Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Slavery

  1. #1
    BernardFx

    Default Slavery

    This topic came to mind while reading some *B/DL and furry related stories on the web, where they mentioned people (or furries), being owned by others.

    I personaly think slavery isn't a bad thing, but people used to make it (and still do, in many places) so the people would be under oppression and a lot of stress. They are treated like animals- being sold or traded on the black market.

    I know it violates the Thirteenth Amendment, but, if we looked at it in another point of view, it could benefit the lower class and/or the third world, if it were regulated. The government could approve laws that moderated the number of "owners" and "workers". By this, I mean that a person could only "own" a fixed amount of people, and this person would be required to fill certain requesites to be allowed to own anybody who is willing to give him or herself away.

    And the slaves would have laws that could protect them, and institute a minimum price. For example, they can not be abused in any form, and they are required to be mantained in habitable conditions.

    If it where this way, slaves wouldn't be called slaves. They would be called in another term, like "owned".

    Anyway, I would like to hear your point of view, and if you think my way of thinking is wrong, please, feel free to post.

  2. #2

    Default

    When is it ever beneficial to be owned by someone else? It didn't work for the slaves or the sharecroppers, so I doubt it'd work for us now.

    Slavery is a bad thing, no matter how you spin it. What about vacations, sick days, various other days off?

    Sorry, bud, I just think you're misguided.

  3. #3

    Default

    i see what your getting at. however it poses the question also of perception from wider society.
    and essentially making these people 'depndants' of the owner, in a sense

    that would essentially be whattheyd be called, essentially dependants in the family as they have all expenses paid by the owner, and naturally the 'slave' would work in whatever jobs the owner asked him to perform.



    a precedent could be seen in etropoliton ancient rome, whereit was stated numerous tims that 'ome 'slaves' were employees in all butname, bith a slightly more binding contract. these admittedly few people were sometimes given control over parts of the mans estate, such as the running of a farm, or a shop he owns.

    however the question asks, why not have the same conditions, but not beng owned.

    my point madeisthat in those cases can provide a 'window' of a simplified model of idealised slavery.


    the suject has reminded me funnilyenough of bicentennial man

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by BBFx View Post
    This topic came to mind while reading some *B/DL and furry related stories on the web, where they mentioned people (or furries), being owned by others.

    I personaly think slavery isn't a bad thing, but people used to make it (and still do, in many places) so the people would be under oppression and a lot of stress. They are treated like animals- being sold or traded on the black market.

    I know it violates the Thirteenth Amendment, but, if we looked at it in another point of view, it could benefit the lower class and/or the third world, if it were regulated. The government could approve laws that moderated the number of "owners" and "workers". By this, I mean that a person could only "own" a fixed amount of people, and this person would be required to fill certain requesites to be allowed to own anybody who is willing to give him or herself away.

    And the slaves would have laws that could protect them, and institute a minimum price. For example, they can not be abused in any form, and they are required to be mantained in habitable conditions.

    If it where this way, slaves wouldn't be called slaves. They would be called in another term, like "owned".

    Anyway, I would like to hear your point of view, and if you think my way of thinking is wrong, please, feel free to post.
    This is the extreme result of a libertarian viewpoint. A person can, in theory, sell anything they own to someone else. Since rights derive from property ownership, I have rights because I own my body as property. Therefore, if I have rights, I can sell my own body to whomever I choose, and it would then become their body to use as they see fit. I could be beaten, raped, murdered, etc - all of it would be kosher under this arrangement. If it's my body, I can sell it to whomever I choose.

    However, just like any other ideology, it doesn't work when applied absolutely. Even in this framework, it would require a consenting adult in full mental health to decide to sell themselves to the ownership of someone else. Having it being against someone's will is just simply wrong, and even more wrong to do it to a child. Beyond that, with legal protections and such, I fail to see how this form of slavery would be any different from life-long minimum wage employment or working for an employer that pays you in credit to the company store.

  5. #5

  6. #6

    Default

    You think slavery is good? eh?

    How about this: When you'd be the slave and some "supreme" guy is your OWNER... no freedom? no choice? no pay, no say, no chances...

    jesus... the world is rotten enough and has so little real freedom left, that I can't believe that anyone truly wishes to give that up as well.

    Try working a hard job for a change and see how you like being paid shit, wasting your body, risking your health - but hey, wait ... you don't HAVE TO - you have CHOICES (no matter how limited they are)... but with slavery, you'd have none...

    I know it's always nice to think about these scenarios when you're the one commanding others around and about and not the one being commanded (OWNED).

    Crap ideology.

  7. #7
    Mako

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by BBFx View Post
    This topic came to mind while reading some *B/DL and furry related stories on the web, where they mentioned people (or furries), being owned by others.
    That's a BDSM thing. Completely different from the insanity that follows.



    I personaly think slavery isn't a bad thing, but people used to make it (and still do, in many places) so the people would be under oppression and a lot of stress. They are treated like animals- being sold or traded on the black market.

    I know it violates the Thirteenth Amendment, but, if we looked at it in another point of view, it could benefit the lower class and/or the third world, if it were regulated. The government could approve laws that moderated the number of "owners" and "workers". By this, I mean that a person could only "own" a fixed amount of people, and this person would be required to fill certain requesites to be allowed to own anybody who is willing to give him or herself away.

    And the slaves would have laws that could protect them, and institute a minimum price. For example, they can not be abused in any form, and they are required to be mantained in habitable conditions.

    If it where this way, slaves wouldn't be called slaves. They would be called in another term, like "owned".

    Anyway, I would like to hear your point of view, and if you think my way of thinking is wrong, please, feel free to post.
    Everyone else is being way too nice, this is completely and utterly fucking stupid and naive. Seriously, my brain hurts. Dethclock nailed it, it's called a job. There's no such thing as slavery without oppression.

  8. #8

    Default

    Aren't you describing a form of indentured servant? Or is it once a slave, you are slave for life? Indentured servitude still goes on in many places. SO. Korea still allows the practice for instance. Either practice is reprehensible.

  9. #9

    Default Apologies if any of my reasoning is obscure or opaque.



    Quote Originally Posted by bgi39jsjw0ggg View Post
    This is the extreme result of a libertarian viewpoint. A person can, in theory, sell anything they own to someone else. Since rights derive from property ownership, I have rights because I own my body as property. Therefore, if I have rights, I can sell my own body to whomever I choose, and it would then become their body to use as they see fit. I could be beaten, raped, murdered, etc - all of it would be kosher under this arrangement. If it's my body, I can sell it to whomever I choose.

    However, just like any other ideology, it doesn't work when applied absolutely. Even in this framework, it would require a consenting adult in full mental health to decide to sell themselves to the ownership of someone else. Having it being against someone's will is just simply wrong, and even more wrong to do it to a child. Beyond that, with legal protections and such, I fail to see how this form of slavery would be any different from life-long minimum wage employment or working for an employer that pays you in credit to the company store.
    It rests in a theory of self-ownership. Is self-ownership alienable, though? A person who abrogated their right to self-ownership and became a slave would, presumably, be unable to decide at some later stage that they wished to be free. Does a contract for one person to sell himself to another make any sense at all? Robert Nozick writes about this problem, as (I think) did Locke in the Second Treatise. It is also worth noting that as a matter of positive law, under the Council of Europe a person does not have a right to be tortured--even if they wished to be tortured. Some rights, including that one, are not alienable. In more straightforward terms, under English law a person cannot consent to be penetrated when they are sleeping. Such consent would be voided.

    BJ, I think it's different from lifelong employment in a minimum wage position in that a person so employed could seek work elsewhere. While there might be practical barriers, the choice to move would nonetheless be yours. There are also questions about whether ownership of a person is transferable. Having sold yourself to one individual, could he in turn sell you to someone else?

    Your argument is fundamentally flawed, and can't be upheld, BBFx. It leads to conclusions which you would not wish to endorse, and is therefore unsustainable. For an adult to be "owned" by another person is for them to be used a means to someone else's ends. Adults in possession of their mental faculties are rational, purposive beings who can seek their own concept of the good. Calling them owned or slaves doesn't change the fact that they have abandoned the ability to make their own life choices. All people make life choices subject to certain constraints, but I don't think we should establish in law the conditions such that one person could own another.

    You also ignore the possibility that people will be forced, by economic constraint, into giving themselves to someone else. Would this be real consent? Would it be legitimate? Dethlok raises the possibility that work in general constitutes a for of slavery, but there is a significant and substantial difference between selling one's labour and selling one's person. To say anything else is naive and historically ignorant. (Marx notwithstanding--I will address the Marxist theory of exploitation and alienation if I must, but I'd rather not go down that rabbit hole.) There has been a continuum of working conditions in human history, and the worst working conditions were truly dire. Yet being owned is different from being able to seek work where you wish to. If people can be owned, than people in dire financial straits will sell themselves. I'm simply not sure these are contracts we should permit to be formed.

    Before anyone jumps on me with the libertarian "people can do what they want" argument, I would like to note there are any number of restrictions governments place on contracts to prevent the formation of abusive contracts. In the nineteenth century, the governments of Britain and the United States exercised little or no control over contracts between employers and employees. The result was brutal working conditions and abuse of workers. I hold that a contract of ownership of a person would be, prima facie, exploitative and abusive. Your notion of ownership would not, I think, admit of ending the time of service: it would constitute a breach of contract. One person can choose to serve another without payment, as is the case in the BDSM/furry communities which you mentioned. The crucial, fundamental difference is that a slave in that sense can choose, at any time and for any reason, to abandon her condition of servitude. That "slave" is always free. There are certain things to which no one is able to consent; being owned as a slave is one of them.

  10. #10

    Default

    Many of the arguments in favor of illegal immigration and guest worker programs are very similar to those used by pre-Emancipation slave owners to justify their position.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.