Is Slavery Inherently Wrong?

General chatting.

Moderator: IHN Forum Moderators

Is Slavery Inherently Wrong?

Postby winter » Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:17 pm

And I'm serious... debate is required on this issue.

Obviously, mistreating slaves is wrong. Nobody deserves to be beaten, raped, malnourished, forced to work 24 hours straight etc just because of their station in life.

But is there anything inherently wrong with one person providing a lifetime's supply of housing, clothing, food, legal protection & personal safety in exchange for another person's lifetime of guaranteed labour?
“Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

-My dear buddy, Pat Robertson
User avatar
winter
Isolated Basement Dweller
Isolated Basement Dweller
 
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:39 am
Location: smyrna

Re: Is Slavery Inherently Wrong?

Postby insanehippie » Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:22 am

winter wrote:And I'm serious... debate is required on this issue.

Obviously, mistreating slaves is wrong. Nobody deserves to be beaten, raped, malnourished, forced to work 24 hours straight etc just because of their station in life.

But is there anything inherently wrong with one person providing a lifetime's supply of housing, clothing, food, legal protection & personal safety in exchange for another person's lifetime of guaranteed labour?


Slavery is wrong. Flat out.

If two people both voluntarily enter a contract where one person works and another pays for the work, that's not slavery, that's called employment.

The difference is that with slavery the slave/worker can't break that contract, all of the power is in the hands of the slave-master. Job contracts aren't like that.

Slaves weren't given legal protection because in order to be a slave in any system, you cannot be judged as a human being you are judged as property. Today human slavery is still going on openly in most of the Islamic world, Africa and someplaces in South East Asia.

Slavery is definately wrong. During the beginning of the American colonies there was a system called "indentured servitude" which was a little bit like slavery for seven years. A servant wanted to come to America for freedom, but he would have to work for seven years at the master's house. But after the seven years he'd be free to go on his duties.

If you want to learn more about any of this just check Wikipedia.

-Jesse
-Jesse
http://www.boldconservative.com - A proud Red State Conservative, and Un-Reconstructed Southerner!
God Bless the Troops.
"Why not the Time Cube?" The only reason is educated stupidity. -TimeCube.com
User avatar
insanehippie
Admin!
Admin!
 
Posts: 4777
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 3:32 am
Location: Commonwealth of Virginia

Postby Ronquistador » Wed Jul 12, 2006 9:10 am

maybe work is just slavery with a better paycheck
"Hooray for me and to hell with you!"
-Mr Nunally... RIP
User avatar
Ronquistador
(Ask InsaneHippie for a custom rank)
(Ask InsaneHippie for a custom rank)
 
Posts: 5073
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 1:00 pm
Location: WE-RVA

Postby winter » Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:15 pm

The problem with slavery isn't so much the particular conditions but the lack of freedom. Even the best cared for slave isn't a human being because human beings are granted choices, and by definition a slave can only do what someone else chooses for him.

In my opinion, slavery is okay as a temporary condition for punishment, but that's it.


But now if you want to twist it a little more, I don't want to go on welfare. ie - will not accept handout of any kind. I have no choice but to work for currency in order to provide housing and food etc. for myself and my family. granted I could try to live out where the busses don't run and grow my own food and build my house, but I still have to buy the land and pay property taxes. At some point I am forced to submit to someone else do their bidding in exchange for money. In modern day most of us are slave to one corporation or another.

Master Card or Visa already owns most Americans.

Sounds a lot like Soviet-style communism, too. Could it be that, unless you're at least somewhat well-to-do, that for all practical purposes it's basically the same shit? I mean, in our economic system the ruling classes have the illusion of hope to dangle before our eyes, and that keeps the working stiffs in order, but otherwise what's the difference?

What is the difference between being a slave and being a poor person with no chance of economic advancement? The slave knows where his next meal is coming from.

Slavery based on race is obviously wrong, history has proven that. But slavery based on other things, such as defeat in warfare, does not strike me as "morally wrong." Not very nice, but not immoral. It beats Abu Garhib.

By the same token, how about conscription? Then you're a slave to the government, doing work that's way more dangerous than the work a "traditional" slave would be doing.

The best example of what would be acceptable slavery comes from Roman times: When the Romans conquered a territory, the conquered citizens were not Roman citizens, and thus had no rights: basically, slaves. The Romans then made them an offer: join the army, and gain Roman citizenship. The most brilliant military idea in history. How do you think the Romans conquered half the world?

This makes me think of that famous psychology experiment where certain groups were split up and one part were designated "slaves" and the other "masters." The experiment was basically that the masters could make the slaves do as they wanted. Anyway, as the experiment drew on, the masters became more abusive and less humane.

The Stanford Prison Experiment discussed in 'Blink' by Malcolm Gladwell.


It was very... Interesting... http://www.prisonexp.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
“Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

-My dear buddy, Pat Robertson
User avatar
winter
Isolated Basement Dweller
Isolated Basement Dweller
 
Posts: 968
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:39 am
Location: smyrna

Postby Ronquistador » Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:37 pm

i think if the "slave" party were to be in total agreance with the situation and NOT be forced into it - then it is fine

SO LONG AS 1: as i initially stated... the slave is willing and of sound mind WITHOUT force compliant and accepting
2: suitable compensation is given for services renderd
"Hooray for me and to hell with you!"
-Mr Nunally... RIP
User avatar
Ronquistador
(Ask InsaneHippie for a custom rank)
(Ask InsaneHippie for a custom rank)
 
Posts: 5073
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 1:00 pm
Location: WE-RVA

not slavery

Postby insanehippie » Fri Jul 21, 2006 9:49 pm

Ronquistador wrote:i think if the "slave" party were to be in total agreance with the situation and NOT be forced into it - then it is fine


If there's consent on both sides it's not slavery, it's a voluntary contract.

With Winter's question this was bound to happen.

-Jesse
http://www.boldconservative.com - A proud Red State Conservative, and Un-Reconstructed Southerner!
God Bless the Troops.
"Why not the Time Cube?" The only reason is educated stupidity. -TimeCube.com
User avatar
insanehippie
Admin!
Admin!
 
Posts: 4777
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 3:32 am
Location: Commonwealth of Virginia

Re: Is Slavery Inherently Wrong?

Postby jodax » Sat Jul 22, 2006 5:50 am

insanehippie wrote:Today human slavery is still going on openly in most of the Islamic world, Africa and someplaces in South East Asia.


-Jesse


And illegally in the US and European Union, where it is more wide spread than most people can believe. Sadly this institution still exists and disproportionately affects women and children. I don't think it will ever go away, until people wake up and realize that other people are not objects.

Slavery is always wrong for the simple fact that the relationship between master and slave is not an equal one. The window of expoitation is wide open and would more likely occur than not. If the slave doesn't what is she or he to do? Join a freaking union? Doubtfull.

Roman slavery was not as nice as people like to think it was portrayed. Remember Sparticus? In roman times basically anyone could have been sold into slavery citizen or not and there was nothing the purchased could do about it once the money changed hands. Of course this was not orginally in the design of Rome, but occurred over time as people's rights were chipped away.
President of Vegetarians for Cannibalism
User avatar
jodax
Deranged Hermit
Deranged Hermit
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 7:49 pm
Location: Prozac Nation

Re: not slavery

Postby PugLuv83 » Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:24 am

insanehippie wrote:
Ronquistador wrote:i think if the "slave" party were to be in total agreance with the situation and NOT be forced into it - then it is fine

If there's consent on both sides it's not slavery, it's a voluntary contract.

With Winter's question this was bound to happen.

-Jesse


Agree with Jesse - that wouldn't be slavery - that would be a form of indentured servitude, right?
Okay all of you geeks - PUG is not just a gaming term... It's also a breed of dog. And a type of handgun, so don't make fun of my dog.
User avatar
PugLuv83
Thought Police
Thought Police
 
Posts: 2331
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 2:57 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Postby Ronquistador » Mon Jul 24, 2006 10:46 am

correct-o-mundo...

bet as seen in general ranting... winter IS a kkk member... he wants "them there niggers and chinks back in them shackles"
"Hooray for me and to hell with you!"
-Mr Nunally... RIP
User avatar
Ronquistador
(Ask InsaneHippie for a custom rank)
(Ask InsaneHippie for a custom rank)
 
Posts: 5073
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 1:00 pm
Location: WE-RVA

Postby Cwew » Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:49 am

I think we're trying to use the word "Slave" here in two different ways. Slavery in the typical sense, and then slavery to one corporation or society, or whatever, which is a more current spin on the word.

"I'm a slave of society" is an example, and somewhat correct in that most poor people depend on society to provide for them, and in a sense they feel trapped where they are without hope of escape. Which is why the term came about I guess, but it's a false sense of hopelessness. Everyone in america, with a desire, and without some sort of mental illness or debilitating condition (and even some of them) can better themselves. Most of the welfare babies don't want to better themselves, they like being taken care of.

As to slaves in the origional sense, it's obviously wrong. If you don't think so, go get captured and become a slave for a while...I think you'll agree after a week and be begging to come home. The most inhumane condition of slavery isn't the beatings, isn't the lack of food, isn't the horrible living conditions...it's the fact that you can't say the next day "ok, that's enough....I'm outa here" Freedom to choose.

So why'd this question need to be asked? Just a random question, or looking for some justification Winter? :wink:
--Christopher

Procrastinate now, don't put it off...
http://www.cwew.net
http://www.myspace.com/cwew
User avatar
Cwew
Isolated Basement Dweller
Isolated Basement Dweller
 
Posts: 588
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Fish Bowl, USA

Next

Return to General Ranting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron