish, and the people put in charge of these decisions are not necessarily kind and servant-hearted but rather are power hungry and have loose morals. When power is given to the collective, eventually there comes some call for a leader. The person typically taking charge is not usually a charitable, compassionate person because those people typically do not have that large of a role for a long time because they don’t desire it. This type of role attracts people with less than desirable motives for the collective society but rather with expectations of how they can grow their own power. This is extremely problematic for collective societies as it defeats the purpose of giving up your liberties for the benefit of the whole society.
Another perceived benefit is that the economy will improve because there are specific people to focus on its growth and ensure the technologies are tailored to its needs. Some people assume that in giving up your rights to property and your economic choice to the government then they will ensure the economy is growing and the correct choices are made. However, the government is not the most effective choice to do this, and they also do not always make the correct choices. For example, Venezuela chose not to invest in their oil equipment and in training new oil technicians. Therefore, the country can no longer sell its extensive oil collection because the proper precautions were not taken. The best way to build and grow an economy is through competition. Competition occurs through entrepreneurship and people trying to create or alter a product so that consumers will purchase it for profit. In socialist and communist systems of government, there is no reward for making the best product because the government chooses for you. Essentially, there is no motivation to innovate because there is no reason too. However, this ultimately stalls the economy and causes economic decline instead of boosting it.
Conclusion
Serfs in the Middle Ages essentially gave up their freedoms for protection from the Lords. This meant that they needed the Lord’s permission for every part of their lives, there was very little social mobility, and they were not valued well. In the modern era, people are willing to give up their unalienable rights for the allusion of safety, a better distribution economy, and for fairness. The unfortunate reality of this choice is that most of these countries fail for a variety of reasons. Competition, unalienable rights, and the right to plan your own future makes all the difference in quality of life. Giving up risk for extended safety very rarely ever works out. The real question is how much of our lives are we willing to let the government control.
