What is slavery / how do we define slavery?

Slight tangent @TMA: I retract what I said (was it here or in the other thread?) about being only legally enslaved.

I was coming up with an analogy about being married, but then I realized that it would really be a marriage if you were "only legally" married. So then you really are a slave if you are "only legally" enslaved. The legal status is the whole point.

EDIT: Come on, out of all the things to be page toppers?

edited 5th Mar '11 2:52:20 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Drunk Girlfriend: And what is wrong with that? "Human rights" are a construct of humanity, we could just as easy dismiss it if we wanted to(liken North Korea).
One of the more interisting "what if" pieces I have read is about a world where the South won the US civil war.
This is the interisting part: US never agreed to follow the "freedom for all"-act, slavery is legal, normal workers are only used at jobs where they are "expandable", where "slaves" is "valueable" because you must mantain them. You can't mistreat them, and you must house them, because of that slaves do all the jobs the engineers and the middleclass tends to do, because they are so expensive.
But because they can not quit their job, they are valueable.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

I guess have a common axiom here then, now that that is out of the way.

That said, (I'm not sure what we were originally debating) I must ask if this is still the worst situation possible (or whatever it was you stated, I can't seem to recall). Is such a life that positively horrible?

In said circumstance which I mentioned, the slave is treated as an equal as something of a business deal, which is of mutual benefit to everyone involved. Said person is treated well, and not at all like a slave. Is the mere ability that the "master" has really all that horrible?

The only question that might remain to be answered is why the master keeps them as a slave rather than just letting them go. However, it is quite possible to drum up a number of scenarios that demonstrate situations where the slave status is beneficial to the "slave". For example, it could be a cheap exploitation of the law in order to avoid rules that might otherwise apply to the slave, or in order to gain residence.

In such a case as the last one, I might imagine that the person might have been poor and homeless, so the master took them in as a slave, in exchange for giving them residence and helping them out. The part the slave would do is basic servant stuff. Further, said status need only be temporary, as slave type contracts are not permanent deals. In old Jewish society, a person could become a slave for several years, as an easy means to pay off debts. This is of mutual benefit to both people involved.

Slave by another name? I've wondered that myself, at least where desperate people in poverty and whatnot are concerned. Such people are in situations where they effectively don't have any choices but to do what their only source of work says.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

Even in cases where the master and the slave are "equals", there are still fundamental dilemmas which would make them inherently unequal. I would liken those situations to cases where a police officer and a suspect have two different stories of the same situation. The police officer says that he was forced to hit the suspect because X happened while the suspect swears that Y is actually what went down. In almost all cases, where there is no evidence to refute, the courts will take the officer's side...simply because s/he is an officer.

Likewise, if you have a situation where a "master" is sworn to treat a slave "fairly" and differences arise between them, how do you settle this? If the slave is not allowed to quit their job or to request transfer to another master, then whose side do you take? Even if some authority intervenes and moves the slave to another area, does this count for the slave's family as well? Hell, even in the pre-War South, it was considered a not a good thing to "mistreat" slaves, and they were usually sold off when trouble started. However, the children of the slave was the property of the master, so the sold slave had no cause to take his/her children with them. If the "authorities" move the family as well, then all any slave would have to do for a master they didn't like was cry foul and let the courts move them and their family whenever there's a disagreement with ANY master. At that juncture, what is the point of the master/slave dynamic? What is the point of owning a person if you aren't automatically in the right for any disagreement?

edited 5th Mar '11 6:47:09 PM by KingZeal

Yet again, treatment doesn't matter. A slave who's treated well <<< a homeless bum. It's the lack of freedom that's bad, in itself.

I'd rather remain poor and homeless. No good treatment is worth giving up freedom.

What's all the pleasure in the world worth, if you don't have control over yourself? If you were offered the chance to have orgasmic pleasure in exchange for becoming a zombie, would you take it?

Temporary slavery is less bad than permanent slavery, but it's not good either. If permanent slavery is akin to killing yourself, than temporary slavery is akin to giving up years of your life. There might be some things worth it this time, but they're few and far between.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

This has been previously noted; cases could occur where slavery is the only way to dodge a nasty legal matter, or might have other benefits, without the slave status ever needing to be truly acted upon.

Being considered "property" by law would actually enable one to pull off some nifty loophole trickery. (Then again, cheating the law like this has its own moral implications...)

Starving to death or dying from a nasty disease in the streets, with no hope of rescue, work, or dreams fulfilled does not sound like freedom to me. It sounds like true slavery, if anything. Though only in a philosophical sense, not by name. One who is hungry is not free.

1. That is a rather bleak opinion of love.
2. I don't see how it entails becoming a mindless zombie. Perhaps in the future they'll have mind control collars or something, but for now, well, such is not the case. Freedom is only lost where something treads upon it. If you are legally a slave, but still act freely, then, well...

edited 5th Mar '11 8:26:14 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

Why not free them then? What's the point of insisting that they legally remain slaves? To leave the possibility of treating them like dogs open just in case? But that is not treating them as equal partners, only pretending.

Exactly

Good point. Again, you can treat your slaves nice if you choose to. But it is not something they can demand.

Yes. If they change their mind, there is nothing stopping them. They might decide to be nice, but have full right not to be. Besides, a golden cage is still a cage.

edited 5th Mar '11 8:35:10 PM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Ever heard the quote "better to die on your feet than to live on your knees"? It applies here.

Though I agree that someone who has to spend all their time looking for food is not truly free either, they're more free than someone who is really and totally not free.

Hmm? Where did love come into it?

It's a little hyperbolic, but it drives home the point.

If you are legally a slave, and act freely, you are still not free, in the same way that if you are legally married and act like you're single you are still not single.

Because you're not really free, you're just pretending you are. Freedom is not something you can fake.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

&

I suppose we have different values, then. I consider what actually happens to be of importance, rather than the titles and exterior things like principals. If you act like you're free, such that you can pursue what you're good at and so on, then I consider you free. Carrying a legal title of "slave" and being "technically" owned is meaningless, so far as I'm concerned.

A person who dies in poverty with no hope is far more fitting of the title "slave" than one who lives a life where their desires are fulfilled but are just called a slave.

Dying on your feet carries meaning if only it is to an exterior purpose. Be it for a religious and moral reason, such as "no, I will not kill this man", or be it for mental warfare (such as infuriating the enemy and edging on one's allies to the point of suicidal actions). But if nothing is achieved, if nothing is gained, then you have died for nothing. Kind of nihilistic, but dying without accomplishing anything is a stupid sacrifice.

As for the latter, I disagree. To be hungry and without hope of any kind; to be doomed forever to a diseased slum, is slavery at its worst. If anything, it is the government that has enslaved them, as they were put there by the government which they were required to serve.

Right here:

I thought you were referring to the other thread, and thus being with the one you love specifically. I was wrong?

edited 5th Mar '11 11:02:43 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

Any situation where slavery is the "only" way to dodge a "nasty legal matter" could easily be solved without the person giving up their human rights. And yes—again, if we're talking about slavery, we're talking about giving up rights. What rights they are and how many are given depends on the society, but let's not argue semantics on this.

If a person is able to get through some bullshit, made-up, cockamamie law by being considered "property", then that law is garbage, pure and simple. In real-life terms, this is exactly why women sell themselves or their children into "human trafficking", because they feel it's their best shot at survival. However, if there were a "legal" loophole that allowed this sort of thing to happen just so that the poorest class of citizen could survive, then that society utterly failed. Especially since you then open the window for people to use that escape clause to FORCE people into slavery—again, like Real Life human-trafficking.

You can't separate titles from the real world. If the government considers you a slave you're a slave, again just as much as if the government considers you married then you're married.

You can try to ignore the government for a while, but eventually you will not be able to. Especially remember that a slave is legally not a person, and so cannot legally buy or sell things, or vote, or essentially have any legal freedom at all.

Basically, if you're a slave, you can't act like you're free. You're not free. That's it.

It's as noble to die for yourself as it is to die for anyone else.

You were indeed wrong.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Anyway, as far as definitions go, for this one the criteria of acceptability of the situation are those:

• Has the "slave" accepted this status willingly in the first place (growing used to it latter or being born into such state does not count - people can be broken, easily)?
• Are they considered property?
• Are there any circumstances in which they can be released even if their owner does not want to let them go?

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

But the axiom is that they can, as they are a slave in name only. When asked if they are buying or selling for themselves, if such were to occur, they could simply say "Well, I was told to...".

They certainly act free, and as per the axiom, they cannot and will not flex any powers over the "slave".

It is ridiculous to call a man a leader if he does not lead, or a man a musician when he cannot and does not play music. If a person does free person things, they are free. If they do not, then they are not free.

Titles are just that: Titles. Words super-glued on to something. Writing "Ninja" on your forehead will not make you a ninja. You will not acquire ninja skills, or be part of clan. Tagging on "Dr" to yourself doesn't make you a Doctor of anything.

What actually is solid is what matters. If I can pursue my dreams, then I am free. If I cannot, then I am not free.

The poor man who dies in the streets is not free. The man who bares the title of "slave" but does what he wishes, is.

Shame "noble" doesn't profit you anything. Death is pretty final, after all.

The only reason to die a martyr is to change others or be rewarded by one's God. Outside of that, all I can see is the perceived pleasure of dying in hate. Those few moments of pride before an empty death.

So basically, what you put forward sounds to me like a romanticized suicide.

Suicide is stupid.

I quite prefer life, myself. I'll only accept such a death if it is of benefit to others or my God. Not for a vague sense of nobility. At least while I'm alive I can still have a chance to help others.

edited 6th Mar '11 9:58:52 AM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

If you are a doctor people will ask you about your medical problems even if you don't act like a doctor.

You really can't separate a title from the real world. Titles are part of the real world. Being a slave "in name only" is still being a slave and it still has consequences.

For one, if your master ever tries to exercise power over you, there is nothing you can do to stop him. And there's nobody in the world I would trust with that much power over me.

For your God? Why would God care? He can presumably do anything you can do without any kind of danger; the only reason he'd want you to die for him is if he's a dick, in which case it wouldn't be worth dying for him, would it?

BUT back on topic, as far as I'm concerned living as a slave is as much a death as actually dying, in the same way that a zombie might have a beating heart and working lungs but nobody would actually consider it "alive".

Life is inextractably tied to freedom. If you don't have control over your life, if you don't own your life, you're effectively as dead as if your life was destroyed.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Well, not everyone sees thing the same way. Personally, I wish I had the courage to die rather than being an obedient little slave if I ever find myself in such circumstances. Yes, my pride would be the main reason, but not the only one. By submitting, I would...justify those who own me. As if they are right. As if they are allowed to.

But I am damn coward, so that is unlikely. Sad as it is.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Sure, people will ask you medical questions, but if it's just a title then they aren't going to get any meaningful medical advice, no matter how much that they want it.

As for trust, well, the a whole 'nother tube of frosting. But as for myself, I'm willing to trust people, even to such an extent. I must invest care of course, but The Power of Trust is one of my standbys. It's worked for me so far, and I'm willing to take the pain of the odds beating me if it should come to that.

Morality, for most part. As it stands, life on earth is infinitesimal compared to eternity. I don't give a crap what I have to go through or what he wants out of my, I'm getting paid, and I'm getting paid damn well. It's like paying someone 500$ to do fifty jumping-jacks. For that much money, I'll do 1000 jumping-jacks!

How much life you have is tied to how much of an influence on the world you have. Even if there is an afterlife, the people there aren't considered by us to be alive, as they cannot touch us.

Likewise, a man of great power is very tied to this world, exercising great influence.

Even if you "could" be stopped by a master, the fact remains that you still hold power; only as much power as he gives you, yes, but real power nonetheless.

Even as a zombie, anyhow, you can still alter things, with what little influence you have remaining, until you finally collapse. In this respect, anything is preferable to death.

The longer I remain alive, the more good I can do, and the more I can pursue.

On the contrary, I believe that facing such hardship rather than dying is far braver than choosing death. Death frees one from where ever they may be, but to remain in chains -if only in hope of a chance for escape or an opportunity to do good- pressing onward unto the bitter end.

To take your own life would be the ultimate victory of the slave master. Though they have lost "merchandise", they have exercised an ultimate control over you: they controlled your very soul.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

Who would you trust to always want exactly the same things as you want? You would have to never ever be in conflict with them, because they'd likely use their power over you to force you to give up. For you to be truly free, they can't order you to do anything as small as stay out of their cookie jar.

To really deserve that level of trust, they'd essentially have to be you.

So?

A truly good action is worth doing independent of whether you go to heaven for it. So if God is good, he can safely be ignored, and if he's not, he ought to be ignored anyway.

...aaaand I'll have to stop you there.

By being a slave you have no power at all. No matter how much he really really promises to not abuse his power, the fact is he has power over you, and you don't.

He's not giving you any real power if he can take it away again. All he's giving you is the illusion of power. It's a little like the relationship between Ayatollah Khameni and Mr. Ahmadinijad in Iran.

Ahmadinijad appears to have power, but he does not really, because the Ayatollah could remove his power (that is, remove him from office) at any time. Ahmadinijad must therefore not use his power in any way that would anger Khameni, because then Khameni will take back his power. So since he is really doing everything Khameni wants, even after Khameni has "given him power" Khameni still has all the power and Ahmadinijad has none.

It's not hardship, hardship has nothing to do with it. It's losing yourself. It's rather literally selling your life to another person.

It's like letting someone follow you around with a gun to your head. It might seem like you have control, but no matter how much the guy with a gun promises he'll never shoot you're not going to want to piss him off.

But if you do piss him off, even for your own sake and nobody else's, that's infinitely braver than letting someone cow you into giving up your free will for a little more life.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

A few, off the top of my head.

And I wouldn't need them to *always always always* agree. Freedom isn't a yes/no sort of thing. It's more of a sliding scale.

Getting yourself killed would only be good if said death had effects. Outside of that, living in slavery is preferable, if only because there is still possibility of doing good, even when in chains.

Not until they invent mind control collars. Even if it is conferred power, one can still impress their will upon it, and alter its direction.

I'll say it again: Suicide is bad. It is cowardly, destructive, and above all else, foolish. If the master is only living being left upon the planet, such that there is not a single person whom you might have chance of helping, even then continuing in life is better than not. If only out of hope that one might change the master's heart.

Dying in an attempt to avoid "losing yourself" is just that: avoiding. It's running away from battle. Facing that threat though, willing to lose even your own soul, is far braver. I'm willing to risk more than just my life in the face of such an evil, I'll go so far as to risk my own heart and mind.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

Er, no. Dying may be bad, but taking any old shit lying down is just as bad—and in many cases, worse. Hell, why are you even using terms like "running away from battle"? You're not even talking about fighting—you're talking about complete and utter surrender. You're completely changing the rules of the word "fight", since that actually implies that risk of death or injury is involved. Signing away your rights, giving up what you are, is exactly that: giving the fuck up. Don't paint it like it's something it isn't.

edited 6th Mar '11 4:18:44 PM by KingZeal

Dying isn't giving up? Dying will come eventually anyways. Living through hell without any rights is something that would take far more strength than just dying. Dying would be easy. All you have to do is take any number of temporarily painful routes. Routes which end in non slavery. It ends your time in a short instant.

At least there is still a chance for good things if you continue to live. But dying? Dying is the ultimate form of giving up, unless it somehow strikes a blow stronger than what you could achieve otherwise.

edited 6th Mar '11 4:36:26 PM by TheMightyAnonym

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

If you've been enslaved, that's one thing. You're still fighting, but you've had your choices taken from you. Example: African slave trade; for the most part, the Europeans wouldn't kill people who were useful, so they merely took away every capacity they had to resist.

Frankly, I don't see what's bad about dying as opposed to slavery. You're talking about slavery as though it's something that will eventually end for you, but that completely flies in the face of what slavery is. Being afraid to die and willingly helping empower a system which has pretty much robbed you of significance is pretty much enabling that system to do the same to others. Because you are now one of the Slave Mooks, I would kill you as surely as I would the enemy itself.

Your argument defeats itself. You argue that surrendering is fighing "because you might have a chance", but then you say dying is giving up "unless it strikes a blow". There's no way to know either for sure. Many martyrs had no idea whether their sacrifices would be worth it while many slaves had no idea whether they'd ever be free again. You can't just dismiss one as a crapshoot when you don't know how EITHER will turn out.

edited 6th Mar '11 4:58:35 PM by KingZeal

Not at all, for it would be against their desires. And that is enough for me.

Besides, I am not talking about "active" suicide as much as being disobedient enough to end up being killed.

Hmm, if it makes any sense, I see refusing to obey "owner's" orders as little different from refusing to obey criminal orders. Not only the matter of pride but of conscience too. Would you agree to turn other people into slaves for your owner? And if not, how agreeing to do it with yourself any better - it's not like you are any less important?

Again, I do not really have enough will for either. This I know. And despise myself for.

Exactly. Such power is nothing but illusion if it can be taken away by the will of another.

So true.

edited 6th Mar '11 8:55:22 PM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Again, I come back to the fact that there are no mind control collars. All a slave master really does is put up a fence and make you walk in a line. Nothing is going to stop you from trying to climb over fences, or doing other things of note.

Can you still speak? even in this alone, there is hope. With words you can change the hearts of others - perhaps even the master himself.

If there are those who do not wish to die, and have more hope of freedom than you, then you should stand guard, that if they might be free, you can help them. And if they may not be free, then you can comfort them.

There is an infinity of possibilities open in this world, even for one who seems to be a slave. Death would be a foolish forfeiting of these limitless possibilities.

Truly, the only means that a master would exercise such control as you propose, is if they had a mind control device. The only other possible means of such control would be a hostage, in which case, defying would get them killed. Or worse.

But a lifetime of potential is far more sure than a martyr's death, unless you have even a small inkling that it might not be the case.

If the master requests that you do something unethical, then in such a case a martyr's death is truly the most beneficial path. Otherwise, being told to cook dinner or work in the field all day are fine being done.

Also, I might note that if one chooses to die a martyr's death with no reasons other than pride and spite against the master, the master may make someone else a slave in your place. Said person may have been on the road to slavedom anyways, but even then, their purchase makes the business more lucrative for those who supply the slaves, and in turn more people may be taken.

Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! ~ GOD

I ask you to have someone follow you around with a gun and see if that's not just as good as a mind control collar.

Now remember a master always has that over the slave. Maybe he's not there right then, but if he ever finds out he can kill you.

The idea was that if it's unethical for you to go out and enslave other people, it's unethical for you to enslave yourself. You've actually kind of walked into her argument; if it's worth dying so you don't have to enslave people, it's worth dying so you don't have to enslave yourself.

You're not worth less than anyone else; you don't need to stick around only for the good of others. You owe your life to yourself and nobody else, and if somebody tries to take it you have to right to stop them by any means necessary.

(Also remember, that by doing useful work for the master you are perpetuating his system and no doubt contribute to more people being enslaved in the future.)

Not terribly concerned about this; the master would probably be accumulating slaves anyway.

If everyone suicided rather than accept slavery however, slavery itself would die out, and that's worthwhile even if you don't accept saving yourself as worthwhile alone.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

This isn't what you said originally. At first, you were saying something about selling YOURSELF into slavery "as an equal" or some garbage like that. Now, it's being forced into slavery? Which one are you arguing for? You can't have it both ways.

Also, there are plenty of ways to stop this. Auschwitz had armed guards. Prisons have barbed wire and electric fences. There are guard dogs, tracking chips, snipers, etc. The modern era we live in has more methods of order and control than any that has come before us. Think of all of the methods we use to control criminals (electronically-controlled prisons, house arrest bracelets, neighborhood watches, etc.) and now imagine that being used to keep YOU a slave.

Many slaves could NOT speak the language of their masters, or if their words were treacherous, could have their tongues removed.

And again: is this slavery WILLING, or isn't it? You keep arguing both points.

Again, the ridiculousness of this argument is the assumption that what you're doing as a slave is equal or better what what you would accomplish in death. Sometimes, martyrdom is necessary, if not just to send a message, then to prevent further enabling whatever happened to you. Like I said before, if someone enslaves you and then orders you to come back to my home and enslave my family, I would kill you—plain and simple. Again, if this "slavery" of yours is something you did willingly to avoid some miserable existence you found yourself in and your "master" treats you "as an equal", then there's no reason you shouldn't be able to just leave . . . right? There's no reason you should be against MY side . . . right?

But now your argument has changed. You say that you're really fighting AGAINST your enslavement and that you're being forced to do these things against your will. Well, if THAT'S the case, then surely you realize that putting others into the same situation you're in makes you every bit as part of the problem as the people you serve under . . . RIGHT?

You have no idea how slavery really works, do you? Slaves are usually "broken"; that is, they're beaten, tortured, raped, or humiliated until all thoughts of escape or hope have left them. Oh sure, some hope MAY remain, but not enough to really qualify as a willingness to escape. This is a far more thorough and realistic form of "control" than whatever magical "mind control" you're cooking up.

No, a lifetime of "potential" just sounds pretty, but it utterly meaningless. If I spend my life with the potential do something that never happens, then I've accomplished not a lick more than someone who died trying to do it.

Make up your mind. First of all, keep in mind that being treated as "property" is unethical, so your "master" has already asked you to do something to that effect. Second of all, every second you spend doing his/her work for him/her, you are enabling a person who believes it's okay to treat another human as unequal to him/herself. (And yes, this is the DEFINITION of slavery, so don't argue that ridiculous "but you're equals" point again.)

If you're a slave and you are helping the people who have enslaved you, you are enabling the cause of slavery. It's that simple.

What kind of nonsense is this? Needing to replace property is always more expensive and costly than owning said property (especially when said property can do work on its own) and just buying a new one. Slaves are not a resource you can only have one of—if there's a slave trade, then those traders are going to be selling slaves in bundles, anyway. (Otherwise, they might get left with sickly or old slaves that nobody wants).

The logic here is just puzzling.

edited 7th Mar '11 8:16:31 AM by KingZeal