Slavery

[Cuddles]

I find that line to be quite obvious. If you can stand up and leave its not slavery. That doesnt mean anything else goes. Bad treatment of labor is still bad, and wrong. But as long as you are free to leave its not slavery. There is still too much real slavery in the world to make that term vacant for the various other forms of bad labor treatment one wishes to condemn.

But that was the whole point of my post. There is often a difference between being theorectically capable of leaving and actually being able to in the real world. Especially in the developing world, but also in the developed world, there are many people who have no choice about their job, their home or how they live their lives. This is not because they are kept as slaves or forced to do anything, it is simply that if they do choose to leave they will have no money and will be unable to support either themselves or their families. This isn't necessarily the fault of bad treatment at work, it is simply that there are no other choices.

And of course, this completely ignores the other point I made about criminals. Unpaid community service and forced labour in prisons are legal, and common practice, in many countries where slavery is supposedly illegal. How is this any different from slavery. It is justified by society as punishment, but the actual practice is identical.

 

[scratchy]

But that was the whole point of my post. There is often a difference between being theorectically capable of leaving and actually being able to in the real world. Especially in the developing world, but also in the developed world, there are many people who have no choice about their job, their home or how they live their lives. This is not because they are kept as slaves or forced to do anything, it is simply that if they do choose to leave they will have no money and will be unable to support either themselves or their families. This isn't necessarily the fault of bad treatment at work, it is simply that there are no other choices.

And of course, this completely ignores the other point I made about criminals. Unpaid community service and forced labour in prisons are legal, and common practice, in many countries where slavery is supposedly illegal. How is this any different from slavery. It is justified by society as punishment, but the actual practice is identical.

Then theres a lot of us living in slavery.

I can see two reasons to expand or obscure the term by using it for more things than what we generally mean:
1. Making slavery more accepted by saying "well, thats practically slavery too, and thats legal, so wy shouldnt i be allowed to own a few slaves? Theyd be better off than those suckers anyway."
2. To condemn other bad practices or circumstanses by saying "Look, this is practically slavery, therefore this is very very bad".

Nr 1 is not what youre reaching for, i guess. But why would we do nr 2? I see no good reason. If something is bad and wrong it should be shown as such on its own merits, i think.

 

[DingoBingo]

Are you saying all slave owners throughout history were or are identically immoral?

Yes.

Would you consider Jefferson less / more / identically immoral to Julius Caesar? How about a plantation owner of the 1850s? No difference at all?

Yes.

Until my lifetime, it was both immoral and illegal for two consenting men to commit buggery in my country. You feel there is no arbitrary element in this? All morals are absolutes? Which do your absolute moral instincts tell you is the correct stance?

Without moral absolutes, then everything is chaos. Unless all humans adopt a personality of extreme stoicism, then injustice is inevitable.

 

[Gurdur]

Surely this debate hinges on the definition of "wrong".
Moral wrongs have a largely arbitrary element.
Economic wrongs are easier to spot. Slavery seriously skews a labour market.

There are huge logical fallacies in your POV.

There is no such thing as an "economic wrong" independent of moral judgment. Economics in intersubjective assessment of facts. Morality is the judgment over facts on an ethical basis.

Economics cannot tell you what is wrong or right. Not at all.

 

[Piscivore]

Without moral absolutes, then everything is chaos.

Hail Eris.

Unless all humans adopt a personality of extreme stoicism, then injustice is inevitable.

That's why I don't get to excited about injustice. I'm not even sure there is an objective thing such as "justice".

 

[Piscivore]

Economics cannot tell you what is wrong or right. Not at all.

In practice, doesn't morality follow economics?

 

[Soapy Sam]

There are huge logical fallacies in your POV.

That would make me pretty average.

There is no such thing as an "economic wrong" independent of moral judgment.

I disagree. We're back to definitions. A economic system which is wrong is one ill adapted to the prevailing reality. Communism, for instance, might work well for creatures evolved from herd herbivores. It is wrong (does not work, leads to financial disaster) for evolved pack scavengers.

Economics in intersubjective assessment of facts. Morality is the judgment over facts on an ethical basis.

Sorry, I don't understand you. So far as I'm aware, facts require no judgement, moral or otherwise. A slave economy affects the value of labour in the market. This is a fact. Slave economies have short term benefit for some. This is a fact. These facts remain valid whatever one's judgement of the morality.

We probably share the same moral view of slave labour. This should not touch the economics. I try not to buy my clothes from places where they pay workers 22c per hour. This does not alter the fact that buying those clothes would save me money.

Economics cannot tell you what is wrong or right. Not at all.

Ah. I see the problem. You think I'm saying moral judgement can be made on economic basis.

Actually, I don't see why not. It must be made on some basis. It might be pure preference, or politics, or what side of the bed you got out of, or a whole bundle of factors. We can agree it's not the only factor. I never said it was. I said it had an arbitrary element.
Maybe it's a subject for a separate thread?

 

[David Swidler]

I'd like to echo Pisci's baby-with-bathwater sentiment. I think there's room for a type of "slavery" (for lack of a better term) that might be beneficial under certain circumstances.

Let's take the following case: Person A steals from person B. The value of the theft exceeds that which Person A can pay back, and given his miserable financial/employment situation, he won't come close to paying the debt in any reasonable amount of time (say decades).

So the courts sell A into servitude to Person C for a set amount of time. The proceeds go to B. All sorts of legal restrictions prevent C from mistreating A, and he must provide adequate food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Violations would set A free. At the end of the term, C must also provide a small grant to A to help him get back on his feet. C gets prepurchased (bargain?) labor for all that time, B gets back at least some of the money he would otherwise not recoup, A works off his debt and gets back on his feet, hopefully having gained some responsibility and maturity in the interim.

Two points for whoever recognizes an ancient version of this model.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

I'd to make a rather important point here, which seems to be lost on many.

Slavery is NOT simply compulsatory work or servitude. There are examples of where one might be made to work without pay or without choice that would be justified and fall far short of slavery: Being made to work in order to pay off a debt; being made to work in order to serve a condition of a criminal sentence (IE: How many people have "community service" as part of a conviction? It's not uncommon, but one doesn't generally consider it slavery). or being drafted for service in the military...

The difference is that slavery is not about working, it's about everything. You are not your own person but the property of another. You cannot appeal things, make your own decisions, own property of your own or anything against what your master wants.

It makes you less than a human as we generally consider them in society, but simply a piece of property. You may as well be a robot, or for that matter a chair or a gold coin.

The owner can make you work, choose what to feed you or not to, whip you, rape you, take away your children, sell you, force you to have sex with someone and produce offspring, for the purposes of "breeding." They can even torture or kill you. There is nothing you can do about it. Nothing you can say. It is their right. You have none.

There have been laws, in areas with slavery, giving some restrictions. In the US, states passed laws saying that one could not kill a slave without "good reason." Or that if you want to savagely beat a slave, it can only be done for punishment and not for entertainment. Or that two slaves cannot be made to fought each other.

Such laws offer slaves less protection than many animals. And aside from those, the slave simply has no rights or protections of any kind.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Ah, a great many thanks, Amapola! That clears up another question I had too. Very kind of you to give me the info.



Um, yes, well. DrBuzz0. Um. Well, I hate to be harsh, but I have zero remit to defend any such stance. I prefer a bit more logic; murder, as I pointed out, is still not universally accepted as a no-no, so why should slavery?

You will always have people in favour of either murder or slavery; that, as far as I am concerned, is meaningless. Nor does it make murder or slavery OK.

Besides which, I like free will, and people deciding for themselves. So people actually behaving individually on ethical matters is something I approve of. It's a small price to pay if they decide the wrong way; the main thing is, we all still have that individual power of decision.

Oh I don't say that I want people who believe in slavery to be prosecuted. Certainly not for their views alone. If they owned slaves, then I'd like to see them prosecuted.

But, if there are some who are in favor of slavery, nazism, genocide, stalinism, wholesale murder of people just for fun, violence against dogs... They are free to have those views.


But, I'm going to still give them a dirty look; I'm not going to invite them to any BBQ I should have; If I see them stuck in a parking lot, I'm not going to offer them my jumper cables; I'm not going to tell them if they have toilet paper sticking to the bottom of their shoe or of their Klan robe; if the opportunity to say what I think of them comes up, I very well might say something...

I'd tend to hope that most of the people in my community would feel similar. Maybe not, but it all works out in the end by a preponderance of views and actions. Generally, someone with a view as extreme as "I'm all about slavery" would probably (I hope) be generally disliked in the area I live in.

And they might even get the message "You know, I don't really feel comfortable around here. I mean, nobody has threatened me, but it seems like the folks here don't take too kindly to my pro-slavery stance. Perhaps I should think about leaving... or even rethinking my pro-slavery thing"


I do not see how this is being the "though police" or appointing any one person the one in charge of things.

I make my own personal choice when something is so very wrong, extreme and intolerable that I will hold it against the person. Others should do the same. By preponderance of those who do so, those who are not liked by those around them will get the message, although no one person is the one who "takes charge"

It's a sort of implicit democracy.


And no: I wouldn't hold one's views against them in general. But for stuff like slavery, yes I would. And don't ask me "Where do I draw the line." I do whereever I want to. You should do the same.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

With the MASSIVE transfer of wealth going on in this country, we are well on our way. And modern technology will probably make revolution impossible when it does happen.

And since most people believe whatever they see on TV, our new corporate masters will convince most of us that we like it.

Great. Now I'm depressed.

Ok... um... have you considered that rather than getting depressed you could put up a website? Or maybe write to a senator or congressman about what policies you think encourage this? Or maybe write an editorial and submit it to a paper?

Or write to a TV station or radio station and tell them you are dissatisfied enough with their content to not watch? Or write to the advertisers?

Maybe you could volunteer? Or, rather than formal charity work, you could just try to do things with those you know or see around you to the end you'd like to see? Or maybe you could try to encourage action in your area?


I don't want to hear that you are frustrated about how you are nothing compared to the forces that be. Or how you are tired of fighting a loosing battle. Or how what you do is entirely insignificant. I have heard that from enough people to make an army. No single raindrop thinks it is responsible for the flood.

This is something I have a big problem with... It irritates me undendingly

 

[Piscivore]

The difference is that slavery is not about working, it's about everything. You are not your own person but the property of another. You cannot appeal things, make your own decisions, own property of your own or anything against what your master wants.

I fail to see a distinction here between a slave and a maximum-security prisoner, especially one who has exhausted his legal options in the court system.

The owner can make you work, choose what to feed you or not to, whip you, rape you, take away your children, sell you, force you to have sex with someone and produce offspring, for the purposes of "breeding." They can even torture or kill you. There is nothing you can do about it. Nothing you can say. It is their right. You have none.

Is this all inclusive to your definition of slavery? In other words, do any restrictions to these "owner's rights" make the condition other than slavery?

There have been laws, in areas with slavery, giving some restrictions. In the US, states passed laws saying that one could not kill a slave without "good reason." Or that if you want to savagely beat a slave, it can only be done for punishment and not for entertainment. Or that two slaves cannot be made to fought each other.

It would seem that this paragraph says that the circumstances described in the paragraph that preceeds it are not a necessary part of your definition of what constitutes slavery. Any social interaction between two people can and will be abuse, especially one so patently unbalanced, but such potential for abuse does not by default render the interaction invalid. Many of the abuses in your parade of horrors have been visited upon people who would not usually be considered "slaves", such as employees and especially family members. Does this render these associations "evil"?

Such laws offer slaves less protection than many animals. And aside from those, the slave simply has no rights or protections of any kind.

This is emotional rhetoric. We can just as well say that aside from those enumerated in state and federal law, a citizen " simply has no rights or protections of any kind". Technically correct, but meaningless.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

I fail to see a distinction here between a slave and a maximum-security prisoner, especially one who has exhausted his legal options in the court system.

Yes, you loose most all your rights when you have committed a crime and are imprisoned. You don't loose them because of the color of your skin, though. However, this is considered such a horrible thing, that measures are taken to ensure this does not happen to someone who is not guilty.

Sometimes, however, it does. When the justice system fails and someone is sent to prison for a crime they did not commit, and it comes to light that this has happened: There is often great public outcry. States and governments have reexamined their policies to find where they went wrong. The careers of DA's car be ruined and lawsuits are filed.

Even prisoners have rights though: They are entitled to write letters to family; to have food which provides all necessary nutrition; to not be punished in any that is "cruel and unusual." To petition the court or be informed of new evidence. The rights are few and the enforcement varies, but they are understood to have rights.

But people are sent to prison for being guilty of a crime, not for their social class or the color of their skin. At least not directly, explicitly - even though it seems that way at times. At least, in theory, all are supposed to be treated equally.

Is this all inclusive to your definition of slavery? In other words, do any restrictions to these "owner's rights" make the condition other than slavery?

If you own somebody, it's slavery. If you can say or do anything with their life, it's slavery. Minimal restrictions not withstanding. If you have to ask "What rights do I have over those I own." Then you're already a slaveholder.

It would seem that this paragraph says that the circumstances described in the paragraph that preceeds it are not a necessary part of your definition of what constitutes slavery. Any social interaction between two people can and will be abuse, especially one so patently unbalanced, but such potential for abuse does not by default render the interaction invalid.

The difference is that being "possessive" does not mean owning someone. They can still walk away and say no when you tell them what to do. If they can't, then that is unlawful imprisonment. And the person holding them ought to be prosecuted.

Many of the abuses in your parade of horrors have been visited upon people who would not usually be considered "slaves", such as employees and especially family members. Does this render these associations "evil"?

If you are a worker who is mistreated, told what to do, and held against your will. And you can't even quit your job: Yeah that's pretty much slavery. If it's not "technically slavery" that it really doesn't matter. It should not be tolerated.

And as for "family members"... If a family member holds you against your will or something similar, then yes: That is wrong and they should be prosecuted.

Of course, if you're a minor, then your parents do have a lot of say in what you can do with your life and your rights are minimal. This is obviously because if you are very young you are reasonably expected not to be equipped to make all decisions for yourself. In the US the age 18 is where the line is drawn in terms of being considered fully adult.

That's not to say you are a slave before this though. You certainly have rights, you can petition for emancipation if you want to. Your parents can tell you a few things, but they can't abuse you or confine you. And they certainly do not owe you.

Yes, it's an imperfect system and sometimes it comes down to a judgment call. This is why the people who make such decisions in a legal system are called "Judges"

This is emotional rhetoric. We can just as well say that aside from those enumerated in state and federal law, a citizen " simply has no rights or protections of any kind". Technically correct, but meaningless.

The laws "protecting" slaves were extremely minimal. They were minimal and unenforced. "The owner cannot kill you without good reason." Oh great. That sounds like good protection, especially when the non-slaves in the society would be protected from any personal threat.

Emotional rhetoric? Yes, the idea that people were once, in my own country, forced to work in the fields endlessly beaten, dehumanized and put their lives at risk when they tried to escape to me is: Revolting, embarrassing, upsetting, angering, nearly unbelievable, endlessly depressing.

I take it that this is bad from your perspective? I'm sorry and next time I'll try not to get angry when some atrocity happens.

 

[Piscivore]

Yes, you lose most all your rights when you have committed a crime and are imprisoned. You don't lose them because of the color of your skin, though. However, this is considered such a horrible thing, that measures are taken to ensure this does not happen to someone who is not guilty.

But people are sent to prison for being guilty of a crime, not for their social class or the color of their skin. At least not directly, explicitly - even though it seems that way at times. At least, in theory, all are supposed to be treated equally.

So it is not the imprisonment, the loss of rights, the compulsory labour, the degradation per se that is the issue, but the method of selecting to whom it will be applied?

Even prisoners have rights though: They are entitled to write letters to family; to have food which provides all necessary nutrition; to not be punished in any that is "cruel and unusual." To petition the court or be informed of new evidence. The rights are few and the enforcement varies, but they are understood to have rights.

Ignoring for the moment that these examples of "rights" that the prisoner has and the slave did not are not that good (as TM pointed out, one is almost compelled to feed the slave well, or he cannot work; not all prisoners are allowed outside communication; "cruel and unusual" are subjective considerations at best, and you already granted that some such protections were historically in place for slaves; there are limits to court appeals and potential "new evidence"), would an improved and clearly explicated set of such "rights" mitigate the ownership of another human being?

If you own somebody, it's slavery. If you can say or do anything with their life, it's slavery. Minimal restrictions not withstanding. If you have to ask "What rights do I have over those I own." Then you're already a slaveholder.

This reduces it to just a question of semantics, then. Many an employer has felt those they pay to be "assets"- I've worked for some.

The difference is that being "possessive" does not mean owning someone. They can still walk away and say no when you tell them what to do.

Not, as has been pointed out, if they cannot economically afford to.

If they can't, then that is unlawful imprisonment. And the person holding them ought to be prosecuted.

Someone can have an economic, contractual, or emotional hold on someone without physically restraining them. Does this count?

If you are a worker who is mistreated, told what to do, and held against your will. And you can't even quit your job: Yeah that's pretty much slavery. If it's not "technically slavery" that it really doesn't matter. It should not be tolerated.

Easy words to say, but one cannot snap one's fingers and cure the effects of a depressed economy or a nation poor in resources just because these effects are "unjust".

And as for "family members"... If a family member holds you against your will or something similar, then yes: That is wrong and they should be prosecuted.

By whom, and under what authority?

The laws "protecting" slaves were extremely minimal. They were minimal and unenforced. "The owner cannot kill you without good reason." Oh great. That sounds like good protection, especially when the non-slaves in the society would be protected from any personal threat.

I'm not speaking exclusively about the past.

Emotional rhetoric? Yes, the idea that people were once, in my own country, forced to work in the fields endlessly beaten, dehumanized and put their lives at risk when they tried to escape to me is: Revolting, embarrassing, upsetting, angering, nearly unbelievable, endlessly depressing.

I take it that this is bad from your perspective?

I don't like to use words like "bad"- they are too subjective. It is unproductive to let emotion have too much influence when one is trying to discuss an issue rationally.

I'm sorry and next time I'll try not to get angry when some atrocity happens.

That's your business. I find anger a poor position from which to make decisions, however.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

So it is not the imprisonment, the loss of rights, the compulsory labour, the degradation per se that is the issue, but the method of selecting to whom it will be applied?


Ignoring for the moment that these examples of "rights" that the prisoner has and the slave did not are not that good (as TM pointed out, one is almost compelled to feed the slave well, or he cannot work; not all prisoners are allowed outside communication; "cruel and unusual" are subjective considerations at best, and you already granted that some such protections were historically in place for slaves; there are limits to court appeals and potential "new evidence"), would an improved and clearly explicated set of such "rights" mitigate the ownership of another human being?

I see no parallel between punishment for breaking a law imposed by a court within a just legal system and taking someone's freedom on the basis of the color of their skin, their ancestry or their social class.

If it comes down to it I suppose you could say that if a person's appeals are exhausted and no evidence so substantial as to prompt court's to reassess a conviction is discovered then, yes.. in a manner of speaking, the convicted is in a similar position to a slave.

Just the same, I don't see the parallel between this and slavery of non-criminals. That's like arguing that "If you think the death penelty is okay in certain circumstances you are saying the same thing as people can be shot because you don't like the looks of them."

This reduces it to just a question of semantics, then. Many an employer has felt those they pay to be "assets"- I've worked for some.

Interesting. How did you manage to end that? Did you and your fellow employees revolt and kill the employer? Or did you have to fee by right and find those who would help you escape the country?

It must suck having an employer like that. I mean, I had some crappy jobs too, but they still let me go home at night and I was able to quit when I wanted to.

Not, as has been pointed out, if they cannot economically afford to.

Doesn't exactly qualify as slavery. It's unfortionately that some people are in very bad economic situations. But that's natural not imposed, for one thing. Some people are born without arms. That doesn't mean we should cut them off of those who are.

Furthermore, it does not remove all choice from someone or make them property. If a person does not have a good situation and finds that their choices in employment and lifestyle are limited, this still does not make them the property of someone. And it does not mean that it is expressly because of someone else making decisions that they are robbed of choice.

Someone can have an economic, contractual, or emotional hold on someone without physically restraining them. Does this count?

No it doesn't. You can have an economic hold on someone to a point and that is addressed above. If that economic hold, however, is something as restrictive as someone being brought to a country to work and being put in a situation where they cannot find alternate employment due to the circumstances, then that's pretty damn close to slavery. Maybe it doesn't qualify as "slavery" but it's still not something that should be tolerated.

As for emotional restraints. You cannot legislate emotions. If someone feels they cannot leave someone for their own attachment or similar reasons, that is hardly comparable to slavery. Outreach to such people would be about the most that could be done. You can't really get someone for making another person feel they are too attached to leave. Or making someone think they don't want to.

Easy words to say, but one cannot snap one's fingers and cure the effects of a depressed economy or a nation poor in resources just because these effects are "unjust".

I'm not sure what your point is here. Because a law cannot be universally enforced it should not exist? Outlawing slavery does allow one to stop it in their own jurisdiction, at least publicly. And recognizing something wrong is still important, even if an immediate and easy action is not apparent.

By whom, and under what authority?

In my area it would be a state issue, I would think. It would be the business of the local police and/or county sheriff's office andthe state policy as well as the public prosecutor assigned to that region. I suppose there could be federal charges too, especially if it involved crossing state lines.

I'm not speaking exclusively about the past.

There are no laws on the books now that protect slaves' rights, because there are no nations that allow for slavery, as far as I know. There are those which do not enforce such laws and there are some where a wife or worker is just about a slave. But as far as I know, no sovern and established government has condoned slavery in some time: At least not officially and publicly.

Those who do allow slavery within their borders, despite having the resources to stop it. (and I can think of a few). They are doing something that they really should be held accountable for. Unfortionately, international politics and need to maintain regional stability and such sometimes preclude that.

I don't like to use words like "bad"- they are too subjective. It is unproductive to let emotion have too much influence when one is trying to discuss an issue rationally.

Call it what you want then. As far as I am concerned, something like slavery should sound crude, harsh, irrational, emotionally upsetting. It's something that looses a lot when you sanitize it to an academic question of theory.

That's your business. I find anger a poor position from which to make decisions, however.

Perhaps. I don't see much need really to defend my position on slavery. I think that the moral and ethical theory questions are pretty much in the bag. I've never had any doubt. I appreciate the skeptical mindset and the attempts to make fair and objective decisions that are based not on emotions but on logical observances.

But slavery? No, I don't see that as one which really requires a lot of reading of philosophy books and questioning whether or not my cultural perspective might be skewing things. Slavery is not something that I think need to speculate about.


I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying you support slavery? Or what? That I need to provide some universal and simple moral formula with which you can tell? And otherwise slavery cannot be considered wrong? Unless somehow it is proven so, universally and with no chance of cultural basis?


Look, I can't tell you where to draw the line. But I can tell you which side slavery is on. Other issues, not so much. But slavery? That's one where I'm confident enough of it's one-sidedness that I don't feel the need to consider whether someone else's opinion or wonder if I really should go around claiming my side is the only correct one.



So what? Are you just condoning slavery? Or you think it's neutral and we should not pass judgment?

 

[Piscivore]

I see no parallel between punishment for breaking a law imposed by a court within a just legal system and taking someone's freedom on the basis of the color of their skin, their ancestry or their social class.

I think the reason is the word you added- "just". The assumption that any particular legal system can be expected to be always "just" is questionable. It is a goal I don't see anyone has ever achieved, and as long as human are involved I don't see that any every will be. It is a noble goal, one to strive for, and one towards which great strides have been made, but one I can't see we will ever reach.

If it comes down to it I suppose you could say that if a person's appeals are exhausted and no evidence so substantial as to prompt court's to reassess a conviction is discovered then, yes.. in a manner of speaking, the convicted is in a similar position to a slave.

So do you approve of the prisoner's treatment and situation or not?

Just the same, I don't see the parallel between this and slavery of non-criminals.

Because you seem to be assuming all criminals are "immoral". Not all laws are just. Very recently, it was an imprisonable offense to screw a person of the same sex- in some states it still is. Until 1967, marrying someone of a different race was still in some places. Because of this moral ambiguity in the legal system, I struggle to see how you can make such a clear distinction between "criminals" that you say are not slaves and other, similarly imprisoned people that are slaves and not "criminals".

That's like arguing that "If you think the death penelty is okay in certain circumstances you are saying the same thing as people can be shot because you don't like the looks of them."

How about hung?

Interesting. How did you manage to end that?

I was fortunate that at the time I was unencumbered by family or debt. Plenty of my co-workers were not. I left, they could not.

Did you and your fellow employees revolt and kill the employer?

It was discussed. As was framing the manager for sexual harassment.

Or did you have to fee by right and find those who would help you escape the country?

I assume you meant "flee by night"? Yes, in a sense I did. I didn't bother giving notice, I just left.

It must suck having an employer like that. I mean, I had some crappy jobs too, but they still let me go home at night and I was able to quit when I wanted to.

Yes, you were.
"The coal miners in the Southern Field were located up canyons where the coal seams were exposed by erosion. Most of the miners lived in these canyons in company towns, in company houses, bought food and equipment at company stores and alcohol at company saloons. The doctors, priests, schoolteachers, and law enforcement were all company employees. The entries to the camps were gated and guarded by deputized armed guards (Beshoar 1957:2; McGovern and Guttridge 1972:23)."

Doesn't exactly qualify as slavery. It's unfortionately that some people are in very bad economic situations. But that's natural not imposed, for one thing.

You'll have to explain that. "Natural"? Is it "natural" to be forced to work for a coal mining company because it the only game in town so they get to do whatever they want to you? Especially if they paid for you to come there in the first place? Is it "natural" to have to work a crappy minimum wage job for a tyrannical boss because the boy that knocked you up in high school split and left you with a kid and no education?

Some people are born without arms. That doesn't mean we should cut them off of those who are.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, it does not remove all choice from someone or make them property. If a person does not have a good situation and finds that their choices in employment and lifestyle are limited, this still does not make them the property of someone. And it does not mean that it is expressly because of someone else making decisions that they are robbed of choice.

Yes, Buzz, sometimes it does. In fact, if no longer in name.

No it doesn't. You can have an economic hold on someone to a point and that is addressed above. If that economic hold, however, is something as restrictive as someone being brought to a country to work and being put in a situation where they cannot find alternate employment due to the circumstances, then that's pretty damn close to slavery. Maybe it doesn't qualify as "slavery" but it's still not something that should be tolerated.

But here's the other side of that coin- the conditions the miners lived in were directly due to the coal companies being economically forced by tight profit margins and fierce competition, and had they "chosen" not to "tolerate" these injustices the railroads would have ground to a halt and the American economy of the time would have faltered and even more people would have been forced into similar conditions. Very few things are black and white when it comes to human beings.

As for emotional restraints. You cannot legislate emotions.

Are we talking about legalities now? I thought we were discussing "Revolting, embarrassing, upsetting, angering, nearly unbelievable, endlessly depressing... atrocities".

Do you feel restraining, controlling, dominating someone by other than grossly physical means is any more acceptable that actually slapping chains on them, or not?

If someone feels they cannot leave someone for their own attachment or similar reasons, that is hardly comparable to slavery.

Why not?

Outreach to such people would be about the most that could be done. You can't really get someone for making another person feel they are too attached to leave. Or making someone think they don't want to.

So brainwashing is okay?

I'm not sure what your point is here. Because a law cannot be universally enforced it should not exist? Outlawing slavery does allow one to stop it in their own jurisdiction, at least publicly. And recognizing something wrong is still important, even if an immediate and easy action is not apparent.

Again you've slipped from discussing what you said was a question of absolute morality to concerns about laws and enforcement. My point here is that poverty is sometimes endemic in a society for causes outside its control, and that poverty leads to resource disparity, which in turn leads to domination of one social class by another. Whether this leads to actual chattel slavery- which I'm starting to think is the only sort of which you are aware- it does share many of its characteristics.

In my area it would be a state issue, I would think. It would be the business of the local police and/or county sheriff's office and the state policy as well as the public prosecutor assigned to that region. I suppose there could be federal charges too, especially if it involved crossing state lines.

I was not asking a question about jurisdiction, I was trying to highlight that the abuses of slavery you have illustrated as objectionable are not exclusive to it. If it is these abuses you are having the problem with you are in error in objecting to slavery as such, because these abuses are not unique to slavery, nor are they universal within it.

There are no laws on the books now that protect slaves' rights, because there are no nations that allow for slavery, as far as I know.

You may have missed it if you did not read the whole thread, but the question was put forth if possibly some form of slavery- other than chattel, certainly- might have a benefit to society, especially with clearly defined boundaries.

Let's face it, there are lots of people wandering around out there incompetent to handle their own affairs, and our prisons are not the answer.

Call it what you want then. As far as I am concerned, something like slavery should sound crude, harsh, irrational, emotionally upsetting. It's something that loses a lot when you sanitize it to an academic question of theory.

Loses something like, I dunno- this? Religious people say exactly the same about atheism, you know. If you can't discuss a subject without demonising it you may want to find out why that is.

Perhaps. I don't see much need really to defend my position on slavery. I think that the moral and ethical theory questions are pretty much in the bag. I've never had any doubt.

And what is the source of this certainty?

I appreciate the skeptical mindset and the attempts to make fair and objective decisions that are based not on emotions but on logical observances.

Except in the case of "moral and ethical theory questions", of course.

But slavery? No, I don't see that as one which really requires a lot of reading of philosophy books and questioning whether or not my cultural perspective might be skewing things. Slavery is not something that I think need to speculate about.

Why not?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying you support slavery? Or what?

"One of the things running through my mind right now is that "Slavery" is a pretty broad term, and we may be throwing something out with that bathwater we might not want to."

That I need to provide some universal and simple moral formula with which you can tell?

You seem to have one, I'd love to know what it is and where you got it.

And otherwise slavery cannot be considered wrong? Unless somehow it is proven so, universally and with no chance of cultural basis?

Of course not. Those are not the only two possibilities.

Look, I can't tell you where to draw the line. But I can tell you which side slavery is on. Other issues, not so much. But slavery? That's one where I'm confident enough of it's one-sidedness that I don't feel the need to consider whether someone else's opinion or wonder if I really should go around claiming my side is the only correct one.

Obviously. But strenuously and confidently asserting your certainty is not proof it is correct.

So what? Are you just condoning slavery? Or you think it's neutral and we should not pass judgment?

Again, not the only two- or including your unquestioned condemnation, three- possibilities.

 

[Polaris]

I'd like to echo Pisci's baby-with-bathwater sentiment. I think there's room for a type of "slavery" (for lack of a better term) that might be beneficial under certain circumstances.

Let's take the following case: Person A steals from person B. The value of the theft exceeds that which Person A can pay back, and given his miserable financial/employment situation, he won't come close to paying the debt in any reasonable amount of time (say decades).

So the courts sell A into servitude to Person C for a set amount of time. The proceeds go to B. All sorts of legal restrictions prevent C from mistreating A, and he must provide adequate food, shelter, healthcare, etc. Violations would set A free. At the end of the term, C must also provide a small grant to A to help him get back on his feet. C gets prepurchased (bargain?) labor for all that time, B gets back at least some of the money he would otherwise not recoup, A works off his debt and gets back on his feet, hopefully having gained some responsibility and maturity in the interim.

Two points for whoever recognizes an ancient version of this model.

Person A should be required to pay back every red cent of the value he stole from B, not just "at least some", and if C mistreats A, then C should be penalized but A does not get off the hook - he still owes B for stealing property that B worked hard for, something A couldn't be bothered to do. At this point A would go to work for person D or E until the thief pays back B in full. If he dies of natural causes before that happens, too bad, he should have thought of that before he took something that didn't belong to him. Or he could just serve a jail sentence for theft, like happens now.Unless A is a good, reliable worker and C wants to give him a paid job, C doesn't owe A anything, and should not be responsible for him once his debt is paid. I should also add that a reasonable "wage" be "paid" to A (whatever a normal employee of C is paid), at normal income taxation rates, so make it fair. I suppose B, or the judge, should have the final say on this sentence in lieu of simple jail time, as it would make sense that B would waive insurance payments for whatever was stolen if he was to be paid back by A for it anyway, or if the item was returned undamaged. This is turning into another topic so I'll stop.

This is more accurately called 'indentured servitude' than 'slavery' anyway, although traditionally indentured servants chose to be in effect temporary slaves of their own free will (usually because of low wages/caste or class standing). I admit that saying "A chose servitude when he chose to steal from B" is twisting the logic a tad, but I might be injecting a little emotion into my argument, as I've been robbed 4 times this year and nobody was arrested for any of them, so I have zero sympathy for thieves.

 

[David Swidler]

Person A should be required to pay back every red cent of the value he stole from B, not just "at least some", and if C mistreats A, then C should be penalized but A does not get off the hook - he still owes B for stealing property that B worked hard for, something A couldn't be bothered to do. At this point A would go to work for person D or E until the thief pays back B in full. If he dies of natural causes before that happens, too bad, he should have thought of that before he took something that didn't belong to him. Or he could just serve a jail sentence for theft, like happens now.Unless A is a good, reliable worker and C wants to give him a paid job, C doesn't owe A anything, and should not be responsible for him once his debt is paid. I should also add that a reasonable "wage" be "paid" to A (whatever a normal employee of C is paid), at normal income taxation rates, so make it fair. I suppose B, or the judge, should have the final say on this sentence in lieu of simple jail time, as it would make sense that B would waive insurance payments for whatever was stolen if he was to be paid back by A for it anyway, or if the item was returned undamaged. This is turning into another topic so I'll stop.

This is more accurately called 'indentured servitude' than 'slavery' anyway, although traditionally indentured servants chose to be in effect temporary slaves of their own free will (usually because of low wages/caste or class standing). I admit that saying "A chose servitude when he chose to steal from B" is twisting the logic a tad, but I might be injecting a little emotion into my argument, as I've been robbed 4 times this year and nobody was arrested for any of them, so I have zero sympathy for thieves.

Sounds interesting. I agreee with your point about having to pay back every cent - sorry if it seems he'd get off scot free once the servitude ends.

But what we're talking about is actually the Biblical model of the "Hebrew slave," minus a few details that complicate the discussion.

 

[Polaris]

Sounds interesting. I agreee with your point about having to pay back every cent - sorry if it seems he'd get off scot free once the servitude ends.

But what we're talking about is actually the Biblical model of the "Hebrew slave," minus a few details that complicate the discussion.

I had no idea where the example came from - I haven't read the Bible and have no burning desire to.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

To be honest, I find it a bit disturbing that this discussion seems to have gone in the direction of having some seem to express some sort of doubt that one can just say slavery, as an institution which would take away all rights from certain persons without just cause is wrong.

I'm not saying that there are not examples where one could make a case for times where slave-like conditions might be justified. For examples, mandated labor to pay for a duely convicted crime. Such circumstances do, undoubtedly, have different sides one could come in on.

But slavery, as existed in the western hemisphere until the mid-1800's, as existed in the Roman world and as continues to exist in areas where the government turns a blind eye? Do we really need to debate that?

It's just something that concerns me greatly when people seem to have such a problem putting their foot down and saying "No this is wrong. We've been over it enough times. The debate is over. You cannot do that."


I had someone say to me that my view is "What causes war." And indeed it does cause war, but is this to say that it is wrong to have war? Certainly war is never the optimal outcome for solving problems.

But what of the UN and Nato stepping into Bosnia or the UN intervening in Rawanda, simply because they saw something that was wrong. Or aggression by the North Koreans being kept in check by the US, Japan and others, who contribute to the civil defense of the area?

None of these things could happen if there were not some events where one can put the debate aside and say, "No, that's just not something we will allow to happen."

One can look at the Sudan and at Rawanda and find that many of the "human rights" movement want nothing more than to see international, even military action. There have been full page ads taken out in the New York Times by ordinarily pacifist groups demanding that international action be taken to stop the egregious human rights violations in the Sudan. This does not necessarily mean all-out war, but embargos, shows of force and severing of diplomatic ties have certainly been suggested.

But then again... Who are we in the US to say? We have capital punishment in several states. Isn't, by some of the logic here the same as outright genocide? And for that matter, we fought "Indian Wars" until the beginning of the 20th century. Certainly that was not an honorable policy.


This is disturbing to me. I guess that's just me, but it's highly disturbing. I bet there are a lot of people here who could make the case that if they saw a woman being stabbed in the ally below their apartment that they would be ethically justified in not intervening. Afertall, they are not directly involved to begin with. What if they ran down and hit the man over the head and he died? Would that be their place to say who's life is worth taking? And how is his stabbing her any different than two animals attacking in nature? Aren't humans members of the animal kingdom? And maybe she has it coming to her, I mean.. who are we to judge not even knowing the woman.

And that is why that sort of thing happened. It happened in 1964 to Kitty Genovese and it has happened time and time again. That is just the best publicized event. It's happened in the US, in Sweden, in Brittan and Germany. Doubtless there have been more examples of persons being beaten or killed in front of throngs of onlookers. That somebody would be slaughtered in front of the eyes of inactionist relativists who do nothing but say much...