Uh, no. Not unless you'd like to live under that kind of "paternalistic care" yourself and would be willing to give up whatever rights you have in exchange for security.
What we refer to, today, as "slavery," was a complex system, which in America, at least, was managed under Christian concepts, where those in charge assumed clear responsibilities for the welfare of those dependent upon them, whether free family members or those held in service. With emancipation, not only the duties were abolished for the "slaves." They were abolished for the "Masters." And, to this day, nothing as compassionate has ever really been substituted. (And the Welfare State, created by the Federal Bureaucracy, is really a terrible impediment, not a boon, to actual social progress.)
You recognize the similarities, but cover the old order with enough schmaltz to make it seem more benign and palatable than it actually was. What you think of as institutions that produce "actual social progress" are more intrusive, more brutal, and worse than anything we have today. I repeat, if that kind of antebellum paternalism was so good, give up your rights and live under it yourself.
The reason that I keep recommending the Booker T. Washington address, is that it humanizes the interaction. I suspect that there are very, very few, today, who ever went weeping to a cemetery to mourn the passing of the person in charge of a local Welfare Office.
On the broader subject, one can cite Biblical relationships; the celebration of British valor at Agincourt, or whatever illustrates the fact that Mankind has always had to struggle with the fact that everyone does not achieve at the same level, and leadership to address the resulting "problems" cannot be fairly judged without a better understanding of the "problems," than those trying to prove points are likely to have.
William Flax