What Is The Argument Against Slavery?

What are our rights, just like every other area of human knowledge, is determined by observation and reason.

 

To be free is the ability to uninhibited/total self determination free from encumbrance.

Pretty much in a social setting, in which case if there is a guv its now called liberty, a sticky and tricky subject.

Right
Today we have whats known as 'free range' slavery.
In free range slavery there is no place for you to go on this planet but to be indentured to another plantation and its authority structure.
Today, technically you own nothing, private 'alod' property has been abolished and does not exist. The states et al usurped those rights long ago since people are always sleeping and have no clue of such technicalities and the few that do cant change or control it in a the corrupt 'mob rules' kleptocracy we have today.
You may get food and water while they get 24k gold toilets that wipe and kiss there asses

yep, and you cant deduct the upkeep and maintenance from your taxes!
In merca you fall under the ag department.

Sure you do. It may not last long but you most certainly do!

Nature is not considered slavery ffs

Yes, steal my car, let the dog **** on my lawn, run me off the road, cause accidents, swindle me at every opportunity, murder the people I love, create war not love

yes societies gifts

That is modern free range slavery, its still slavery.
If the only food allowed to be consumed is a pile of there is no gain in that.

Tell that to a hungry lion lol

not true slaves can choose between lots of options, and compensation is often 3 squares and cot.

Yep, when the world is a authoritative prison thats all there is, exchange one poison for another.

again nature is not considered a slave owner, that is nonsense.

no they cant, they first need the opportunity to vote on the matter in the first place, fair fully accountable voting, not the crooked easily hackable **** voting we have here in the US.

true realistically however ONLY after an ocean of blood flows

Back in the day it was a manner of paying off a debt where people sighned themselves into slavery, However the US changed all that with major abuses and forced servitude.

yep just ask the mormons who are not allowed to practice their religion. Likewise with Christians.

and thats it, the end of the line!
Property is genderally thought of and managed as disposable.

Lots of rights lost for few and often imagined benefits.
Legal structures are always designed to favor the state and become overbearingly corrupt as we have today.

When did this develop? 10 million AD? lol

slavery as in the debt payment type was abolished in name only.
Its a monopoly, the guv is the only entity with the legal authority to enslave you in our free range slavery system.

 

Nature, you do have the natural right (which the legal system may or may not recognize) to life for the plain sake you exist. Its natural to kill someone attempting to kill you. like you said we observe this and label it an inherent right, enshrining it as unalienable.

 

Despite all this jibber jabber, slavery, to put it simply, violates the Golden Rule.
Nothing good comes from its violation

 

then how do you explain the people that signed themselves into slavery to pay off a debt?

Dont believe me?

How are we paying off the 'national debt'?

What is it when children are forced to pay off the debt of the parents? Freedom?

Peonage, also called debt slavery or debt servitude, is a system where an employer compels a worker to pay off a debt with work. Legally, peonage was outlawed by Congress in 1867.

Slavery v. Peonage | Themes | Slavery by Another Name - PBS
https://www.pbs.org › tpt › themes › peonage

Only the guv can legally own slaves, keeping in mind that in todays world 'own' is simply 'title to control'.

 

King jibber jabber! What choices were they given? Those making the rules were in violation.

 

Anarchist troll

 

Like a loan company?

Oh?

and your problem with anarchy is what exactly?

I cant think of anything wrong with it
Whats wrong with it?

 

Re Read your Hobbes. Do you want a life that is "nasty, brutal, coarse and short"?

 

I didnt get that from my read of hobbes, got a citation?

this hobbes?

What did Thomas Hobbes say about anarchy?

The condition of mere nature, says Hobbes, is one of absolute liberty; it is an anarchy that he describes as a state of war. And the laws of nature are precepts that guide man in escaping the misery of this condition, by instituting a commonwealth over which a sovereign presides. Oct 11, 2017
International anarchy and political theology: rethinking the ...
https://link.springer.com › article

Sounds like brit guv construct to me!
AFAIK anarchy is just one of many political systems

another quick goog opinion of hobbes

Was Hobbes an anarchist?


Hobbes is a theorist of anarchy, not in a political sense, but in a metaphysical sense. This conception of anarchy is a reflection of a comprehensive theological account of reality that is grounded in an omnipotent God.Sep 22, 2014

Thomas Hobbes as a Theorist of Anarchy: A Theological Interpretation
https://www.tandfonline.com › doi › full

more

What did Thomas Hobbes believe in?


Hobbes believed in absolute monarchy as an ideal political system. According to this concept, the monarch should hold complete and total power. Citizens had no authority either to invest the monarch with his power or to take it away. Rather, their duty was to comply with the monarch's edicts.May 26, 2021

Thomas Hobbes vs. John Lock | Hobbes & Lock on the Social Contract
https://study.com › learn › lesson › thomas-hobbes-vs-joh...

 

In its absolutely pure sense it is true, but no political system can function in its idealistic 'pure' sense alone.

What were Thomas Hobbes 3 main ideas?

It is a war “of every man against every man”. There are three reasons conflicts appear in Thomas Hobbes' state of nature: competitiveness, diffidence, and glory.Jan 13, 2022

Thomas Hobbes: Politics, Philosophy and Ideas - TheCollector
https://www.thecollector.com › thomas-hobbes-lifes-work

All that need be done to make anarchy work well is add the court and jury system, not the 62 million statutes et al we have on the books today where just being born is a violation of at least 3 laws.

Look familiar?

not true with a fair and just court/jury system under lets call it 'near' anarchy which was the goal of the flounders. Hobbes deals in 'extremes', none of which can be reality.

and no form of political system can work once the kinds of corruption sets in that we see today. not even anarchy.

 

There were two points to this thread...the first was an attempt to find the moral underpinnings for the case against human slavery, the second, exposing the notion that although the actual purchase of people may be illegal, what has taken it's place is the owning of nearly everything people need to survive. So when it comes down to it, [technically, and practically speaking] there isn't a great deal of difference.

 

I am not so sure about that as people will do practically anything to getting out of taking responsibility for their own existence. Look out any window and see for yourself.

 

I'll refer to Nietzsche when he said that [and I paraphrase] insanity among individuals is quite rare, but in groups, organisations, governments, corporations, etc., it is the rule.

 

So does everything else that happens in society. Where does the Golden Rule come from?

 

In the long run, sanity prevails. There are short term cases where large groups are overcome by insanity but those almost always right themselves.

 

Your post indicates that you are so unhappy and misrerable that your whole world sucks and there is no hope to ever be happy. I'm sure glad you don't live around here. We eat well, party hardy, love our families, enjoy our friends, have pride in our accomplishments and enjoy our freedom (we also fight off threats to it).
I'd wish you well, but you are too committed to being miserable for that to mean much.
Well, in any case, do your best to enjoy your miserable existence. But if you ever heal up, we'll keep a light on for you.

 

There's enough. I can't feed my employees to my eels, like some Romans did when slaves were really cheap. I can't **** my employees, nor can I keep and sell their offspring. (breeding slaves is a lot more fun than pigs). I can't whip and torture my slaves for my guest's entertainment. (The Romans did that too, though not much). I can't keep herds of tender Californians, as was just discussed

You as an individual might be able to survive but if the majority of humans now existing were to suddenly start hunting deer to eat then deer would be extinct in days
Like it or not you live within society and you pretty much depend upon others for your survival. Does that mean you're "enslaved" to society? Yes, but we're all enslaved to you, so it works out. It does mean I'll have to break up with my gf instead of chowing down on her, as I've often fantasized about but it also means nobody can enslave me for debt. You win some....

 

Did the Nazis or the Japanese? I seem to recall they fought hard right to the end and they were pretty insane

 

It is fairly universal to all cultures, I think therefore it is part of our innate ethical sense.
Children are born with an innate sense of fairness. It is not learned.

 

You said it yourself, "to the very end". Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany aren't around anymore. I never said getting rid of the crazy was painless.

 

In my experience, you get more than two human beings together in the same room...WATCH OUT!!

 

Are you speaking about human children? Perhaps you might want to spend a few minutes observing what goes on in any school yard at recess. [Most] kids are brutal.

I think the Golden Rule is a nice ideal [and one I try to live up to], but I am not sure you find any species on this planet [yet ours] characterized by such behavior.

 

It seems to me that if you were running a business using slave labor, it would probably make sense not to do most of the things outlined above. I am sure there was the entire gamut of behavior [as there is with employers]. I do get that there is a difference between slaves and employees, but would you rather be a well cared for slave [whatever that would mean] or work in some sweatshop in London in the 19th century?

I am not anti-capitalist in the least but I am a realist and understand that actual freedom is much more than just picking to whom you are going to sell your labor. The problem becomes particularly worrisome when the government becomes seriously corrupt [as it always does] and whatever freedoms exist are slowly revoked [as has been the case in the West over the past 75+ years]. We essentially entered serf status with the financialization of pretty much everything starting around 1980 and are heading toward psuedo-slavery quickly.

 

I've worked at a pre-school and that is far from true.
Even rats have been shown to have a sense of fair play.
Your comments above seem to be excessively cynical.