Is Owning A Slave Really That Bad?

I haven't come across a definition that says a slave must be forced to work against their will. Maybe I am looking at the wrong definitions, or perhaps you can find a better one for me?

 

A slave implicates property... aka ownership. Since you can't own a person, they can't be a slave, unless it's against their will.

 

Is it possible to argue that Rajneeshpuram was a case of voluntary slavery?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneeshpuram

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave

"Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work.[1] Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation."

Not withstanding the point that it doesn't matter if a slave isn't forced to work, by their nature as a slave, they could be at any time against their will.

 

"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
Abraham Lincoln

 

Hopefully in the future genetic engineering may be able to provide us with personal slaves, an animal hybrid with all the outward physical features of a human along with the intelligence of a chimpanzee would be about right. They could come in different colours and sexes. That way humans would all be able to indulge in their innate desire for exploitation of their fellow humans with none of the guilt.

 

We already have those. They are called "New Zealanders". Offer them a job on the Gold Coast - and they are putty in your hands. Some of them can even be quite attractive (go for the ones that walk on two legs though).

 

Stripping someone of their rights for your own personal gain under the guise of "well I'm not hurting them".

 

The intelligence of a chimpanzee would be enough for them to take over New Zealand and rule there.

 

Oh, I should have read this post first, it's exactly what I think

 

Please, NZ is a de facto state of Australia already. We say jump, they say how high.

 

And you have to show how high with an arm, because if you say a number, every Kiwi jumps differently high

 

human beings should have the right to move freely

 

Volker;

Slavery was originally in place to repay a debt or a loss due to your own recklessness. Until the debt was paid you were required to be a servant for the person owed the debt. As a domestic worker you are exchanging your labor for room and board, instead of a payheck. The government has stepped in and stopped this form of bartering and in exchange created a welfare system, eliminating any way for an unskilled laborer to live unless they work for a business or a paying client in which you become a business beholding too the government. Unless you are an illegal alien, then the government seems completely complacent.

SS;

Exactly and even as such their employer must provide a wage so the government can aquire their share of the labor being used, unless you are an illegal alien working for a rich elite or their corporation. Then once again this seems to be perfectly acceptable as long as the charade is not too obvious.


Bartering isn't an acceptable economic option with the government since they have done everything in their power to discourage such endeavors.

 

The rape victim is the slave of the rapist, at least for a moment or two.

 

This works in Europe, but with the time limits it doesn't work in the US anymore.

 

Nice to see the Angry Right showing its true colors! Thank you, Libhater!

 

Explain to me how the slave can have a choice if they are "wholly subject to another".

 

Is owning a slave really that bad? Well the Wisconsin governor doesn't seem to think so..

What else is a slave but a worker who has had his rights to negotiate removed?

Think about it... It's not like the Wisconsin state workers don't want to cut back on their benefits etc. to suit the hard times we are all facing..they want to compromise with the State. It's that the governor wants to remove their right to compromise and make himself/the Senate the dictators...the slave owners of state employees.

Again, a slave is someone with their rights to negotiate their working conditions taken away. In the old days it used to be someone who also couldn't escape those conditions either. But if union busting becomes the fad the GOP is pushing for, our entire country will become a "no-negotiation" "plantation". Few can afford to escape here so we would in every respect be true slaves at that point.

The most valuable asset of unions is not so much their protection of their members but as an example to other would-be slave drivers that "hey, this country has some standards for the individual who works". Without it folks we'll have children working 18 hour days with no recourse, no health benefits. We'll have no middle class. Without unions there is no middle class.

 

Its original intent is irrelevant. We are discussing the modern context, not the historical context.

Because you are "wholly subject to the will of another" like a desk or a chair. Or a pet. You really dont understand how that could be humiliating?

As a side note, it is kind funny that its a liberal that is actually defending the institution of slavery on here.

 

That is clearly hyperbole...none of those workers is wholly subject to the will of the governor or anyone else. It is retarded to call them a slave.

 

Is owning a slave a bad thing?

YES!

These words are applicable to ALL human being.....

So yes owning a slave is a really bad thing....unless you are a muslim, then it's OK.

 

Well if there is no historical context, since slavery doesn't exist in this country the way it did 150 years ago, what is the modern definition?
　
　
Not having a choice or the ability to choose without winding up in the fetal position in a puddle of your own excrement, with no choices, no options other than those imposed by others, or an ability to make your own path?
　
　
In which definition number two of the one's you posted, would make the majority of the people on the planet slaves in one form or another.
　
　
Please don't just say huh-uh as if it is an actual legitimate argument! Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

 

Wow, I didn't even think that analogy was possible, thank you so much for proving me correct. I see a farmer strike coming, it appears someone stole all their bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I posted it twice, once in Post #97 and again in Post #143. Note definition #1.

If you have the option of leaving, you're not a slave.