Is Slavery Wrong?

@Aedes,

Aedes;93040 wrote:

The African relationship with the transatlantic slave trade was not as innocent as you portray. European slave traders created and armed puppet states in order to get slaves, such as the Ashanti kingdom and the Dahomey kingdom. It was a 16th century version of the same corrupt warlords you see today in eastern Congo -- they sold slaves to the Europeans because it kept them rich and powerful -- and that's again a statement about the valuation of humans.

I'm not denying that at all - you are absolutely right about what became of the African kingdoms involved in the slave trade, and those monarchs knew exactly what they were doing.

But prior to European involvement, African kingdoms had a version of slavery that was radically different from the western brand. It was a system of punishment for crime and a way to repay debt, and there were traditional controls over treatment. Once the Europeans become involved, this unacceptable but far less demonic system was overturned.

The only point I'm trying to make with this is that your definition of slavery does not apply to slavery universally. The form of slavery I mention seems to have rarely involved life-long engagement, and seems to have left a good deal of room for self-determination in that those who were slaves were, in theory, in that state according to their own actions and could obtain release from that state by their own actions and retained some degree of personal liberty. Again, this less barbaric system was and is still unacceptable beyond doubt, but that's the point - keeping humans in bondage, innocent or otherwise, regardless of duration and degree of liberty, is unacceptable. There's no need for all of these qualifications - 'keeping humans in bondage' is enough to deserve moral disapproval.

@Aedes,

Why am I not where there is real freedom? If you examine my posts, you will find that there are seven areas of potential slavery. When you foul the air, you enslave those who must work to clean it to breathe.

Most importantly, It was once written, because it is true, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." The only true path to freedom is to provide those things which aid man in correct thinking, so that he knows what truth is, and why.

I have devoted my life to that quest--first I had to answer questions no one else had ever done, or could do. I had a special teacher for that. You can see some of my work, that I give away freely, on the Internet Archive. search johnclark8659. free audio books, free ebooks and essays.

Also, I post to find a soul mate to pursue the work with. Never had any luck on that issue. j.c.

@NoOne phil,

Forget Plato, language, lucid dreaming, and predication. Take a word of wisdom from Sly Stone - "Don't you know that you are free? Well, at least in your mind if you want to be."

Anyone posting on this forum has more freedom than most people in the world can even imagine. Do you expect humans to create a utopia? If not, there is no sense complaining - instead, we should appreciate what we do have. Sure, I have plenty of criticisms to sling at our society, but the bottom line is that the only real, true, and pure freedom to be had is that in your own mind.

@NoOne phil,

NoOne;93262 wrote:

Zeth, I see you have no problem speaking on things you have absolutely no knowledge of, you are much to much the modern philosopher for me.

Can you be more specific?

I've stated you aren't a slave in the traditional sense, despite you not liking to work. You're right, I don't have direct knowledge that you're definitely not, but it's unlikely you'd have computer access if you were a slave in the traditional sense. Let's call it an educated guess.

I apologize that you've perceived me as a modern philosopher. I'll try to appear more classical the next time we speak.

@Zetherin,

You must excuse me, I have no idea of what "traditional sense" means. Words either are, or are not used in accordance with definition.

Perhaps it will be easier if it is explained that each and every body acquistion system of a living organism functions to maintain and promote the life of that organism, when the products of that system is taken by another organism, that is slavery. This is the sense used in the Judeo-Christian scripture, and the sense used by Plato. It is also the techinical sense used in science. Fact is, it is not a "sense" at all but used by definition.

Example, when you work to buy a house and furnish it, and then the state comes and says it can take anything and everything you own, as in my case, and give it to whomever they damn well please, then slavery takes place. If you have no idea what slavery is, you cannot very well speak and judge about it. I suppose I could have walked away from my family and had them fend for themselves, invalidate my word and responsibilities but then I would be much too modern for myself.

And to toss in a real monky wrench, slavery is the state of a human body acquisition system whose product is taken to sustain and promote the life of an organism that is not its own body. This means that slavery has nothing to do with force, but with where the product goes. One can be forced into labor, where the product of that labor sustains and promotes the individual, but by definition, this is not slavery.

@NoOne phil,

NoOne wrote:

Perhaps it will be easier if it is explained that each and every body acquistion system of a living organism functions to maintain and promote the life of that organism, when the products of that system is taken by another organism, that is slavery. This is the sense used in the Judeo-Christian scripture, and the sense used by Plato. It is also the techinical sense used in science. Fact is, it is not a "sense" at all but used by definition.

I'm using this definition:

"Slavery is a form of forced labor and/or bondage in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others."

I think you know what we meant here when we said slavery, and I'm sure you're aware of this common definition.

That said, what is a "body acquisition system"? I don't understand your definition.

Quote:

You must excuse me, I have no idea of what "traditional sense" means. Words either are, or are not used in accordance with definition.

I've clarified that my use of the word "traditional" is equivalent to how Lincoln references slavery. "Traditional slave" isn't an odd grouping of words either, as you can ascertain from googling "traditional slave". There are many traditions, culture to culture, dealing with slavery, and most, if not all, have to deal with bondage and forced labor.

Quote:

Example, when you work to buy a house and furnish it, and then the state comes and says it can take anything and everything you own, as in my case, and give it to whomever they damn well please, then slavery takes place. If you have no idea what slavery is, you cannot very well speak and judge about it. I suppose I could have walked away from my family and had them fend for themselves, invalidate my word and responsibilities but then I would be much too modern for myself.

After being bitter about losing a house, you've convinced yourself you're enslaved?

Quote:

And to toss in a real monky wrench, slavery is the state of a human body acquisition system whose product is taken to sustain and promote the life of an organism that is not its own body.

This means that slavery has nothing to do with force, but with where the product goes. One can be forced into labor, where the product of that labor sustains and promotes the individual, but by definition, this is not slavery.

Of course it has to do with force. I could willingly perform labor and have the product go elsewhere (not promoting myself), and one should not call this slavery. In fact, most of us perform actions in some form that contribute to someone other than ourselves daily. It's called a functioning society.

@prothero,

One learns in elementary mathematics that there are two, and only two methods of constructing a set. enumeration and definition. Enumeration is to material as definition is to form.
In the realm of what people call definition one has the same division, definition and description. When you learn the foundation of language, perhaps you will come to understand the difference, you words indicate that you do not.

Definition, and definition alone, is a standard. Your source is a description. I know you do not understand, but I am not interested in how much you do not understand. Study Plato, I have posted several audio-book translations on the internet archive. Also, study in the Lucid Dreamstate, it is not a free for all fantasy state. Everything about that is explained in a common Book.

@NoOne phil,

NoOne;93284 wrote:

One learns in elementary mathematics that there are two, and only two methods of constructing a set. enumeration and definition. Enumeration is to material as definition is to form.
In the realm of what people call definition one has the same division, definition and description. When you learn the foundation of language, perhaps you will come to understand the difference, you words indicate that you do not.

Definition, and definition alone, is a standard. Your source is a description. I know you do not understand, but I am not interested in how much you do not understand. Study Plato, I have posted several audio-book translations on the internet archive. Also, study in the Lucid Dreamstate, it is not a free for all fantasy state. Everything about that is explained in a common Book.

Perhaps it might do you some good to take something more than an introductory look at philosophy before spouting such terms in this forum. The people here are far more eductaed than you give them credit for.

As this is an internet forum, we are using the adaptive colloquialisms common to the english language. If you want to break this down into a war of symantics then I will have to point out that you are also incorrect in your description of the words in use. A description implies application while a definition implies comprehension. Since we are not speaking greek here, your point on Plato is moot. Not all things translate precisely and so this is a baseless argument. Now, if you would like to be a productive member here, I would suggest getting a better grasp of the content which you throw into peoples faces.

Language is a tool used to express ideas. Being able to use big words is like being able to use a screwdriver. Just because you know how to use them does not mean that you are accomplishing anything useful. If you have no ideas to express, you're simply turning a stripped screw in circles until your hands get tired... Also known as verbal masturbation.

We now return to our regularly scheduled thread WITHOUT useless distractions.

@NoOne phil,

NoOne;93274 wrote:

Example, when you work to buy a house and furnish it, and then the state comes and says it can take anything and everything you own, as in my case, and give it to whomever they damn well please, then slavery takes place.

That hasn't happened to me. Probably because I honor contracts with my creditors, and I accept that citizenship in this country assumes adherence to state laws. That's not slavery -- I can choose to stop paying for my car or house. I can choose to stop paying taxes. I then have also made the choice to accept the consequences that may ensue.

@Aedes,

Aedes;93311 wrote:

That hasn't happened to me. Probably because I honor contracts with my creditors, and I accept that citizenship in this country assumes adherence to state laws. That's not slavery -- I can choose to stop paying for my car or house. I can choose to stop paying taxes. I then have also made the choice to accept the consequences that may ensue.

Well in a way, but think about it. You don't ever actually own your house. Even if you pay it off, you still don't technically own it. If you refuse to pay your property taxes, the government can take your home from you. This qualifies you as a Serf.

Serf:
1. a person in a condition of servitude, required to render services to a lord, commonly attached to the lord's land and transferred with it from one owner to another.
2. a slave.

You are required to pay your taxes. These are the in form of property taxes. In other words connected to the land, your house sits on.

The newest addition to all this is going to be the medical insurance health care plan. You will be required by law to own medical insurance. No matter how much it costs, you will be required to pay it, and if you don't you will be fined.

People like to use auto insurrance as an example of this health care plan. But it is rediculous example because with auto insurance you have an option to not drive. Do we force non-drivers to purchase auto insurance? Well if you make it manditory to purchase medical insurance it leaves no option for an alternative, such as not caring about your health treatment method.

Once again you are a Serf.

@prothero,

I'm not required to pay taxes. I can go move to the mountains in northern Pakistan or go hide in the forest and the IRS will never bother me again.

But I'm willing to accept the authority of the governing body of my municipality, which paves the roads and maintains the pipes and power lines, which makes my house approachable and liveable -- and therein I'll pay the property taxes. After all, I own the lot and the house but I don't own the town or the utility companies.

I just don't get libertarian types who complain so much about the taxes, yet go on living here. Is it hypocrisy?

@Aedes,

Aedes;93317 wrote:

I'm not required to pay taxes. I can go move to the mountains in northern Pakistan or go hide in the forest and the IRS will never bother me again.

But I'm willing to accept the authority of the governing body of my municipality, which paves the roads and maintains the pipes and power lines, which makes my house approachable and liveable -- and therein I'll pay the property taxes. After all, I own the lot and the house but I don't own the town or the utility companies.

You pay utility companys for their services, how does that involve taxation? You are mixing the two and justifying them as if they were one and the same. They are not.

Aedes;93317 wrote:

I just don't get libertarian types who complain so much about the taxes, yet go on living here. Is it hypocrisy?

You are aware that it states in the constitution that the government is not allowed to collect income or property taxes? There is actually no law that states you must pay them, however; if you do not pay them, you'll end up in jail for it. No actual law on the books yet somehow you get treated like a criminal? Hmm. Yeah that sounds fair.

Libertarians are only trying to preserve the rights this country started off with, before corrupt and greedy politicians started enacting ways to funnel funds out of the citizens and into their pockets.

@Krumple,

Krumple;93321 wrote:

You are aware that it states in the constitution that the government is not allowed to collect income or property taxes? There is actually no law that states you must pay them, however; if you do not pay them, you'll end up in jail for it. No actual law on the books yet somehow you get treated like a criminal?

Except that none of this is true. Go talk to an attorney or a certified personal accountant and get these facts set straight.

Did we forget the 16th Amendment which gives the government the right to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."?

@Krumple,

Krumple;93321 wrote:

You pay utility companys for their services, how does that involve taxation?

Because they're heavily subsidized, especially the water. And no utility company maintains the road to my house.

Krumple;93321 wrote:

You are aware that it states in the constitution that the government is not allowed to collect income or property taxes?

Let the revolution begin. Amazing that no one has noticed this before.

Krumple;93321 wrote:

Libertarians are only trying to preserve the rights this country started off with

Well good luck with that, it's a democracy, but judging how people vote you're in the minority.

@Aedes,

Rights this country started off with? Tell that to blacks, immigrants, women, ect....

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;93324 wrote:

Except that none of this is true. Go talk to an attorney or a certified personal accountant and get these facts set straight.

Did we forget the 16th Amendment which gives the government the right to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."?

---------- Post added 09-24-2009 at 09:45 AM ----------

Aedes;93326 wrote:

Because they're heavily subsidized, especially the water. And no utility company maintains the road to my house.

Who says that the government is required to do this? Couldn't private companies be responsible for road construction or maintenance? A private company would do a far better job in my opinion. Think about it, a free market would be highly competitive to keep roads free of pot holes and what ever else the government neglects to maintain.

Aedes;93326 wrote:

Let the revolution begin. Amazing that no one has noticed this before.

People have noticed it, but the ones who don't care about the abuse of the governments power just blindly accept it.

Aedes;93326 wrote:

Well good luck with that, it's a democracy, but judging how people vote you're in the minority.

The US isn't a democracy, it is a republic. The laws of the nation are to protect the rights of the minority. That's why the framers of the constitution wrote the constitution to begin with. The laws of the country are not to give the government the power nor is it to maintain the power of the majority.

---------- Post added 09-24-2009 at 09:48 AM ----------

Didymos Thomas;93328 wrote:

Rights this country started off with? Tell that to blacks, immigrants, women, ect....

The country DID start off with blacks and women being equal. It says "We the people..."

It doesn't say, "We the whites..." or "We the men..."

The government should have been challenged long ago to give women and blacks their rights under the constitution. But no one challenged the government until later. That is why today we have freedoms for women and blacks.

Had we just gone about our lives not caring what the government does, these rights never would have been given rightfully to blacks and women.

Those rights were always there, and should have been acknowledge. It was a failure on behalf of those in power.

@Krumple,

Yes, the 16th Amendment was added later - that's why it is an Amendment buddy.

You can lecture all day on history if you like, but when you lecture on history to me, you do so to a history major. When it comes to US history, unless you have some obscure anecdotes, I'm not likely to be surprised by what I hear. In between posting, I go back to my Barbara Tuchman - cheers.

Introducing Framer intent is of no consequence. I can go on all day about Jefferon's governmental ideals and how they are diametrically opposed to the modern US government, and at best I would be espousing governmental beliefs rather than the government as it is. When you say the government cannot levy income tax, you are incorrect. If you oppose the government's right to levy income tax, you are talking about an entirely different matter.

Let me give you a quick lesson on the Constitution: Amendments are part of the Constitution, and when an Amendment contradicts original parts of the Constitution, the Amendment reigns as law. Therefore, the 16th Amendment takes precedent. Just look at the language - it was used specifically so as to make clear that the Amendment opposes the original language of the Constitution, the whole "without regard to any census or enumeration". Again, go talk to an attorney or CPA before you confuse yourself and others. So ramble on about what the Constitution says for as long as you like - that 16th Amendment overrules all that original language. And if you doubt that, go check out what the original Constitutional document says about the Amendment process.

I spent a year living next door to a law student who became a best friend of mine. At the time, I was of the same opinion as you - and he set me straight. I know where you're coming from, it just so happens that you're wrong.

---------- Post added 09-24-2009 at 10:52 AM ----------

Krumple;93332 wrote:

The country DID start off with blacks and women being equal. It says "We the people..."

No: once again, you are substituting ideals for reality.

Talk about "We the people..." all you like- at that time women lacked the rights of white landowning males, and blacks had nearly no rights whatsoever. Even hero Jefferson only wanted land owners to have full rights as a citizen.

This Libertarian historical revisionism does not help the Libertarian cause. To say that some rights were already there when they were in fact denied time and time again is nonsense. Sure, I agree that people should have had all those rights, but the government was challenged. Minorities lost. They still lose a great deal.

@prothero,

prothero;92900 wrote:

Abraham Lincoln said "If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong"
Was Lincoln right? or
Is the notion that slavery is wrong just a modern social convention?
A subjectivie opinion?
Are there any transcendent eternal values?
Was Nietschze right about the death of God and values?

Slavery is never wrong, and it is always a form... As a form it is what it is, which is not to say that it always the right form for the times... Slavery in Lincoln's day was wrong for the times, but it persisted in changed form long after the civil war...Even wage slavery is a wrong in this day... We cannot afford it, and like chattel slavery, it devalues, and dishonors all physical labor... As a form it is like every other form of relationship, in that it can be too formal, and yet informal, with people making their own deals, and cooperating toward a common goal...It has its element of democracy to it...No person could ever be made a slave without their consent...But because slavery, when long established does not take note of the honorable station of each, slave and master, it can too easily slip into saddism, and sexual exploitation, and even murder.....It is inhuman to abuse people who trade their service and their freedom for their lives, but whever it has been practiced, slaving is the nearest thing to piracy, or common criminality....Even today we see how the rich spend the lives of the poor, caring little for their health or even their lives because their price in wages is so low...Time is life, and it is a big mistake to sell life for wages...It would be far better to sell the product of ones labor since not nearly so much time would be given to watching the line run...

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;93338 wrote:

Yes, the 16th Amendment was added later - that's why it is an Amendment buddy.

Buddy? Funny... The 16th came after the civil war, it was not originally enacted by the framers. Just because congress passes something, doesn't mean it is "right" or "just" or "required." This is part of the corruption that government heads towards over time. That is my point.

Didymos Thomas;93338 wrote:

You can lecture all day on history if you like, but when you lecture on history to me, you do so to a history major. When it comes to US history, unless you have some obscure anecdotes, I'm not likely to be surprised by what I hear. In between posting, I go back to my Barbara Tuchman - cheers.

I am not even sure what you are saying here. Are you implying you are an authority over history? That you can not be challenged because of your knowledge of history? You have lost some of my respect for you, making such a remark.

Didymos Thomas;93338 wrote:

Let me give you a quick lesson on the Constitution: Amendments are part of the Constitution, and when an Amendment contradicts original parts of the Constitution, the Amendment reigns as law. Therefore, the 16th Amendment takes precedent.

Yes and once again, just because congress does something, doesn't necessarily make it "right" or "just". Most citizens just accept everything congress does but that doesn't mean they are not violating or abusing their power.

Didymos Thomas;93338 wrote:

I spent a year living next door to a law student who became a best friend of mine. At the time, I was of the same opinion as you - and he set me straight. I know where you're coming from, it just so happens that you're wrong.

Laughable. Because you spent a year living next to a law student that makes me wrong. Thanks for informing me.

Didymos Thomas;93338 wrote:

No: once again, you are substituting ideals for reality.

Alright...

Didymos Thomas;93338 wrote:

Talk about "We the people..." all you like- at that time women lacked the rights of white landowning males, and blacks had nearly no rights whatsoever. Even hero Jefferson only wanted land owners to have full rights as a citizen.

My point is, it didn't have to say blacks have this or women have that. It clearly was in violation to begin with to make the assumption that women or blacks were not qualified. The reason being is because whites assumed their status. It was only later that the addition comes in because it is to redefine who has what status. It was unnecessary and all that needed to be acknowledge was that they already had such status to begin with.

@prothero,

Krumple wrote:

Yes and once again, just because congress does something, doesn't necessarily make it "right" or "just". Most citizens just accept everything congress does but that doesn't mean they are not violating or abusing their power.

The argument wasn't over whether the law is "right" or "just" but whether was there a law at all.

You stated:

Quote:

There is actually no law that states you must pay them (taxes)

So, the point is you're wrong.

Philosophy Forum

Is Slavery Wrong?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know