Is Owning A Slave Really That Bad?

If you don't see a problem with treating a person solely as a commodity, that's your problem. Just who and what made that slave a slave in the first place (birth?, capture in war?, kidnapping?) and how was that enslavement truly justifiable? If you were to use immigrant child labor on the grounds they had no education and couldn't speak English and thus were good for nothing else and you were going to look after them, would that be OK too?

Slavery is wrong. I personally would advocate a mandatory death sentence for anyone dealing in slavery, whether they were a vendor or a purchaser. The mere act of purchasing a slave and not immediately freeing them makes you a trafficker in human beings, regardless of how well you treat your 'property'. If nothing else, to advocate slavery is to make a mockery of any democracy, since you are declaring some people inherently unequal and unfree non-citizens.

 

Owning a slave is really that bad. It takes a human and converts the person into property. That being said, there are plenty of examples of "free" indentured servants in the USA circa 1900 working many more hours with much less food than what a "slave" received in 1850. The humanity of the slave owner defined whether the experience was similar to a job or a living hell for the slave. The ability to leave was not available without serious consequences. I am of the opinion that the US government has made the working population slaves to pay for unsustainable entitlement programs.

 

No, from the moment that he become a slave, he won't own their life. Their life will be of the master. He must obey the master. His freedom is removed. For much well treated and respected, he won't be free. He can't take his own decissions.

Sorry, but no, slavery is the worst that can be done for a person; is eliminate what is a person.

 

Well, if you wanted to go somewhere on your own and do anything that costs money...because you would have none.

You sell yourself cheap. Even live-in nannies get paid.

 

Of course slavery is wrong. Some of the justifications were hillarious though.

 

It depends...does the servant have the option of leaving his bondage if he wants to? If the answer is no, then he's a slave.

The definition I posted says "wholly subject to another's will". Slavery is about liberty. If you are wholly subject to another person you no longer have liberty.

The rationalization used to justify it is irrelevant. The definition remains the same.

 

Do we really need to think of how quickly such a concept could go horribly wrong? I'm sure it starts out just fine, oh sure slave 1 you just have to do these specific tasks and you recieve X amount for it. Oh hey, if you want to earn a little extra you can also do this... Where does it end? We have seen how quickly entire cultures can take advantage of a situation when it appears socially acceptable, do we really need to go down that road again? Take a second to think of where these slaves would be coming from, then actually think about how 'voluntary' they might be.

The basic premise I'm seeing here is its somehow altruistic, you're doing them a favor, get real, its all about what you'd be getting from it. The very thought sickens me, and that is usually quite difficult to do.

 

Interesting that you would consider it in that manner.

In Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait, the bulk of labor is provided by foreigners. They are brought in under contract, paid a nominal amount up-front, paid pitiful wages and forced to pay for their own room, board and transportation. If they were to resign they couldn't afford to pay back their debt to the company or to buy at ticket to fly home. They are effectively slaves according to some people's definitions.

 

If the worker in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait stop working they are deported if they cannot pay their way back. While they are in a difficult position should they resign, the option to resign exists.

Think of it in these terms and perhaps you will see my point: Is there anyone on these forums you don't think should ever own another person, by the responses you've seen and such? If you can honestly say yes to that, just remember if any type of slavery is legal, they too would be potential owners.

 

Scary thought, isn't it?

 

Yes, which is why I find it utterly amazing anyone would even consider the topic at all.

 

It comes up occasionally when discussing welfare programs. It is a way to get productivity out of people who wouldn't normally work, or a way for taxpayers to get something in exchange for the welfare expense.

But the risk of abuse is just too high to allow such programs to exist.

If we wanted to consider continuing with an academic discussion of such practices, the Jewish method did a pretty good job of limiting abuses. They allowed people to sell themselves into slavery (the children of such slaves were always free.) All such slaves were freed every sabbatical year (which occur every seven years). Thus if a master got abusive, the abuse would end in a maximum of seven years or even sooner depending on how much time was left between the time they sold themselves and the next sabbatical year.

 

No thanks, the amount of abuse that could occur in one month is far too high to consider allowing it to go on for years. For everyone that might treat the slaves well there will be dozens finding ways to exploit them, especially if they know they can only use them for a limited time.

 

True, but on the other hand, entering slavery was voluntary so if a master was known to be abusive he would have a hard time convincing anyone to indenture themselves to him.

 

True slavery gets sh*t done!

 

If it is voluntary, it isn't slavery! How difficult is that concept to get through to people?

What you're describing is a contract of employment. It's one that highly favours the employer but it fundamentally no different to my contact of employment, which has a clause meaning I can't (legally) leave until after giving a number of weeks notice.

 

If they change roles every 7 years, this would lead to them treating each other relatively well, I guess

 

The concept of slavery where one person OWNS another is so idiotic as to be not worthy of a comment and I do not know how this thread ever got past the OP ............I think that we have all been had and the poster wants to creat disention and stupid rehtoric here

I will not buy it ................

 

I'm guessing rape should be legal too as long as you treat them okay?

 

exactly, people from any background could benefit from it.

its up to the morals of a country to determine if its wrong.

 

I don't know how you think the two are remotely comparable.

 

Sounds humilliating.

 

Why? How is having clothes, a roof over your head and all your medical bills paid for humiliating?

 

Sounds like a stay at home wife. Didnt women work hard so they could choose to go out and make real money?

I mean maybe if the person by his own will chooses to live like that, being a slave and being paid no money, but given the neccesities to life then its okay.

But Id rather not a life of servitude to someone, and go make my own path.

 

Paying someone for services in exchange for shelter, health care, and food is not illegal.

BUT, if the person wanted to quit and you wouldn't let them, then that would be kidnapping.... haha.

So yes, owning a "slave" in it's literal sense is THAT bad.