People seem to think that slavery is bad, and has always been bad.

Except in the ancient times, slavery allowed a class of people to get a lot of free time on their time that they could devote to science, art and other things that resulted in the civilisation moving forward.

Had slavery been abolished back then, no way would we be as technologically advanced as we are now.

People seem to think that slavery is bad, and has always been bad.

Except in the ancient times, slavery allowed a class of people to get a lot of free time on their time that they could devote to science, art and other things that resulted in the civilisation moving forward.

Had slavery been abolished back then, no way would we be as technologically advanced as we are now.

I've actually heard that because of slavery technological progression slowed down because when you have such a massive expendable labor force the need for technological advances (which make the job easier) goes out, since the masters aren't doing the job they obviously don't seem to care about improvement in labor.

But does the end really justify the means? We gained massive technological advances from World War II but does that mean World War II was a good thing? I don't really know.

The main problem with slavery is the dehumanizing nature of it. Some cultures made good use of indentured servantry (essentially an extension of a legit job), but that's as good as it gets. The racism present in recent forms of slavery also certainly made matters worse.

It should be pointed out that slavery is alive and well right now. There are sex slaves, mostly eastern European women, in virutally every big city in the US, for instance.

Many of the agricultural workers in the US are essentially slaves.

In India, it is not unknown for parents to sell their children into slavery.

The main reason that Wal-mart has such low prices is that so many of their products are made by slave labor.

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Travel/MiddleEast/GizaPyramids1.jpg

slavery is not inherently morally wrong. if a person has done nothing to deserve slavery, then it is wrong... mexican illegal immigrants would sort of be an example. they could be made more slaves then they are right now, but i think that would be trouble then it was worth, but i say it would not be WRONG to take illegals, and put them in work camps where they do labour in exchange for board. so long as young children were given a education, and freedom at 18, and they were not abused, then there would be no wrongdoing involved.

adopting african children, treating them well, giving them a education, and using them as slaves until they are 20 would not only be morally acceptable, but morally positive. it's the greatest opportunity they will ever have to not die of aids or be maciheted to death.

born slavery is wrong, but if a person committed a crime, or if they are prisoners of war / citizens of a conquered land, then there is nothing wrong with outright slavery, so long as they are treated properly.

slavery is not inherently morally wrong. if a person has done nothing to deserve slavery, then it is wrong... mexican illegal immigrants would sort of be an example. they could be made more slaves then they are right now, but i think that would be trouble then it was worth, but i say it would not be WRONG to take illegals, and put them in work camps where they do labour in exchange for board. so long as young children were given a education, and freedom at 18, and they were not abused, then there would be no wrongdoing involved.

adopting african children, treating them well, giving them a education, and using them as slaves until they are 20 would not only be morally acceptable, but morally positive. it's the greatest opportunity they will ever have to not die of aids or be maciheted to death.

born slavery is wrong, but if a person committed a crime, or if they are prisoners of war / citizens of a conquered land, then there is nothing wrong with outright slavery, so long as they are treated properly.

Who are you to say what people can do to "deserve" slavery? A racist or sexist would say (and believe) that people deserve slavery because of their skin color or sex appeal.

Who are you to say what people can do to "deserve" slavery? A racist or sexist would say (and believe) that people deserve slavery because of their skin color or sex appeal.

it already happens. how many blacks were executed and lynched for things they didn't do? how many more are in jail for things they didn't do? who am i to say people deserve jailtime or death? slavery is not different.

it already happens. how many blacks were executed and lynched for things they didn't do? how many more are in jail for things they didn't do? who am i to say people deserve jailtime or death? slavery is not different.

You weren't talking about people being wrongfully punished, so please, stay on topic. :p

My point was that slavery is an intentional act of degrading another human being, just like prison and death sentences. While most people face prison and death sentences because they violated laws (often universal ones, like "don't kill", "don't steal"), the justifications for slavery are usually absurd. I'd agree that in some situations, such as being a war prisoner or owing a debt, it can be a reasonable "punishment", but...just in the context of history, there are way too many dumbasses out there that thought people "deserved it", just because of their parents, their ethnicity, their sex, etc.

Simply put, if someone actually does something that violates a law, then you can talk about people deserving punishment (including slavery). Otherwise, it leads to bullshit like "they deserve it because they're poor/black/Jewish/etc.!"

See what I'm saying?

You weren't talking about people being wrongfully punished, so please, stay on topic. :p

My point was that slavery is an intentional act of degrading another human being, just like prison and death sentences. While most people face prison and death sentences because they violated laws (often universal ones, like "don't kill", "don't steal"), the justifications for slavery are usually absurd. I'd agree that in some situations, such as being a war prisoner or owing a debt, it can be a reasonable "punishment", but...just in the context of history, there are way too many dumbasses out there that thought people "deserved it", just because of their parents, their ethnicity, their sex, etc.

Simply put, if someone actually does something that violates a law, then you can talk about people deserving punishment (including slavery). Otherwise, it leads to bullshit like "they deserve it because they're poor/black/Jewish/etc.!"

See what I'm saying?

i SEE what you're saying. the problem here is i specifically stated that what you're saying shouldn't be done. i already said that slavery is only inherently wrong if one is born into to it or unjustly placed there. that issue has been concluded since we both agree on it.

are there any other issues you would like to discuss?

i SEE what you're saying. the problem here is i specifically stated that what you're saying shouldn't be done. i already said that slavery is only inherently wrong if one is born into to it or unjustly placed there. that issue has been concluded since we both agree on it.

are there any other issues you would like to discuss?

How would an adopted foreign kid "deserve" to be a slave until he's 20? He has as much as say over that situation as a parent's biological kid woudl.

How would an adopted foreign kid "deserve" to be a slave until he's 20? He has as much as say over that situation as a parent's biological kid woudl.

are you serious?

we get some kid out of africa, give him food, clean water, a education, a chance not to be dead at 12, and in exchange, we ask for him to work until he is 20? at which point he finds himself alive, healthy, educated, free, and in AMERICA?

we would not be ABLE to accommodate all the applicants. there would be more children throwing themselves at the ships to america then we could use or handle.

it would probably be the single largest and most effective humanitarian operation in the history of mankind. and it would pay for itself. these children would have a future, a real chance. this would not be bad by ANY means. they would rejoice. we wouldn't be kidnapping them, we would be accepting them - they would BEG for the chance. EVERYONE wins.

The racism present in recent forms of slavery also certainly made matters worse.

yeah, because people are enslaved because they're black:rolleyes:

are you serious?

we get some kid out of africa, give him food, clean water, a education, a chance not to be dead at 12, and in exchange, we ask for him to work until he is 20? at which point he finds himself alive, healthy, educated, free, and in AMERICA?

we would not be ABLE to accommodate all the applicants. there would be more children throwing themselves at the ships to america then we could use or handle.

it would probably be the single largest and most effective humanitarian operation in the history of mankind. and it would pay for itself. these children would have a future, a real chance. this would not be bad by ANY means. they would rejoice. we wouldn't be kidnapping them, we would be accepting them - they would BEG for the chance. EVERYONE wins.

And the same applies to any child that a couple gives birth to. Your parents gave you food, clean water, an education, and a chance not ot be dead at 12. Why? Because they love you. The same applies to adopted children; it's not a business exchange, it happens because couple's want a child to love and raise.

These kids are born into orphanages and are simply living their lives. Some get lucky and are adopted by a well-off family, but the kids certainly aren't entering into some agreement when they are adopted. Even if, in some hypothetical new program, the kids were able to enter a slavery agreement, there'd still be the ethical issue of if they are even mature and aware enough to make such a decision.

Besides, pretty much any minor is a "slave". They have chores and responsibilities around the house, and if they disrespect their parents in certain ways, they usually are punished. Beyond just typical household responsibilities, what kind of slavery did you have in mind?

And the same applies to any child that a couple gives birth to. Your parents gave you food, clean water, an education, and a chance not ot be dead at 12. Why? Because they love you. The same applies to adopted children; it's not a business exchange, it happens because couple's want a child to love and raise.

These kids are born into orphanages and are simply living their lives. Some get lucky and are adopted by a well-off family, but the kids certainly aren't entering into some agreement when they are adopted. Even if, in some hypothetical new program, the kids were able to enter a slavery agreement, there'd still be the ethical issue of if they are even mature and aware enough to make such a decision.

Besides, pretty much any minor is a "slave". They have chores and responsibilities around the house, and if they disrespect their parents in certain ways, they usually are punished. Beyond just typical household responsibilities, what kind of slavery did you have in mind?

i am speaking of children, ages 6-18, in war torn, starving, poverty stricken nations.

they would work for their keep and education. obviously no coal mines or such for the young ones, as that would be abuse at their age. advanced education could later be had once they are free through the military easily as anyone else.


the idea is, not only profit off them, but give them a new chance at life. everyone wins. if they are happy where they are, they don't need to sign up. if their parents want to stay, they don't need to sign their kid up. but if they like the idea of a good life, then they can go to the nearest indentured servitude agency building or whatever, sign the paper, and be off to the land of opportunity - leading a easier life then they already lead as a american slave, and then made free men with a education. the world would be their oyster. certainly compared to the future they had before they signed up.

i am speaking of children, ages 6-18, in war torn, starving, poverty stricken nations.

they would work for their keep and education. obviously no coal mines or such for the young ones, as that would be abuse at their age. advanced education could later be had once they are free through the military easily as anyone else.


the idea is, not only profit off them, but give them a new chance at life. everyone wins. if they are happy where they are, they don't need to sign up. if their parents want to stay, they don't need to sign their kid up. but if they like the idea of a good life, then they can go to the nearest indentured servitude agency building or whatever, sign the paper, and be off to the land of opportunity - leading a easier life then they already lead as a american slave, and then made free men with a education. the world would be their oyster. certainly compared to the future they had before they signed up.

1) If that's your idea, you shouldn't call it slavery. If they are working and simultaneously being given room, board, good living conditions (absolutely no abuse), and education, then that's fine. Wanting them to be in some slave agreement instead of just being part of a legal work-study program is silly.

2) Again, what the hell do you think they'd be doing? Mowing the lawn? Washing dishes? Cleaning up the house? Indeed. And during the day they'd go to school, and at night they'd do their homework, and then after school the next day, they'd do their chores again. That describes the life of many average American children. Bringing "slavery" into the equation is just insane.

1) If that's your idea, you shouldn't call it slavery. If they are working and simultaneously being given room, board, good living conditions (absolutely no abuse), and education, then that's fine. Wanting them to be in some slave agreement instead of just being part of a legal work-study program is silly.

2) Again, what the hell do you think they'd be doing? Mowing the lawn? Washing dishes? Cleaning up the house? Indeed. And during the day they'd go to school, and at night they'd do their homework, and then after school the next day, they'd do their chores again. That describes the life of many average American children. Bringing "slavery" into the equation is just insane.

they'd have to work harder then that. and so long as companies provided the required conditions, they could always enlist kids to work on assembly lines if they were safe, as long as they got school, board and weren't abused. theres nothing wrong with something like that.

so, it would be 'indentured servitude' for the children. slavery is just a degree. in a sense, WE are slaves when we go to work, and are free when we leave, in a sense, because we aren't free to do anything. adults could sign up to be slaves. work for their responsible and well treated upkeep. don't you think there are plenty of starving people, adults in the world that would love to be able to eat, drink, be healthy, not be worried about being killed - in exchange for labor that is likely easier then what they do anyways? but there is no backing out once they sign. be it for however many years.

slavery never meant specifically, 'hellish gulag style abuse' as much as 'you can't leave'. if we bring someone over from africa or south america or wherever, then they can't back out. they must fulfill their obligations, they don't have a choice anymore. that is why they would be slaves.

There's absolutely no reason why the current legal, humane system wouldn't work equally well. Why the hell you think you need to own someone's life, instead of just having an equal trade agreement, is beyond me.

Shut the fuck up now.

I don't believe that slavery is the correct term for your idea Danzig.

Defining characteristics of forced labour
12. In its original Convention on the subject, the
Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), the ILO
defines forced labour for the purposes of international
law as “all work or service which is exacted from any
person under the menace of any penalty and for which
the said person has not offered himself voluntarily”
From page 5 http://www.ilo.org/dyn/declaris/DECLARATIONWEB.DOWNLOAD_BLOB?Var_DocumentID=5059

To be considered slavery, the subjects must be either captured against their will or purchased, possibly from their parents.

This isn't to say that I don't like the idea of adopting a foster child from a war-torn country. It would be a great humanitarian cause, much better than those BS dollar a day infomercials all over late night TV.

There's absolutely no reason why the current legal, humane system wouldn't work equally well. Why the hell you think you need to own someone's life, instead of just having an equal trade agreement, is beyond me.

Shut the fuck up now.

you're just pissed because you don't have anything to bitch about and i answered all your questions. before you asked them, actually. and now that making me repeat myself to you does not change anything, you say that a system that is not working works fine, and then you play pedantics with the difference between 'owning someone s life' and 'them selling x number of years of their life to you for the purpose of being made to labor those years in exchange for benefits' as if that wasn't a equal trade agreement. what is beyond you, is really how you can have no sincerely slippery little point on which to skitter about and stir people into a rage over your dodging and weaving while maintaining the ability to act completely smug and self righteous - and now you lose your cool, because you have been cornered.


telecomnerd

well, i did propose flat out slavery in the case of spoils-of-war or for wrongdoing. plain old slavery, albeit not abusive. the really wonderful thing i proposed that would be simply the most humanitarian thing ever done, is really indentured servitude, which is willing slavery - selling oneself for a period of time. its OK for some people to be captured against their will and forced into working, just not for lame reasons like skin color or ethnicity or beliefs.

Are you not familiar with work-study programs? The government invites people over, sets them up with work, they work, and they pay off their schooling.

Slavery is entirely unnecessary, and idiotic. I gave you a chance to explain your point, and your point is stupid. Stfu.

Are you not familiar with work-study programs? The government invites people over, sets them up with work, they work, and they pay off their schooling.

Slavery is entirely unnecessary, and idiotic. I gave you a chance to explain your point, and your point is stupid. Stfu.

skitter skitter skitter, oh slippery one!

work-study programs are nothing like what i was talking about. you know that, derdrache.

People seem to think that slavery is bad, and has always been bad.

Except in the ancient times, slavery allowed a class of people to get a lot of free time on their time that they could devote to science, art and other things that resulted in the civilisation moving forward.

Had slavery been abolished back then, no way would we be as technologically advanced as we are now.

Actually, slavery forced the Southern American(presumably who you're speaking of) economy to rely on agriculture. Had the entire United States done the same, the economy would have crumbled during one of the frequent dry spells that the North had to bail the South out of.

Actually, slavery forced the Southern American(presumably who you're speaking of) economy to rely on agriculture. Had the entire United States done the same, the economy would have crumbled during one of the frequent dry spells that the North had to bail the South out of.

No no no, I wasn't talking about that at all. I was talking more of the ancient world, e.g. Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome.

I mean, the social advancement is only possible with technological advancement, right?

I do not condone slavery in the modern day and age. Less so economic "slavery" through loans and debts - as long as there are viable alternatives.

No no no, I wasn't talking about that at all. I was talking more of the ancient world, e.g. Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome.

I mean, the social advancement is only possible with technological advancement, right?

I do not condone slavery in the modern day and age. Less so economic "slavery" through loans and debts - as long as there are viable alternatives.

The Ancient World provides an even better example of my point, Rome. One of the big three reasons why the Roman Empire fell was due to slavery. I'll see if I can find some elaboration, the other two big reasons were military and I think technological development, both of which tied into slave labor.

Slavery is entirely unnecessary, and idiotic.

I have to agree with this. It might have value, but ONLY to the people being allowed to exploit it for their own ends. Everyone else is fucked, and we as a society would have to be fucking morons to allow companies to drag free labour over here from other countries.

are you serious?

we get some kid out of africa, give him food, clean water, a education, a chance not to be dead at 12, and in exchange, we ask for him to work until he is 20? at which point he finds himself alive, healthy, educated, free, and in AMERICA?
.

You say that like it's a good thing.

Open your eyes. America is the least highly evolved of all the western nations.

You say that like it's a good thing.

Open your eyes. America is the least highly evolved of all the western nations.

bullshit. please, enlightened one, tell me about how bad america is, how much more wise and intelligent everyone else is. tell me how you pick yourself a criteria by which to judge that animal we call a 'nation', and then tell me where you got your idea that evolution is a linear value, like points in a video game - more is better, less is worse. what would make you think that? and further, let me give you a choice...

A. live in a african nation. one will be randomly chosen.
B. live in the US.

i don't believe you can, by any means that is not complete bullshit, justify picking A. you're like one of those people that look for chances to inform people they don't own a TV, or that they're a communist, or a vegetarian, or a christian, or whatever.

People seem to think that slavery is bad, and has always been bad.

Except in the ancient times, slavery allowed a class of people to get a lot of free time on their time that they could devote to science, art and other things that resulted in the civilisation moving forward.

Had slavery been abolished back then, no way would we be as technologically advanced as we are now.

Of course slavery isn’t always a “bad” thing, if we are dealing with hypothetical imperatives, i.e. imperatives of the form “if you want state B, then do A, because A is a means to B”. But this is a form of good and bad (good for something, bad for something) that isn’t really ethical in nature, that is to say, without qualification. If it were, then we would be lead to the absurd notion that “if you want to fix your television, then take it to a repair store” is an ethical statement. Now, as it stands, you have only presented us with a hypothetical imperative, and have in no way shown us that it is involved in something that qualifies it as an ethical imperative, and until you have, I will take you to be sharing nothing of special interest with us.

let me give you a choice...

A. live in a african nation. one will be randomly chosen.
B. live in the US.

He said America is the least highly evolved of all the western nations.

So asking him if he would prefer to live in an african nation or the united states is foolish. Answering that question with B, does nothing to diminish his assertion.

-------

Even asking the question:

Would you rather live in...

A. any western European country
B. America.

Does nothing to address any argument he could possibly make as to why we are the least evolved, b/c how evolved a country is does not automatically mean it is the best one to live in, and for a variety of reasons.

*takes out lighter and burns Danzigs scarecrow

Were you to turn off your auto-patriot response for a second and ask him to clarify what he means by evolved, you would find yourself in a better position to argue or perhaps agree.

I will allow Arms to speak for himself, but I think he might be referring to spiritual evolution.

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Travel/MiddleEast/GizaPyramids1.jpg

Funny as it is, the slaves only towed the bricks. Skille labourers quarried and cut the stones.

And even that is disputed. Some say that it was such an honour to be part of building a king's tomb that no slave should be allowed.

He said America is the least highly evolved of all the western nations.

So asking him if he would prefer to live in an african nation or the united states is foolish. Answering that question with B, does nothing to diminish his assertion.


how highly evolved a nation is has nothing at all to do with this discussion. his comment was rather out of the blue, and not pertinent. which is why i tried to point out its irrelevance before i went on and answered it anyways.


Does nothing to address any argument he could possibly make as to why we are the least evolved, b/c how evolved a country is does not automatically mean it is the best one to live in, and for a variety of reasons.

*takes out lighter and burns Danzigs scarecrow

eeeexactly. which is why how highly evolved a nation is little relevancy bears in this thread, specifically regarding my point of view in this discussion, which he aimed the assertion at.


Were you to turn off your auto-patriot response for a second and ask him to clarify what he means by evolved, you would find yourself in a better position to argue or perhaps agree.

I will allow Arms to speak for himself, but I think he might be referring to spiritual evolution.

i assume he was referring to spiritual evolution. and allow me to quote myself... i did ask him to clarify what he meant by evolved.


tell me how you pick yourself a criteria by which to judge that animal we call a 'nation', and then tell me where you got your idea that evolution is a linear value, like points in a video game - more is better, less is worse. what would make you think that?


perhaps in a more roundabout fashion, but nonetheless.

Funny as it is, the slaves only towed the bricks. Skille labourers quarried and cut the stones.

And even that is disputed. Some say that it was such an honour to be part of building a king's tomb that no slave should be allowed.

not that it matters regarding what you said, but i don't think the pyramids were tombs. i remember it being said somewhere that they certainly are not tombs, for various reasons, and that kids are told they are tombs for simplicities sake. the kings were buried in tombs in dry river valleys, i believe, 'the valley of the kings' or something like that. i might be wrong.

how highly evolved a nation is has nothing at all to do with this discussion. his comment was rather out of the blue, and not pertinent. which is why i tried to point out its irrelevance before i went on and answered it anyways.



eeeexactly. which is why how highly evolved a nation is little relevancy bears in this thread, specifically regarding my point of view in this discussion, which he aimed the assertion at.



i assume he was referring to spiritual evolution. and allow me to quote myself... i did ask him to clarify what he meant by evolved.



perhaps in a more roundabout fashion, but nonetheless.

You should have just shut up or said "Okay."

which is why i tried to point out its irrelevance before i went on and answered it anyways.

Appreciated, I only wanted to illustrate the fact that the question you asked him.....

Where would you rather live...

A) random african nation
B) America

.....was pointless, as it did not further your point, or dismiss what he asserted in any way shape or form.

Appreciated, I only wanted to illustrate the fact that the question you asked him.....

Where would you rather live...

A) random african nation
B) America

.....was pointless, as it did not further your point, or dismiss what he asserted in any way shape or form.

it does not dismiss what he asserted, or affirm what i said - it merely dissevered his statement from the question that i wished to make clear was another issue altogether.

it wasn't meant to detract from him or attract to me, merely to separate two individual discussions.

it does not dismiss what he asserted, or affirm what i said - it merely dissevered his statement from the question that i wished to make clear was another issue altogether.

it wasn't meant to detract from him or attract to me, merely to separate two individual discussions.

Would you shut the hell up?

the problem is that what you are proposing isn't really slavery. all that shit you plan on giving them like shelter, meals, healthcare, and education outweighs the labor value they can provide. slaves are property/livestock

the problem is that what you are proposing isn't really slavery. all that shit you plan on giving them like shelter, meals, healthcare, and education outweighs the labor value they can provide. slaves are property/livestock

well, i'm not saying they would enjoy themselves, and i'm not saying they wouldn't be worked like... well, slaves. i'm simply proposing a humane, win-win form of slavery.

well, i'm not saying they would enjoy themselves, and i'm not saying they wouldn't be worked like... well, slaves. i'm simply proposing a humane, win-win form of slavery.

So, you want to abuse and dehumanize people for absolutely no reason, as opposed to just offering them jobs like any other person?

not that it matters regarding what you said, but i don't think the pyramids were tombs. i remember it being said somewhere that they certainly are not tombs, for various reasons, and that kids are told they are tombs for simplicities sake. the kings were buried in tombs in dry river valleys, i believe, 'the valley of the kings' or something like that. i might be wrong.

Sounds interesting. I was always taught they were tombs, with everything the Pharaoh would need in the afterlife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids

???

Sounds interesting. I was always taught they were tombs, with everything the Pharaoh would need in the afterlife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids

???

B-b-but the tabloid I read says that they were built by the aliens to be used as their landing platforms!

B-b-but the tabloid I read says that they were built by the aliens to be used as their landing platforms!

I've read crazy shit like that before.

I don't know why aliens would need humans to build anything for them. Unless these aliens have a sense of humour.

Danzig, your 'Slavery for Opportunity' plan has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Who would posses the slaves, feed, clothe and house them? Who would be responsible for their education and those corresponding expenses? Would there be an agency or bureau overseeing the welfare and treatment of all the slaves in the U.S? What sort of legal rights would they have? Healthcare? You say they would be worked like slaves, but humanely. How does that work? If they're slaves and aren't paid what are they supposed to do with the education they worked so hard for once they "graduate" from slavery?

Those are just a few of a million questions, and they don't even address the myriad opportunities for corruption and criminal activity generated by your outlandish idea.

Danzig, your 'Slavery for Opportunity' plan has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Who would posses the slaves, feed, clothe and house them? Who would be responsible for their education and those corresponding expenses?

just pay the fee to ship em over, and then the rest is your responsibility. if starbucks wants cheap labor, and are willing to treat them humanely, have at them. there would be more volunteers then we needed in some parts of africa.


Would there be an agency or bureau overseeing the welfare and treatment of all the slaves in the U.S? What sort of legal rights would they have? Healthcare? You say they would be worked like slaves, but humanely. How does that work? If they're slaves and aren't paid what are they supposed to do with the education they worked so hard for once they "graduate" from slavery?


the same law system we have right now would make sure you take care of your slaves. same way they do with your kids.

and only children would have the irrevocable right to education and freedom at adulthood, although a person could certainly offer it if they wished. it would be the same as if they graduated high school, and now are ready to go into the world. good grades get scholarships, or student loans for community colleges are always available. they'd do the same thing everyone without rich parents do.


Those are just a few of a million questions, and they don't even address the myriad opportunities for corruption and criminal activity generated by your outlandish idea.

there is a feast for the corrupt EVERYWHERE. that doesn't matter. it's not outlandish, it's radical. really, think objectively and sincerely forget everything you have been taught. it's at least as good as the current system of letting them all die in fucking droves. throw profit into the equation, and africas woes could be solved in a matter of months.

I just don't see how much labor you're going to be getting out of your slave if he's going to be spending most of his time getting educated and he stops being a slave at twenty. Hardly seems worth it to me.

Also I'm surprised no one's mentioned the detrimental effect slaves have on the employment rate amongst free citizens. Why should I hire workers when I can just buy a slave?

I just don't see how much labor you're going to be getting out of your slave if he's going to be spending most of his time getting educated and he stops being a slave at twenty. Hardly seems worth it to me.

Also I'm surprised no one's mentioned the detrimental effect slaves have on the employment rate amongst free citizens. Why should I hire workers when I can just buy a slave?

citizens would be managers, owners, skilled labor... with all the cheap labor, there would be LOTS of economic expansion. and someone has to do the skilled jobs and managerial jobs... plenty of them would exist for us citizens.

and, only the KIDS would be by law bound to be educated and then freed. adults may sign whatever contract they can get, but kids ought to have a chance.

just pay the fee to ship em over, and then the rest is your responsibility. if starbucks wants cheap labor, and are willing to treat them humanely, have at them. the same law system we have right now would make sure you take care of your slaves. same way they do with your kids.

So you're saying there is no plan or oversight, we would just send slave ships and let people sell themselves? Would you even have to register them? How would you prove you aren't a slave? I don't even know what fucking planet you're on thinking the labor departments as they are could oversee the welfare of millions of slaves. Taking care of kids is so different from maintaining a workforce of slaves, I don't know why you would even bring that up.

and only children would have the irrevocable right to education and freedom at adulthood, although a person could certainly offer it if they wished. it would be the same as if they graduated high school, and now are ready to go into the world. good grades get scholarships, or student loans for community colleges are always available. they'd do the same thing everyone without rich parents do.

Growing up as a slave and having no possessions is a little different than having parents who aren't well off. You haven't even addressed the education issue, as no one would want to teach them, allow them into their schools or give them a loan.

there is a feast for the corrupt EVERYWHERE. that doesn't matter.

Uh, yes it does. You're talking about importing millions of slaves into the country, they would generate the largest amount of graft, corruption and criminal activity besides the illegal drug trade.

there would be more volunteers then we needed in some parts of africa.

Why can't you grasp that just because people are in a terrible situation and willing to degrade and dehumanize themselves to try and change things, that doesn't mean it's ok.

it's not outlandish, it's radical. really, think objectively and sincerely forget everything you have been taught. it's at least as good as the current system of letting them all die in fucking droves. throw profit into the equation, and africas woes could be solved in a matter of months.

Unfortunately, I've been taught common sense. It's not radical, and it's not as good as any system anyone has ever proposed. It's just a flat out dumb idea, and the fact you're arguing strongly for it is starting to make me think you're an idiot.

words

let them die, then. *shrugs*.

Yeah, because enslaving them is the only way to help.

Weak.

Danzig...there's so much nonsense in your posts that I wouldn't know where to begin. Instead, I simply ask you: Why the hell can't you simply invite them over to work like normal human beings? People work. People get paid. What's so complex about that?

Yeah, because enslaving them is the only way to help.

Weak.

people will not help unless they can make money off of it. earth to ganjaninja, smoke all the weed you want and talk about peace and love till your dreadlocks fall off. in reality, people don't give a fuck if theres not something in it for them.

make it profitable, and africa can be saved. till then, they will die, as your plan, which works so well, is in place, and all the aid organizations can keep pissing into the ocean all they want, but until there is money to be made from africans living... africans will die.

you must offer a incentive, you two. the world is not a free ride, and mr. mcdonalds would love to save some africans, but really, this is business, and it simply is not profitable to save and improve their lives if they are not veritable slave laborers.

when relying on the milk of human kindness and hoping, really hard, that everyone would just be nice and help everyone out at their own cost works out for this world, i swear on the face of my father i will eat my words.

till then, enjoy frolicking around happyville and saving imaginary africans with your patchouli scented solutions. meanwhile, the real ones die.

people will not help unless they can make money off of it. earth to ganjaninja, smoke all the weed you want and talk about peace and love till your dreadlocks fall off. in reality, people don't give a fuck if theres not something in it for them.

make it profitable, and africa can be saved. till then, they will die, as your plan, which works so well, is in place, and all the aid organizations can keep pissing into the ocean all they want, but until there is money to be made from africans living... africans will die.

you must offer a incentive, you two. the world is not a free ride, and mr. mcdonalds would love to save some africans, but really, this is business, and it simply is not profitable to save and improve their lives if they are not veritable slave laborers.

when relying on the milk of human kindness and hoping, really hard, that everyone would just be nice and help everyone out at their own cost works out for this world, i swear on the face of my father i will eat my words.

till then, enjoy frolicking around happyville and saving imaginary africans with your patchouli scented solutions. meanwhile, the real ones die.

Who is employing the hundreds of millions of people in America's working class then, Einstein?

idiocy

Yeah, make it about me you half-wit.

I'm tired of indulging your bullshit, it's an unbelievably stupid idea, and you are one of the dumbest fucking posters on totse.

derdrache, americans are expensive laborers. businesses would love to be able to expand because of the cheap unskilled labor. a whole new economy in america would spring forth - we would be able to stop outsourcing our factories and such. we would start exporting shit again.

and before you complain about being put out of a job, there would be more higher level jobs available, because of all this expansion. it would work out great.


ganjaninja, you don't have anything to say, so i'll simply tell you that if you think that working with human nature to become wealthier and simultaneously helping impoverished people is dumb, then you are a fool. you still haven't answered any of my questions with anything but 'thats stupid' and 'you're stupid'. real convincing, ganja. at least derdrache can make a case out of nitpicking at my proposal, despite me being able to do a whole hell of a lot more nitpicking at the current fucked system in place.

derdrache, americans are expensive laborers. businesses would love to be able to expand because of the cheap unskilled labor. a whole new economy in america would spring forth - we would be able to stop outsourcing our factories and such. we would start exporting shit again.

and before you complain about being put out of a job, there would be more higher level jobs available, because of all this expansion. it would work out great.

Tell me something. Exactly HOW does this create more higher level jobs?

Slavery in the manner you've described effectively creates a free labour base for the company that they can promote to the higher levels once they've become free, and for less pay. The higher job levels might be created overseeing the slaves, but eventually the slaves will be able to oversee themselves. There's absolutely no reason for them to pay somebody reasonable pay when they've got "experts" created by developmental service. The slaves get the jobs, the owners get the benefits. Everyone else gets fucked.

Think of this in the long term, not the short term. Your average American cannot compete against free labour.

ganjaninja, you don't have anything to say, so i'll simply tell you that if you think that working with human nature to become wealthier and simultaneously helping impoverished people is dumb

I'd like to point out that you're a fool if you think making rich people richer and "helping" people by enslaving them at the expense of everyone else is a good thing.

There are alternatives. Stop pretending that yours are the only ones.

Honestly, I'm starting to see a trend here. You really dig strring shit, don't you?

There is nothing I can say Iehova has not already said.

you still haven't answered any of my questions with anything but 'thats stupid' and 'you're stupid'. real convincing, ganja. at least derdrache can make a case out of nitpicking at my proposal, despite me being able to do a whole hell of a lot more nitpicking at the current fucked system in place.

You haven't asked me a single question in this thread. I'm pretty sure I did point out some major flaws in your proposal, you just had no response:

So you're saying there is no plan or oversight, we would just send slave ships and let people sell themselves? Would you even have to register them? How would you prove you aren't a slave? I don't even know what fucking planet you're on thinking the labor departments as they are could oversee the welfare of millions of slaves. Taking care of kids is so different from maintaining a workforce of slaves, I don't know why you would even bring that up.



Growing up as a slave and having no possessions is a little different than having parents who aren't well off. You haven't even addressed the education issue, as no one would want to teach them, allow them into their schools or give them a loan.



Uh, yes it does. You're talking about importing millions of slaves into the country, they would generate the largest amount of graft, corruption and criminal activity besides the illegal drug trade.



Why can't you grasp that just because people are in a terrible situation and willing to degrade and dehumanize themselves to try and change things, that doesn't mean it's ok.



Unfortunately, I've been taught common sense. It's not radical, and it's not as good as any system anyone has ever proposed. It's just a flat out dumb idea, and the fact you're arguing strongly for it is starting to make me think you're an idiot.

You are the one not supporting his idea. I've given you just a few of the reasons why it wouldn't work even if people were somehow ok with it, and you haven't done anything but *shrug*.

Danzig provides many lulz.

+1 for this troll.

iehova, you have a point regarding the job problem. i'll admit that. ganja and derdrache aren't very smart, but

Slavery in the manner you've described effectively creates a free labour base for the company that they can promote to the higher levels once they've become free, and for less pay. The higher job levels might be created overseeing the slaves, but eventually the slaves will be able to oversee themselves. There's absolutely no reason for them to pay somebody reasonable pay when they've got "experts" created by developmental service. The slaves get the jobs, the owners get the benefits. Everyone else gets fucked.

makes good sense.

so, what if there were laws set in place that limited slaves to working in completely new industrial areas? such as. suppose that slaves make a factories possible. the company gets a permit, and they are allowed X number of slaves to perform Y task at Z factory.

the introduction of slaves would make some things profitable that weren't before, and if we can keep the use of slaves restricted to those specific things, we will see growth without putting americans out of jobs. in fact, jobs not related to the factory itself will also appear, such as transportation, retail, and construction, for example.

this way, a handful of africans are given a better life, new industry appears, and no one is fucked over by it. that makes sense, doesn't it?

iehova, you have a point regarding the job problem. i'll admit that. ganja and derdrache aren't very smart

I'm still waiting for an actual response.

makes good sense.

so, what if there were laws set in place that limited slaves to working in completely new industrial areas? such as. suppose that slaves make a factories possible. the company gets a permit, and they are allowed X number of slaves to perform Y task at Z factory.

I'm not sure you're getting -all- of what I'm saying. The point is that once the slave "graduates" out of slavery, they're effectively expert labour that's completely useless anywhere else except within the industry they are in. That makes them a perfect candidate for a supervisory position in the job they just "graduated" out of. Having created a perfect supply of drones, the coporation is able to hire from an artificially created pool of candidates, and there's absolutely no reason for anyone to compete for that labour when they can all do the exact same thing.

Result: Lower wages, everyone else is fucked.


the introduction of slaves would make some things profitable that weren't before, and if we can keep the use of slaves restricted to those specific things, we will see growth without putting americans out of jobs. in fact, jobs not related to the factory itself will also appear, such as transportation, retail, and construction, for example.

That's very vague. What things would be more profitable that aren't already? What jobs exactly are being created?

this way, a handful of africans are given a better life, new industry appears, and no one is fucked over by it. that makes sense, doesn't it?

It would be nice if that were true. What I would forsee -really- happening is that they get a better life at cost to our own, and not necessarily a much better one at that. Supposedly, they end up educated, but their primary responsibility is being a slave, and when their slavery is over, they get dumped out on the street with no wages, no prospects other than the further employment with their previous "owner" and are starting at dirt level in the real world. So, either they go back to what they were doing, or they end up on the dropout circuit, in which case we end up supporting their asses.

Or perhaps we're forced to suck up the cost of trying to transition them into the real world. Nice.

I'm not sure you're getting -all- of what I'm saying. The point is that once the slave "graduates" out of slavery, they're effectively expert labour that's completely useless anywhere else except within the industry they are in. That makes them a perfect candidate for a supervisory position in the job they just "graduated" out of. Having created a perfect supply of drones, the coporation is able to hire from an artificially created pool of candidates, and there's absolutely no reason for anyone to compete for that labour when they can all do the exact same thing.

Result: Lower wages, everyone else is fucked.



That's very vague. What things would be more profitable that aren't already? What jobs exactly are being created?



It would be nice if that were true. What I would forsee -really- happening is that they get a better life at cost to our own, and not necessarily a much better one at that. Supposedly, they end up educated, but their primary responsibility is being a slave, and when their slavery is over, they get dumped out on the street with no wages, no prospects other than the further employment with their previous "owner" and are starting at dirt level in the real world. So, either they go back to what they were doing, or they end up on the dropout circuit, in which case we end up supporting their asses.

Or perhaps we're forced to suck up the cost of trying to transition them into the real world. Nice.

no, the adults don't get an education and then freedom, that would only be a requirement for children.

the adults can sign whatever contract they are offered, if its a life term or whatever.


what i'm saying is this.


suppose genericorp wanted to build a widget factory. but it's too expensive with american labor. so they can either outsource it, or they could hire slaves from africa. so they go to the board of slavery, and they get a permit for x number of slaves.

now, this factory could not exist without slaves. it wasn't there before, no americans are employed there. but with slaves, this factory can go up, and start operating. no american loses a job, in fact, there will be some skilled jobs they have to hire americans for. (transportation, construction, etc.)

since the factory wasn't there before, we are not losing jobs. slaves enable the factory, it appears. a few american jobs are creating, and more american industry and export.

this company can't get slaves for their other businesses and factories that already exist, they have to keep using americans there. you need to prove to the board that americans can not be used for this job, and it absolutely can not exist without slaves. if it is deemed to be only profitable with the use of slaves, a permit is granted. if they COULD use americans, and still profit, a permit is not granted.

I simply find this discussion as bringing out the inherent shortcomings of modern moral debate. Some here, such as the OP, will take a utilitarian perspective and see the ends as the most important thing. Others will look at short-term means as being more important (deontologists) and will likely see slavery as always wrong on principles of autonomy. I doubt these two groups will ever agree. Oh, morality...damn you for being more of a value-laden art than a science. Have fun with this one guys.

I simply find this discussion as bringing out the inherent shortcomings of modern moral debate. Some here, such as the OP, will take a utilitarian perspective and see the ends as the most important thing. Others will look at short-term means as being more important (deontologists) and will likely see slavery as always wrong on principles of autonomy. I doubt these two groups will ever agree. Oh, morality...damn you for being more of a value-laden art than a science. Have fun with this one guys.

Don't forget the guy that looks at it from a financial perspective and sees the whole business model as fucked up.

Look at the industrial prison complex, as it's the closest thing we have to legal slavery at the momeny. Companies get away with paying these prisoners 2 bucks an hour because we the taxpayers take care of the prisoners healthcare, food, entertainment, maintenance, etc. We subsidize private prisons.

Danzigs idea is unfeasible. The costs of putting "slave"-children through school, doctors visits/healthcare, clothing, feeding, etc. is still a lot higher than just paying some kids in a chinese sweatshop, whom they do NOT have to raise.
Also, slaves were profitable because they were absolute property. They could appreciate in value and sold to others, bred and sold to others, etc.

no, the adults don't get an education and then freedom, that would only be a requirement for children.

the adults can sign whatever contract they are offered, if its a life term or whatever.

I notice that earlier you mentioned that these contracts can never be negated. Doesn't that allow companies to get away with a LOT of shit? Think army recruitment here.

suppose genericorp wanted to build a widget factory. but it's too expensive with american labor. so they can either outsource it, or they could hire slaves from africa. so they go to the board of slavery, and they get a permit for x number of slaves.

What *I* am saying, is knock off the hypoetheticals. Show me some places where industry is being stifled because they can't afford it. I really want to see this.

Incidentally, slaver (in the way you've described it) while certainly less expensive than hiring people normally, is still a huge expense. No startup company is going to be able to afford to do such a thing without major backing, so how can you possibly argue that these companies can't affrod to run them otherwise? What's that mean? Cite examples instead of hypotheticals.

now, this factory could not exist without slaves. it wasn't there before, no americans are employed there. but with slaves, this factory can go up, and start operating.

Or, instead of building the factory to be run on slave labour, they could run it on hired labour like everyone else.

no american loses a job, in fact, there will be some skilled jobs they have to hire americans for. (transportation, construction, etc.)

You say these jobs will exist, under vague descriptions of "construction" and "transportation". Where? You've offered nothing but hypotheticals. Specfiics?

since the factory wasn't there before, we are not losing jobs. slaves enable the factory, it appears. a few american jobs are creating, and more american industry and export.

You do understand that not all business profit margin means America benefits, right?

this company can't get slaves for their other businesses and factories that already exist, they have to keep using americans there. you need to prove to the board that americans can not be used for this job, and it absolutely can not exist without slaves.

Politics is a bitch. Put the system in place and it's going to be exploited. And yeah, you do need to cite some examples here.

if it is deemed to be only profitable with the use of slaves, a permit is granted. if they COULD use americans, and still profit, a permit is not granted.

You're basing this on a company's ability to profit, with the assumption that America benefits by default. No.

-----------------

I'm going to harp on the adult/child slavery a bit more, because it has relevancy to other issues.

First of all, it's in the company's profit-based long-term interests to get child slavery instead of adult slavery. They're easier and cheaper to educate, cheaper to feed and clothe, and most importantly of all... easiest to indoctrinate. Even if they couldn't reuse them after they've "graduated out" of slavery, they've created the perfect drones to undercut the worker market, for reasons I've already mentioned. A class of people ready to work, with no starting money, no understanding of rights, no specialized education, no concept of fair pay or benefits, and a fundamental understanding that your employer owns you, that he is the Authority, your Massah.

I wonder how quickly said "graduates" might grab up an adult contract, not realizing what they're getting into?

Secondly, I'd like to point out that whether child or adult, this amounts to little more than a form of "african lottery". 'Cause let's face it, the company isn't going to give jobs to every starving dick and harry over in Africa, they're going to look for the best and healthiest specimens for what they want, particularly if they're only allowed a limited number.
I'd like to point out that also undercuts the african countries chance of advancement, and encourages breeding slave labour for American companies. Yet this is supposed to "benefit" them, by giving a very few them a "better life".

i'm not saying it's a perfect system. i even think you're right, it's not workable as i proposed. but damn it, we need someway to export product and raw material. and we aren't getting it done with American labor.

Slavery is an unethical system that exists through the ignorance and/or cooperation of the slave and the slave master.

I think that any system of oppression is bound to be overthrown at some point of time.

It's not that hard to imagine that being on the short end of the stick can only last so long.Only for a certain time.Unless people throughout the world become educated on the subject it will continue to happen.

Slavery is an unethical system that exists through the ignorance and/or cooperation of the slave and the slave master.

I think that any system of oppression is bound to be overthrown at some point of time.

It's not that hard to imagine that being on the short end of the stick can only last so long.Only for a certain time.Unless people throughout the world become educated on the subject it will continue to happen.

keep them diligently ignorant and uneducated, almost animal stupid, and there is no escape. none, no chance.

i'm not saying it's a perfect system. i even think you're right, it's not workable as i proposed. but damn it, we need someway to export product and raw material. and we aren't getting it done with American labor.

So, find a solution that doesn't involve creating jobs for people that aren't Americans. Perhaps find a nice nasty label for outsourcing, like "anti-American workforce terrorism", tax the shit out of it until it becomes unprofitable and American companies bring back American jobs.

So, find a solution that doesn't involve creating jobs for people that aren't Americans. Perhaps find a nice nasty label for outsourcing, like "anti-American workforce terrorism", tax the shit out of it until it becomes unprofitable and American companies bring back American jobs.

what if they are unable to make a profit that way, and tons of business just crash?

what if they are unable to make a profit that way, and tons of business just crash?

I have a question.

Where did you get this notion that corporations take jobs overseas because they can't afford to operate in the United States?

The reason they do this is the reason for everything - the bottom line. Not that they can't afford it, but the fact is, working little kids to death in sweatshops enhances the end-all and be-all.... profit. Why pay minimum wage, when you can get the same labour for pennies a day? Every penny they don't spend on a worker goes to shipping the product back to the USA... and the difference saved goes directly to their profit margin.

They have no reason to give a shit about the American workers when they can get more profit elsewhere.