Living In Servitude

Earlier I posted an article about how conservatism doesn't use literature to express its outlook. The New Criterion explores the cultural side of the equation and explores the classical conservative view of "letting life take shape."
“Society is recognized as no longer consisting of free men bargaining freely for their labor or any other commodity in their possession, but of two contrasting statuses, owners and non-owners.” Hilaire Belloc
I'm pulling out a precious view two paragraphs disjointly so I invite you to read the entire article - titled Morals & the Servile Mind - for it may, for those who are predisposed to think along those lines, provide a stimulating point of view. It's cumbersome in parts, and certainly will arouse objections, but a good read nonetheless.

"The crucial mark of independence was the ability to generate the resources needed for life without dependence on governmental subsidy, and it constituted “respectability.”

Exactly why I chose to not take subsidy for my daycare. I want to stand on my own two feet free of government interference. I don't need a linebacker in my way because I'm the QB. Mind you, the whole economic business model can't escape the fact that subsidies play a huge role.
It concludes that unfortunately:

"At the end of a period of civil strife, as Tacitus tells us, Augustus Caesar established peace and security in Rome during the long period in which he ruled, ending in A.D. 14. Augustus carefully preserved the constitutional structures inherited from the republican period. Rome was still, in a sense, at the height of its power. When he died, however, the Romans discovered that a new system had quietly come into being: they had acquired a master. And what they also learned was that almost insensibly, over the long reign of Augustus, they had learned the moral practices needed for a sycophantic submission to such a figure."