Well, that close, but I wasn’t necessarily headed for the morality aspect per se, but more of the dividing line between enslaver and well “philanthropy” (for lack of a better word). To put it better, what part does intention play on the part of the enslaver - does a good intention justify the enslavement (even soft enslavement) of another? You came at it from the other side, “what part does method play” in the justification of the enslaving, while I was looking at motive. Does that make sense?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Well, that close, but I wasn’t necessarily headed for the morality aspect per se, but more of the dividing line between enslaver and well “philanthropy” (for lack of a better word). To put it better, what part does intention play on the part of the enslaver - does a good intention justify the enslavement (even soft enslavement) of another? You came at it from the other side, “what part does method play” in the justification of the enslaving, while I was looking at motive. Does that make sense?[/quote]
Well in an absolute sense, the only dividing line is that one uses soft methods and one uses hard methods. They are both still “slavers” to quote one of my favorite fantasy book series. I think in general soft slavery has been completely accepted and even most forms of hard slavery have been tolerated. Hell our government uses almost completely hard slavery to get the people to obey thier command. Pay your taxes or get fined and or jail, go the speed limit or get fined and or lose your license, Dont’ serve alcohol past 2:00 or get fined and or lose your license etc…
There is no reason for a bar owner to stop serving at 2:00 other than the governemnt telling them to. They would continue to make money past 2:00, some places ARE open till 4:00 and they woulkd stay open till 6:00 if they were allowed to. So they close at 2:00 against thier will, which is slavery.
So I think there is a dividing line that may ebb and flow within each society, and it may have differences based on charachteristics of the individual. For instance, Muslim women deal with much more slavery than muslim men within the same society, though both are likley slaves to something or someone.
At one time in the US the level of slavery for blacks was very harsh, and most of society had no problem with it. Now that level of slavery is untolerable here in the US, yet we are still all slaves. Just not to that level.
V
If slavery is simply defined as having to live under a hiearchy, a structured system of law and social norms, then slavery is an everlasting condition of humanity. Such a definition is meaningless and juvenile.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If slavery is simply defined as having to live under a hiearchy, a structured system of law and social norms, then slavery is an everlasting condition of humanity. Such a definition is meaningless and juvenile.[/quote]
Condemning our definition without giving an alternetive definition is meaningless and juvenile.
BOOYEEEEEEE!
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Well, that close, but I wasn’t necessarily headed for the morality aspect per se, but more of the dividing line between enslaver and well “philanthropy” (for lack of a better word). To put it better, what part does intention play on the part of the enslaver - does a good intention justify the enslavement (even soft enslavement) of another? You came at it from the other side, “what part does method play” in the justification of the enslaving, while I was looking at motive. Does that make sense?[/quote]
Well in an absolute sense, the only dividing line is that one uses soft methods and one uses hard methods. They are both still “slavers” to quote one of my favorite fantasy book series. I think in general soft slavery has been completely accepted and even most forms of hard slavery have been tolerated. Hell our government uses almost completely hard slavery to get the people to obey thier command. Pay your taxes or get fined and or jail, go the speed limit or get fined and or lose your license, Dont’ serve alcohol past 2:00 or get fined and or lose your license etc…
There is no reason for a bar owner to stop serving at 2:00 other than the governemnt telling them to. They would continue to make money past 2:00, some places ARE open till 4:00 and they woulkd stay open till 6:00 if they were allowed to. So they close at 2:00 against thier will, which is slavery.
So I think there is a dividing line that may ebb and flow within each society, and it may have differences based on charachteristics of the individual. For instance, Muslim women deal with much more slavery than muslim men within the same society, though both are likley slaves to something or someone.
At one time in the US the level of slavery for blacks was very harsh, and most of society had no problem with it. Now that level of slavery is untolerable here in the US, yet we are still all slaves. Just not to that level.
V[/quote]
ok, I’ve been trying to put my mental picture into words . . . picture a tic-tac-toe board. Upper left corner is freedom and lower right corner is slavery, th eboard looks something like this so far:
Freedom (blank)Citizenship
(blank) Cooperation “Worker”
Employee Servant Slavery
The vertical axes are
More choice Less force
descending to
Less Choice more force
and the horizontal axes are
More Input to less input
and
More Reward to less reward
that’s where I am at right now . . .
I own your productivity/labor/actions in total, without any choice on your part, for the sole purpose of fullfilling some material or pleasurable want. Laws and norms that maximize liberty while keeping in consideration stability, order, sustainability, and the prosperity of future generations would simply be the necessary ingrediants for a bettering of the human condition (though never perfectable).
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I own your productivity/labor/actions in total, without any choice on your part, for the sole purpose of fullfilling some material or pleasurable want. Laws and norms that maximize liberty while keeping in consideration stability, order, sustainability, and the prosperity of future generations would simply be the necessary ingrediants for a bettering of the human condition (though never perfectable). [/quote]
The only way you can remove my choice is if you imprison me, did you just skim? I have the choice to disobey and suffer the consequenses. Unless you phisycally restrain me, you cannot control what I do or don’t do, If you tell me to go work in a field, and you don’t have me restrained, I can make a run for it, that is a choice and thus I am free to make it or not to make it. You can’t eliminate my choice, I will always have it. Again, unless you imprison me but even then you can only prevent me from doing something, you can’t force me to do something.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I own your productivity/labor/actions in total, without any choice on your part, for the sole purpose of fullfilling some material or pleasurable want. Laws and norms that maximize liberty while keeping in consideration stability, order, sustainability, and the prosperity of future generations would simply be the necessary ingrediants for a bettering of the human condition (though never perfectable). [/quote]
The only way you can remove my choice is if you imprison me, did you just skim? I have the choice to disobey and suffer the consequenses. Unless you phisycally restrain me, you cannot control what I do or don’t do, If you tell me to go work in a field, and you don’t have me restrained, I can make a run for it, that is a choice and thus I am free to make it or not to make it. You can’t eliminate my choice, I will always have it. Again, unless you imprison me but even then you can only prevent me from doing something, you can’t force me to do something.
V[/quote]
Slavery isn’t a question of your choice. It’s a question about what happens after you make the ‘wrong’ choice.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I own your productivity/labor/actions in total, without any choice on your part, for the sole purpose of fullfilling some material or pleasurable want. Laws and norms that maximize liberty while keeping in consideration stability, order, sustainability, and the prosperity of future generations would simply be the necessary ingrediants for a bettering of the human condition (though never perfectable). [/quote]
The only way you can remove my choice is if you imprison me, did you just skim? I have the choice to disobey and suffer the consequenses. Unless you phisycally restrain me, you cannot control what I do or don’t do, If you tell me to go work in a field, and you don’t have me restrained, I can make a run for it, that is a choice and thus I am free to make it or not to make it. You can’t eliminate my choice, I will always have it. Again, unless you imprison me but even then you can only prevent me from doing something, you can’t force me to do something.
V[/quote]
Slavery isn’t a question of your choice. It’s a question about what happens after you make the ‘wrong’ choice.[/quote]
So you would classify William Wallace as a slave or a free man?
V
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I own your productivity/labor/actions in total, without any choice on your part, for the sole purpose of fullfilling some material or pleasurable want. Laws and norms that maximize liberty while keeping in consideration stability, order, sustainability, and the prosperity of future generations would simply be the necessary ingrediants for a bettering of the human condition (though never perfectable). [/quote]
The only way you can remove my choice is if you imprison me, did you just skim? I have the choice to disobey and suffer the consequenses. Unless you phisycally restrain me, you cannot control what I do or don’t do, If you tell me to go work in a field, and you don’t have me restrained, I can make a run for it, that is a choice and thus I am free to make it or not to make it. You can’t eliminate my choice, I will always have it. Again, unless you imprison me but even then you can only prevent me from doing something, you can’t force me to do something.
V[/quote]
Slavery isn’t a question of your choice. It’s a question about what happens after you make the ‘wrong’ choice.[/quote]
Also no slaves managed to escape the south and make thier way to the north and thier freedom? So they made the choice, I’m not being a slave anymore, some died, some lived “more” free lives. The choice IS the whole crux of the issue.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I own your productivity/labor/actions in total, without any choice on your part, for the sole purpose of fullfilling some material or pleasurable want. Laws and norms that maximize liberty while keeping in consideration stability, order, sustainability, and the prosperity of future generations would simply be the necessary ingrediants for a bettering of the human condition (though never perfectable). [/quote]
The only way you can remove my choice is if you imprison me, did you just skim? I have the choice to disobey and suffer the consequenses. Unless you phisycally restrain me, you cannot control what I do or don’t do, If you tell me to go work in a field, and you don’t have me restrained, I can make a run for it, that is a choice and thus I am free to make it or not to make it. You can’t eliminate my choice, I will always have it. Again, unless you imprison me but even then you can only prevent me from doing something, you can’t force me to do something.
V[/quote]
Slavery isn’t a question of your choice. It’s a question about what happens after you make the ‘wrong’ choice.[/quote]
So you would classify William Wallace as a slave or a free man?
V[/quote]
A slave fighting to be a free man, if anything.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I own your productivity/labor/actions in total, without any choice on your part, for the sole purpose of fullfilling some material or pleasurable want. Laws and norms that maximize liberty while keeping in consideration stability, order, sustainability, and the prosperity of future generations would simply be the necessary ingrediants for a bettering of the human condition (though never perfectable). [/quote]
The only way you can remove my choice is if you imprison me, did you just skim? I have the choice to disobey and suffer the consequenses. Unless you phisycally restrain me, you cannot control what I do or don’t do, If you tell me to go work in a field, and you don’t have me restrained, I can make a run for it, that is a choice and thus I am free to make it or not to make it. You can’t eliminate my choice, I will always have it. Again, unless you imprison me but even then you can only prevent me from doing something, you can’t force me to do something.
V[/quote]
Slavery isn’t a question of your choice. It’s a question about what happens after you make the ‘wrong’ choice.[/quote]
Also no slaves managed to escape the south and make thier way to the north and thier freedom? So they made the choice, I’m not being a slave anymore, some died, some lived “more” free lives. The choice IS the whole crux of the issue.
V[/quote]
They were slaves despite their choice. Only the realization of finding freedom, made them free.
Otherwise, we’re looking at the absurd notion of calling a running slave, shot in the back, a non slave.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I own your productivity/labor/actions in total, without any choice on your part, for the sole purpose of fullfilling some material or pleasurable want. Laws and norms that maximize liberty while keeping in consideration stability, order, sustainability, and the prosperity of future generations would simply be the necessary ingrediants for a bettering of the human condition (though never perfectable). [/quote]
The only way you can remove my choice is if you imprison me, did you just skim? I have the choice to disobey and suffer the consequenses. Unless you phisycally restrain me, you cannot control what I do or don’t do, If you tell me to go work in a field, and you don’t have me restrained, I can make a run for it, that is a choice and thus I am free to make it or not to make it. You can’t eliminate my choice, I will always have it. Again, unless you imprison me but even then you can only prevent me from doing something, you can’t force me to do something.
V[/quote]
Slavery isn’t a question of your choice. It’s a question about what happens after you make the ‘wrong’ choice.[/quote]
Also no slaves managed to escape the south and make thier way to the north and thier freedom? So they made the choice, I’m not being a slave anymore, some died, some lived “more” free lives. The choice IS the whole crux of the issue.
V[/quote]
They were slaves despite their choice. Only the realization of finding freedom, made them free.
Otherwise, we’re looking at the absurd notion of calling a running slave, shot in the back, a non slave.[/quote]
Your argument makes no sense, at first you say I’m a slave because I’m forced to do something, then you say, no I’m not actually forced to do it but something bad will happen if I don’t. Well shit boss welcome to half the decisions humans make on a daily basis.
If a man walks into my home and tells me to give him all my money and I say no and he shoots me, I’m not a slave. I could have done what he told me to do, but I CHOSE to disobey. I am free and he is a murdurer, not a slaver. You cannot own something that is capable of making decisions for itself. Hell technically, I don’t OWN my dogs. They do as I command and we coexist peacefully and quite happily because I give them things which make them happy and makes thier life good and easy. If they one day decided to bite my throat out while I’m sleeping there isn’t much I’m going to do about it. They are free to make decisions for themselves, Hell I don’t even tie em up in the yard, they have an e-collar. If they want to run off my property, all they gotta do is withstand 30 seconds of getting a good shock to the neck and they are free to do so.
My TV on the other hand isn’t capable of making that decision. I feel your definition is historical and old. When taught to people as the definition it hurts those people because it lets them believe that sometimes people don’t have a choice. This is obviously false, people alwasy have a choice, death many times is a suitable option.
V
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I own your productivity/labor/actions in total, without any choice on your part, for the sole purpose of fullfilling some material or pleasurable want. Laws and norms that maximize liberty while keeping in consideration stability, order, sustainability, and the prosperity of future generations would simply be the necessary ingrediants for a bettering of the human condition (though never perfectable). [/quote]
The only way you can remove my choice is if you imprison me, did you just skim? I have the choice to disobey and suffer the consequenses. Unless you phisycally restrain me, you cannot control what I do or don’t do, If you tell me to go work in a field, and you don’t have me restrained, I can make a run for it, that is a choice and thus I am free to make it or not to make it. You can’t eliminate my choice, I will always have it. Again, unless you imprison me but even then you can only prevent me from doing something, you can’t force me to do something.
V[/quote]
Slavery isn’t a question of your choice. It’s a question about what happens after you make the ‘wrong’ choice.[/quote]
Also no slaves managed to escape the south and make thier way to the north and thier freedom? So they made the choice, I’m not being a slave anymore, some died, some lived “more” free lives. The choice IS the whole crux of the issue.
V[/quote]
They were slaves despite their choice. Only the realization of finding freedom, made them free.
Otherwise, we’re looking at the absurd notion of calling a running slave, shot in the back, a non slave.[/quote]
A dead slave dies under his masters whip with his hands up in a feeble attempt to protect himself. A dead free man is one shot in the back running for HIS life.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
I feel your definition is historical and old.[/quote]
I’m certainly no progressive.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
When taught to people as the definition it hurts those people because it lets them believe that sometimes people don’t have a choice. This is obviously false, people alwasy have a choice, death many times is a suitable option.[/quote]
Their choice has no bearing. The fact that someone chose to enslave them does. Black slaves were slaves. Doesn’t matter if they chose survival in pacifism above running, or chose running above survival in pacifism. Slavers captured them, and they were enslaved. They weres sold by dealers of slaves. Purchased by slave owners. All in a SLAVE trade. Further, their choices were limited for them by slave owning society, instead of having a myriad of options. There was no going down to the trading post for a leaf of 'bacca when the fancy for a smoke came on. No option to head off property to go check out the county fair. Two options; run and risk death, or get along to survive.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
A dead free man is one shot in the back running for HIS life.
V[/quote]
No, he’s a slave. Which is why the slave owner shot his property in the back without any fear of the law.
I just chose in my mind to sprout wings and fly out of the window. Sadly, reality has yet to conform itself to my expectations.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
A dead free man is one shot in the back running for HIS life.
V[/quote]
No, he’s a slave. Which is why the slave owner shot his property in the back without any fear of the law.[/quote]
…no man is a slave if he considers himself a free man, inspite of the opinion of others…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Vegita wrote:
A dead free man is one shot in the back running for HIS life.
V[/quote]
No, he’s a slave. Which is why the slave owner shot his property in the back without any fear of the law.[/quote]
…no man is a slave if he considers himself a free man, inspite of the opinion of others…
[/quote]
I thought no man chose how he considered himself, being a slave to his bio-chem. Wasn’t that your belief?
To be even more clever. The choice to run and risk death isn’t the choice of a free man, because that is an option the slave owner has chosen for the slave. He has allowed the slave the choice of disobedience (running) and possible punishment (death), or obedience. The slave is choosing between the options put to him by the master. So, even while choosing, he is choosing from the choices allowed him. Man I perversly love crushing inspiring talks of freedom in bondage! I’m such a downer.