When will slavery be financially viable again?

[Ed]

We, currently, breast beat and bemoan slavery. From an historical perspective this is trendy and quaint. The question is, as technologies evolve and the edge between those that are educated (and, presumably, affluent) grows sharper with respect to the others, when will niches develop that make slavery, once again, despite the current hiatus, a viable institution. I suspect that it would not be race based as in our recent history, but economically based, perhaps even religiously based.

 

[Shane Costello]

In the future android technology may be perfected, making enslavement of humans completely moot, perhaps?

 

[shanek]

Slavery is not a function of the free market. It's a big government program. It will only come around again when the tyranny grows enough to allow it.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Slavery is not a function of the free market. It's a big government program. It will only come around again when the tyranny grows enough to allow it.

This is self-parody, right?

 

[Tricky]

One cannot beat the immortal Ambrose Bierce

EMANCIPATION, n. A bondman's change from the tyranny of another to the despotism of himself.

He was a slave: at word he went and came;
His iron collar cut him to the bone.
Then Liberty erased his owner's name,
Tightened the rivets and inscribed his own.

 

[Gem]

Mind enslavement, if ever possible, would replce current slavery system. It will be "profitable" and "marketable" in an economic way, since making intelligent people make things they would otherwise not do or would want to be highly paid is more "profitable."

But I wouldn't worry about it today.

Gem

 

[EdipisReks]

This is self-parody, right?

why would it be a self parody when traditionally western slavery was government subsidized and only abolished when the inalienable rights of all people were recognized?

 

[Malachi151]

why would it be a self parody when traditionally western slavery was government subsidized and only abolished when the inalienable rights of all people were recognized?

LOL, how was it government subsadized?

I suppose that the "big governemnt" of the early Americans forced people to be slave owners

I suppose that throught history every instance of slavery, whcih occured in a very large number of civilizations, and also every "great" civilization was forced on people "by government". LOL, get a grip.

 

[Grammatron]

Not forced, but every country that had slaves or a form of slavery happend because the government allowed it to happen or made laws in such a way that slavery could exist.

 

[shanek]

This is self-parody, right?

Only partly...Like all good parodies, there's a nugget of truth there. You can only have slavery when the government enforces it.

 

[shanek]

Mind enslavement, if ever possible, would replce current slavery system. It will be "profitable" and "marketable" in an economic way, since making intelligent people make things they would otherwise not do or would want to be highly paid is more "profitable."

How on Earth is it profitable to make people do what they don't want to do?

 

[shanek]

LOL, how was it government subsadized?

Read the initial Constitution for your answer.

I suppose that the "big governemnt" of the early Americans forced people to be slave owners

Big government allowed them to be slaveowners and took away every means they had of freeing themselves.

I suppose that throught history every instance of slavery, whcih occured in a very large number of civilizations, and also every "great" civilization was forced on people "by government". LOL, get a grip.

Okay: Name one time it was the result of a free market.

 

[Jedi Knight]

How on Earth is it profitable to make people do what they don't want to do?

Free labor? That has always been a huge motivator of evil men in history.

JK

 

[EdipisReks]

LOL, how was it government subsadized?

I suppose that the "big governemnt" of the early Americans forced people to be slave owners

I suppose that throught history every instance of slavery, whcih occured in a very large number of civilizations, and also every "great" civilization was forced on people "by government". LOL, get a grip.

government subsidized by the fact that the British Crown and then later on the American government often taxed slavery, percentage wise, less than it did many other cross ocean trade products, thus giving merchants an incentive to deal in slaves, as opposed to say, coffee, since profit margins were higher. iirc, the Roman Government also gave monetary incentives to slave holders, but i can't remember the details right now.

 

[EdipisReks]

Free labor? That has always been a huge motivator of evil men in history.

JK

are you trying to say that only evil men owned slaves? if you are, all i can say is that it is an irrational statement. also, slavery hardly provides free labor. one must first buy the slave, and then must pay for housing and upkeep for as long as that slave is owned. that is hardly free.

 

[Jedi Knight]

are you trying to say that only evil men owned slaves? if you are, all i can say is that it is an irrational statement. also, slavery hardly provides free labor. one must first buy the slave, and then must pay for housing and upkeep for as long as that slave is owned. that is hardly free.

Housing and upkeep for slaves is cheap compared to what they produce in man-hours.

Slavery is evil. I can say that because I live in a time when the political sophistication of thinkers like me has reached such awesome potential that taking the collective lessons of history allows men like me to accurately judge perversions such as slavery. There is nothing irrational about it.

Wherever there is slavery there should be helicopter gunships freeing the slaves and starving German Shepard attack dogs finishing the job on slave-holders.

JK

 

[Grammatron]

It may be considered evil now, but it wasn't always evil. There was a time when almost everyone had slaves or you were a slave.

 

[EdipisReks]

Housing and upkeep for slaves is cheap compared to what they produce in man-hours.

Slavery is evil. I can say that because I live in a time when the political sophistication of thinkers like me has reached such awesome potential that taking the collective lessons of history allows men like me to accurately judge perversions such as slavery. There is nothing irrational about it.


JK

housing and upkeep was actually quite expensive. if you ever actually study the economy of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century, you will find that enonomical non viability of slavery was a major player in its downfall. saying that you have great sophistication is laughable. if your posts are your actual beliefs, then sophistication is the opposite of who you are. the thought that all people who ever owned slaves are evil is irrational, because there was a time when slave ownership was a societal norm and considered moral. would you consider Thomas Jefferson evil because he owned slaves?

 

[Malachi151]

Not forced, but every country that had slaves or a form of slavery happend because the government allowed it to happen or made laws in such a way that slavery could exist.

Well, exactly. Everything that isn't outlawed is able to be done. I dont' see how allowing people to do something is the same thing as "causing" them to do it.

The people did it of their own free will, they choose to aquire and use slaves. People throughout history have done it with and without the conesnt of government. In fact we still have issues with human slavery today on the black market, which is done illigally, how is it that governments are "causing" or supporting this slavery when it is in fact illigal?

Any argument that it is the "governments fault" completely ignores that all of those that participated did so over their own free will. Let us assume that there was no clause in the constitution one way or the other about slavery. Do you claim then that no one would have engaged in slavery? My claim is that unless A GOVERNMENT explicitly makes a law saying that it is illegal and then enforces that law then slavery can and will exist, which is to say that government is required to prevent slavery.

We or course know this of even of tribes who had no formal government, but still had slavery.

Big government allowed them to be slave owners and took away every means they had of freeing themselves.

LOL, so now you call even the initial "bare bones" government of the US "big". As I stated, without the government explicitly preventing slavery then everyone is subject to its possibility. The only thing that makes slavery work is might, might makes right. People in power using those that are not in power, just like animals.

What exactly is the difference between using a human to do labor or using a horse or ox? It is all just power and ability. If a person has the ability to control another living thing for his own benefit, be it a fellow human or another animal, and that person has the desire to do so, then they will.

Okay: Name one time it was the result of a free market.

The free market, you go and on about it, but of course the very definition of "free market" is even up for debate. What exactly is a" free market"? It is a market that is not controlled by any outside means. Well, WTF does that mean? Some economists, and I agree with them, state that a free market cannot exist in a capitalist system, because capital itself is a controlling force on the market, and this is correct. The truth is that a there is no such thing as a free market, it is a theoretical concept that is not and cannot be real.

By free-market I assume that you mean a market with no legal controls effecting it, in which case that means that all actions would be legal, including slavery. A free-market is just a market where the price of goods determined only by the supply and demand of goods. In reality discussing slavery and free markets is meaningless, even if free markets did exist, which they do not and cannot.

Slavery in a free-market just means a market for salves where the cost of slaves is determined by the supply of slaves compared to the demand for them. I would say that this generally applies to slavery in the Americas when slaves were indeed bought and sold, as in some cases they were simply acquired outright by capture and never bought or sold.

Now, let's go more into "free-markets".

I'll look at a definition:

http://economics.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-free-market-economy.htm

A free market economy is an economy in which the allocation for resources is determined only by their supply and the demand for them. This is mainly a theoretical concept as every country, even capitalist ones, places some restrictions on the ownership and exchange of commodities.

This is a little misleading because in fact capitalism itself is by definition a force on the market that creates restrictions. Capitalism is a system where individuals use capital to control resources, so capital itself then becomes a controlling factor on the market, thus immediately eliminating the free market.

In truth a free market can only exist where there is ZERO accumulation of capital, which is to say a non-capitalist system where no one can acquire wealth. The existence of wealth is by its very nature a disruption to the free market. This is why a free market is only a theoretical concept that cannot ever actually exist.

A market without "government" pressures on the market is still a market with private pressures other than supply and demand of goods on the market.

There are other reason why a free market cannot exist as well, and that is because human being are not rational. A free market can only exist when the price of goods is determines only by their supply and demand, yet we know that many things go into percieved value other then supply and demand, such as labor value, that is the cost of the labor to produce the goods, which again can be affected by many things other then the supply and demand of labor, perception of supply and perception of demand, which may or may not be accurate (hurry now while supplies last!), the size of the market, the ability to afford the goods, i.e. food may be in higher demand by a mass of starving poor then it is by a few wealthy businessmen, but put the same food in the two markets and you will get differnet prices. Put a candy bar in a store in Beverly Hills and you can charge $2.00 for it, even though the demand may not be great, put it in Etheopia in the middle of 1,000 starving people and you may still only be able to get $0.50 for it. Gasoline is an obvious example here too as it costs more in wealthy areas and less in poor areas, but the demand is surely the same, the price is determined by abiliy to pay.

You see, all of these things break the theoretical "free market".

There is no free market, never has been, never will be.

You may also want to read:

http://www.cesc.net/cescweb/freemoney.html

http://www.cesc.net/cescweb/marketeconomy.html

 

[Malachi151]

housing and upkeep was actually quite expensive. if you ever actually study the economy of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century, you will find that enonomical non viability of slavery was a major player in its downfall. saying that you have great sophistication is laughable. if your posts are your actual beliefs, then sophistication is the opposite of who you are. the thought that all people who ever owned slaves are evil is irrational, because there was a time when slave ownership was a societal norm and considered moral. would you consider Thomas Jefferson evil because he owned slaves?

It was certianly not a norm in America, it was rare, and deplored by many even when it was legal. Many people opposed slavery in America from the very first days of it. These people were however, not wealthy enough to make an impact, because as always money ruled the world and the slavers were rich, because of course, of the use of slavery.

Now, I also ask you, if slavery were not economically benefical, then why were people essentially fighting to preserve it? That's just a fools lie. It may have been on its way out economcially, but if so only because wage labor was being poorly regulated in the price of paid labor was depressed because people were allowed to work 9 and 10 year olds 12 hours a day. Any economic advantage of paid labor would have been quickly changed when the price of paid labor rose due to regulations reducing exploitation of paid laborers.

It would certianly be cheaper now to use slaves then it is to use paid American labor, which is why in fact so many goods sold in America are made in China, where many workers there are essentially in slavery. We STILL use slave labor today, China is our huge slave labor camp.