This was my reply to a general internet comment about a person that preferred to believe in academics over random internet commenters like me, because academics had put the work into studying their field and subject.
Con artists have also put half of their life into being professional or studying the bag of tricks, but that doesn’t necessarily mean trust is automatically conferred due to their expertise in comprehending the system.
I prefer to trust in my own judgement over those of sub average or average social authorities. But that’s a question of hierarchy and cultural shock. Some are brought up to defer judgment to a technocrat elite or nebulous authority of elites, although their proof of eliteness is often untested and due to even greater levels of authority, not proof in and of itself.
In the same fashion that the collective defers ultimate authority and obedience to the “System” and individuals resist outsourcing authority/responsibility to unseen bureaucrats in the “System” or strangers, there are cultures which have preferences on a scale, but they are not purely in one camp or another.
On the note of collectivsm -> slavery, that revolves around the issue of which type of slavery. As I term it, there’s Slavery 1.0, Slavery 2.0, and Slavery 3.0.
A system where the uneducated and those who were economically subsistent and reliant on the powerful, such as women or Irish workers, foreigners that don’t speak your language, or lower class servants in the ancient Roman empire, would allow for Slavery 1.0, as the lower class can move to a higher class merely by having education (Roman and Greek slaves could buy their own freedom due to money from their education) or from having resources. They are still subordinate to the ruling doctrine, such as the Helots under the Spartans, or squires under Knights, or serfs under kings and royalty. Yet the unlanded commoner may become a knight, a lesser noble, due to deeds or special favor.
A caste system that does not allow genetic cross transfer or social mobility, such as the Hindu’s caste system with the Untouchables, Islam’s 750+ AD slave trade in Africa and the ME, or 1830’s American Democrat slave plantations, would qualify under Slavery 2.0
A space faring civilization which uses a meritocratic or not system in which a significant percentage of their resource production is manned by slaves, would be between a 2 and a 3. The slaves now comprise a significant portion of the population and is critical for the proper functioning of it. They are so essential, that it would be hard to equate them to the uneducated and disarmed slaves of the American Democrat plantations of 1830. Like the slave soldiers of the Ottomans, once they begin acquiring a critical cog in the system and also power, they may be called slaves later on, but actually treating them as inferior to everyone else, becomes less feasible.
On another note, the United State’s current mainstream culture can be summed up with these precepts.
1. Obey All Authority over you, no matter the orders given.
2. The selfish outliers will be punished.
The tradition and culture may have been focused on the individual, but it has now become the sub culture, not the mainstream. In this fashion, sub cultures can take over the mainstream and reverse the demographics, much like a game of Go. As for a society of individuals not allowing slavery, that of course depends on their definition of an individual. To the Democrat plantation land owners, an individual or a human was only classified as a male white land owner. Women, foreigners, and blacks were genetically considered different and/or inferior. The blacks were born and bred to work the fields so that the white aristocrats would have leisure and time for philosophy and art, the epitome of civilization. That was their justification under their society, why they fought for it. Well, technically the land owners didn’t fight, they were exempt from military service in the US Civil War 1.
What determines the system of slavery and whether it is used or not, is the hierarchy of the social status quo. If the hierarchy is any kind of top down system, there will always be an under class, an inferior spot at the bottom of the totem pole. Some hierarchies try to make this less intolerant by having their servants commanding those lesser than the servants, so that most people can have a superior and an inferior. Like feudalism, that can become stable over time: if the bottom class isn’t a caste system but can actually move up, so they can acquire subordinates of their own. If, however, a society rejects the top down hierarchy system, and adopts a bottom up hierarchy like the Grey economy of the internet, or the non aggression principle of liberty or something other equivalent, post scarcity Banksian derived/based culture, then there is no need for a superior or inferior in a class or hierarchy system.
Average common humans will still prefer to be in a hierarchy, much as pack animals will fight until an alpha, beta, and every other rank below it are established so that everyone understands the order. But voluntary equality or superiority or inferiority between individuals isn’t really an issue equivalent to a System enforcing that hierarchy.