Would you own slaves now if it was legal?

Well most people inculcate the values of the societies they are raised in.

 

Sad but true. In Virginia 1800, opposing Slavery was seen as immoral.

In Russia at that time opposing Serfdom was seen as immoral.

 

No you are an Entrapeneur you own a cat house.

 

In colonial America it was considered immoral to "know yoirvwife" on the Sabbath. In fact under thevConnecticut Blue laws back then it was illegal to "know your wife" on the sabbath.

Of course it was OK to burn women to death and not be immoral. All you needed was get enough people to agree that the woman was a witch.

 

Globally, 40,000 to 100,000 people, were executed for witchcraft in 1450 -- 1750. 85% of them were women. Here.

About 20 to 40 people, mostly women were executed in North America.

This is tragic, yet this is a small percentage of population.

 

GOP lawmakers and Maganuts are Trump-owned slaves.

 

With much a small number of Witch burning cases why don't we just return to that wonderful passtime!

 

It was not wonderful. It was a tragedy -- one of many tragedies in History.

 

Yes, I was being sarcastic.... sorry should have noted that.

 

I've often thought if slavery were legal I would buy a slave and then give them a choice- freedom papers or help me buy more slaves to give the same choice (or both, of course).

I've considered doing this in one of those countries that still has slaves, should I ever become wealthy.

Then my fantasy innevitably turns to building/training an army of the slaves I've/we've bought and freed to forcibly free the rest of the slaves.

I voted no, but does that make me a yes?

 

I think the comparison between slavery 'American style' in the Southern states,and this notion 'debt slavery' or 'wage' slavery as described in the OP is ill advised, and a bit tacky. The fact that we can quit our job and pick another is significant. The fact that we do not arrest and convict and imprison people for not paying their routine bills is significant. The fact that laws protect people from all sorts of abuses at the hands of landlords, bill collectors,utility companies banks etc is significant. The fact that we have programs designed to lessen economic dependency on a specific employer including an entire social safety net, unemployment benefits, a minimum wage, and laws protecting collective bargaining rights also is significant. The fact that we still get political representation despite our debts and economic dependence, secondary to a right to vote, protest and assemble is also significant. The fact that we get an education at govt expense and access to more using a system of community colleges and university is significant.

In other words, what you are doing either represents a gross ignorance of what institutional slavery was, or more likely just exaggerating for affect. We could and should do much better to protect workers from abuses at the hands of employers etc, and address the problems described in the OP in all sorts of ways. I just don't think the hyperbole does us any good.

Slavery is a very very strong word for a very very strong idea. We ought not water it down by exploiting it for emotional impact .

 

I would try not to, and I would ardently advocate against it being legal, but I might personally if economic circumstances in my particular field of work/business effectively forced me too.

I mean, when you're a plantation owner, it's hard to compete with all the other plantations when they're using cheap labor.

I would try to be very good to my slaves though.

I feel the same way about undocumented immigration.

Here's another question for you: You would you have bought cotton clothes, if you could not be sure that they did not come from slave labor, and the conditions on those cotton plantations were very brutal?

(And please don't give the stupid answer "I wouldn't wear cotton". Look through all of your clothes and see which ones are not made of cotton or polyester, which didn't exist at the time. Do you have any clothes that are made from something else?)

 

Since your objective in purchasing them is to free them from slavery then you are still a no.

 

I take your point and there was no intent to minimize what slavery entailed in the past.

The purpose in raising wage/debt slavery was to draw a modern parallel to what had previously transpired.

FTR there are people who do end up in jail for failing to pay their bills in certain jurisdictions and it is a perversion of the law of the land but it does occur in a few jurisdictions.

Furthermore there was no intention to water it down now exploit it for emotional impact either.

The goal is to try and understand the mindset of slave owners and so far we have not had a single person take that position although some who have posted have not participated in the poll.

At this point it appears as though there is common objection to slavery across the political spectrum but with only a small handful of responses that could change.

 

Glad that you raised the point about cheap labor because that was the basis for using slaves however in order to get them to work there were overheads such as food, shelter, clothing and overseers.

Once those overheads are accounted for does that equate to what we are currently paying as Minimum Wage instead?

 

Cats don't enslave us. They are kind enough to let us live in their houses if we provide them with somewhat better food than they can get on their own but that seems a rather equitable deal.

 

As, personally, "owning someone" is an oxymoron, the concept is anathema to my being. That someone might think it possible to own another would not be acknowledged as binding upon me.

 

Please excuse if heard before, but this reminds us of the difference between dogs and cats:
Dog, "Humans feed me, nurture me, protect me, love me. The must be God!"
Cat, "Humans feed me, nurture me, protect me, love me. I must be God!"

 

Hell yes, I'd be about the most prolific slave breeder you could find, but only if it was totally legal and aboveboard

This is slavery's dirty little secret. Most of it is for sex, not labor, and usually has been in most cases. If you need something that is done that requires even the tiniest skill it's almost always much easier to just pay somebody than to force them to do it. In the ancient world, most slavery for labor was really a matter of legalized coercion, a good deal different than what we have today. Concubinage, OTOH, was pretty much exactly like it exists now, and it holds more women in bondage than at any other time in the history of the world.

 

I would only own slaves if they were white and liberal. I'm not answering your poll. I would say no but I find it a race baiting poll.

 

Ask them!

 

I understand your point but sex slavery was NOT what was expected of those picking cotton in the southern states. Today's MW slavery is not for for sex either.

 

That's very true, the "Peculiar Institution" was indeed peculiar in that its main purpose was for stoop labor.

What is MW? I do contend that most slavery today is for sexual purposes.

 

I think Trump would have slaves in the thousands, he wants them now.

Conservatives make an awful lot out of a few paltry contributions by extremely rich people who will never even notice the relatively minuscule amounts. I love how they gush on endlessly about how Trump contributes his Presidential salary, but never even notice how one trip by AF1 to Mar-a-Lago costs more than twice that in fuel alone.

 

The not so reverand Jesse Jackson and anti semite Al Sharpton are doing the gushing here....and their both filthy rich! (Al doesn't pay taxes)