Would you be ok with enslaving people to continue living in commodity?

[Tam Li Hua]

Asmody: Y'know, in thinking about it, you would -still- be paying some for these slaves, since you'd be the one paying for their food, electricity, etc. So, really, you might end up paying more for actual slaves than taxes actually cost for these "needy" folks you've described.

After all, there's a reason that only the rich and prominent had slaves throughout history. ;}

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Asmody: Y'know, in thinking about it, you would -still- be paying some for these slaves, since you'd be the one paying for their food, electricity, etc.

Good point, Tam. Maybe Asmody could cut down on costs by putting, say, three slaves to a bed, feeding them every other day, and getting rid of that electricity nonsense all together. There, now we're making a profit again!

[Tam Li Hua]

A bed? Why use a bed when a bale of hay once a year does the trick?



[j/k, of course.]

[Seidre]

Nope. I don’t want that kind of authority. I’d much rather deal with the hardships of life. Even if it was consensual, I don’t want or need a slave.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

A bed? Why use a bed when a bale of hay once a year does the trick?



[j/k, of course.]

Really? I thought that this entire thread was Jillian offering human livestock to prospective buyers.

[Lolly PopMuzik]

My people went through AND perpetuated it once already...Not again, thank you.

[jigsaw]

i really dont know

[Solumina]

There are people who would be willing to work in exchange for room and board, even if it meant that they had a contract that they were legally bound to and could not get out of until the end of the contract, I would have no problem with something like that and technically I guess that would count as slavery, especially if that contract could be transferred to another holder. On the other hand I wouldn't be okay with people being forced into such contracts so I guess I'm more okay with an indentured servant type scenario.

[Renatus]

I wonder, is indentured servitude illegal? Couldn't you technecaly hire somone as a contractor under the same terms as an indentured servant? Frankly I think such a position would be good for many people in these times of need, with tent cities popping up.

[Solumina]

I think it may be but I'm not sure. If it isn't illegal then I'm surprised that more people aren't going for it.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Renatus

I wonder, is indentured servitude illegal? Couldn't you technecaly hire somone as a contractor under the same terms as an indentured servant? Frankly I think such a position would be good for many people in these times of need, with tent cities popping up.

Indentured servitude is illegal in the West but it is legal in some countries, with horrible consequences.

I think a more equal comparison to the meat thread Jillian would be "Would you be okay with enslaving orphans to continue living in commodity?" as like an animal a child cannot give informed consent and had decisions made for them.

[Godslayer Jillian]

It's interesting that people see more similarity with slavery and indentured servitude than with slavery and wage slavery.
Kind of hints that people will still try to rationalize slavery.

[HavelockV]

It seems much more humane and appealing to hire and pay someone for their services, rather than place them in a state of enslaved servitude; regardless of the conditions in which they are kept.

[Godslayer Jillian]

That's where I was going. It's entirely fallacious to justify slavery merely because of some form of payment.
The illusion is that if there is money, there is a degree of freedom, when it merely means that the masters have quantified the amount of needs the slave deserves.

[HavelockV]

I confess I didn't read the whole thread before I responded. When I spoke of hiring someone, I didn't mean to imply that they would be living in my quarters and I would be responsible for feeding and clothing them in addition to paying any wages they might merit. That is not an attractive proposition to me. I was thinking more along the vein of hiring someone to assist me during pre-determined hours and then they could go home to their own home, their own family, their own life every day.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

That's where I was going. It's entirely fallacious to justify slavery merely because of some form of payment.
The illusion is that if there is money, there is a degree of freedom, when it merely means that the masters have quantified the amount of needs the slave deserves.

Hm...if you are at all referring to my post then that isn't what I was implying. I was simply saying that I would be okay with something similar to slavery as long as the person willingly entered into the contract. I would not be okay with someone being forced into the situation, even if they were to receive compensation.

[blackwater1110]

Jillian: That would be a no. I think you and I share the same view on this: we are all slaves, inasmuch as we do not receive the fruits of our labor, but that they are passed on to another, for his gain; and we are compensated enough to ensure our survival and if we are lucky, perhaps some of those luxuries afforded to our masters. But just as with slavery, despite our higher quality of life, despite being 'higher up the ranks,' we remain the workers and they the owners. In fact, the modern capitalistic society is a great improvement upon old methods of slavery, as the 'employer' need only provide wages; the 'employee' must take care of food and shelter on his own. What a relief! Instead of caring about his worker's well-being, the owner need only worry about how to make the worker produce, how to generate the maximum amount of efficiency out of his 'labor capital.' Nor does the owner need to worry about the long-term well-being of those doing the work, as he would have had to do in slave conditions; for if a slave were to fall ill, it could ruin the plantation's productivity. Not so with capitalism; now the slaves are expendable and easily replaced. What great strides we have made in this modern century!

[Pyre]

People do not have the tendency to wish being the property of another person, so I can't imagine anyone volunteering to be a slave. What some of you people seem to be referring to are household servants who come and go as they please and receive money for their work. That is not the point of slavery.

[Tismine]

No, for two reasons. Firstly, I don't think I could live with sacrificing someone's freedom solely for my leisure. Freedom is one of the things I'm terrified of losing. It's claustrophobia in the soul. To deprive someone would be akin to me committing torture; it would destroy me. Also, what about me would make my freedom more important than my slave's? Nothing, nothing at all. Thus the following.
My second reason has more to do with a concern for my own welfare.
This quote comes to mind: “First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.” - Martin Niemoller
If people are enslaving each other, what is to stop them from enslaving me?

I do hope that made sense. The words keep blurring together.

[Xenophile]

Slavery, includeing wage slavery is evil, no matter how benign it is. It is dehumanizing.

[the-nihilist]

Only if it was someone I hated.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by HavelockV

I confess I didn't read the whole thread before I responded. When I spoke of hiring someone, I didn't mean to imply that they would be living in my quarters and I would be responsible for feeding and clothing them in addition to paying any wages they might merit. That is not an attractive proposition to me. I was thinking more along the vein of hiring someone to assist me during pre-determined hours and then they could go home to their own home, their own family, their own life every day.

Okay, what is your technical difference here?

This is essentially how it becomes slavery:

Your child gets sick after you've spent all your vacation days (permitted days by your employer) for that year and you still have to take off work for a few days because that illness is fucking up your child. The age old choice between family and job. In this scenario, it's possible that the employee could lose their job, hence losing what they need in order to survive.

Wage slavery is still, technically slavery because it doesn't give one a chance when "life" happens.

[Delkaetre]

Kontan- in most cases, at least with a fair employer or suitable laws regarding flexible working time, you can take time off to look after your kid.
Similarly, if your washing machine breaks and floods your kitchen or there's heavy snow that prevents you from leaving your house, you don't have to take it out of holiday. Same principle as not having to take parents' funerals out of your holiday. It's an emergency that needs to be dealt with, and can't be dealt with at work.
If you are dismissed because of one of these emergencies, you can usually seek some kind of compensation from an employment tribunal.

But that's the UK, and mostly for white collar workers.

[Beowulf]

Slavery is another abomination of humanity, how can anyone with any form of conscience enslave and take away the freedom and dignity of another ?

[the-nihilist]

If you can justify it in your head and convince yourself that's it ok, then you'll face no repercussions from your conscience.

Maybe if you convinced yourself that the people you enslave don't have feelings, or goals or hopes or dreams.