Would you be ok with enslaving people to continue living in commodity?

[Godslayer Jillian]

I'm trying to parallel Qgirl's thread about meat, only applied to people. This question actually stems from a political theory of Lenin, but even without that, let's imagine our lives actually don't hurt anyone and this is just a hypothetical scenario.
Would you actually enslave someone else if it meant you could live more comfortably?

[Asmoday]

Hell yeah, I would. But I wouldn't treat them harshly though.

[Madarame]

Originally Posted by Asmoday

I wouldn't treat them harshly though.

Like that makes any difference.

No, I wouldn't. That answer came a little too easily though, I feel almost as if there is something about this question I'm missing but I just can't think of way to justify living comfortably to the detriment of someone else.

[Asmoday]

Who said anything about detriment? And not treating them harshly makes a hell of a difference - they'd get free accommodation, free meals, no beatings...

[Madarame]

That's just the way I see it, a lack of freedom is always detrimental to a person regardless of the treatment they receive.

[Mr E Nigma]

Yeah but no one's truly free...

And I'd never enslave someone. I don't really care whether I live comfortably or have to fare well out of a tent made out of newspapers on a rainy day in a back alley of New York City. I wish my life meant more to me, but it hasn't for awhile. And I see no need for someone else to have to be burdened just so I can live well.

[Asmoday]

Originally Posted by Madarame

That's just the way I see it, a lack of freedom is always detrimental to a person regardless of the treatment they receive.

Ok, so you’re not into the whole master / slave relationship thing. Granted.

I’m against the idea of slavery in the sense that you go kidnap people and sell them off – like it happened in the past (and is still happening in some places).

But consider this theme from the thread about ‘those who are able giving to those who are needy’ – and it’s all hypothetical (of course) – But I want to expand here on what I replied in that thread.

I would support slavery and I’d start with the ‘needy’ because:

1. Needy persons are a burden to the taxpayer and the economy and would provide the perfect harvesting ground for a highly lucrative slave trade, thereby boosting the economy.
   
2. If a law was passed legalizing enslavement of the needy and these ‘needy’ persons suddenly stood the risk of being sold off as slaves that had no rights whatsoever you’d be surprised as to how quickly 99% of them will get off their asses and go find something useful to do, thereby boosting the economy.
   
3. Obviously, there will be those unfortunate ones who wont be able to find something useful to do, but in their case - If I am an ‘able person’ – not in the sense of being skilled, but in the sense of having wealth – and if I can and do provide basic needs to them (food, water, clothing and accommodation) – why should they have additional rights anyway? Afterall they are ‘needy’ and the very fact that I’m giving them a means to exist, should already justify their uncompromised service and contribution to my personal wellbeing.
   
4. And of course, my improved personal wellbeing would naturally make me more productive, and more able to care for more needy, thereby enabling my continued support of the lucrative slave trade and positive contribution to overall economy.

Oh Utopia…

[Drake Dun]

When one of your slaves kills you with a weapon that I provided, will you be mad at me? Wait, that's a silly question. No you won't.

[XXChristabelXX]

"The Ones who walk away from Omelas"

[Asmoday]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

When one of your slaves kills you with a weapon that I provided, will you be mad at me? Wait, that's a silly question. No you won't.

Nope. You can give 'em all the weapons you want. Question is, if he knows that his very existence depends on me and me alone - would he want to do it?

And if he doesn't know then he can go ahead and kill me. In MY Utopia the law would take care of such subordinates through methods that involve torture so indescribably cruel and inhumane that no one would dare step out of line...

[JCC]

Is Asmoday trolling?

[Delkaetre]

Forcefully, the whole thing with kidnapping them, possibly making threats on family, generally using coercion and breaking their spirit and- key point- without their consent? No, that shit's not cool with me.

But I know a few people who'd be happy enough to have chains clapped on them and live a life of miserable servitude. Basket in the corner instead of a bed, scraps from the owner's plate, up at dawn to make the breakfast and stoke the fires, etc etc. Someone like that, had I the means to feed and support them, I'd probably be quite happy to own. It's all they want in life given their own educated choices, and handy for me.

TL;DR- Delkaetre is against non-consensual slavery.



Asmoday, are you familiar with the ancient technique of ensuring a slave's loyalty? If the master died suspiciously, his slaves would be killed- all of them. No slave would then risk killing the master as it would mean his own ass- whether killed by the authorities, or by other slaves for putting their lives in danger.
Also, a point of note for you as you talk about forcing the unemployed into slavery- you make the constant and frankly offensive assumption that the 'needy' are unemployed out of choice, that the threat of dire consequence will suddenly get them all into jobs. It won't- jobs aren't there for most of them. Consider, we are in a recession. In some areas of the UK, there are up to 100 registered job seekers for every advertised job. Your idea of enslaving those that luck has shat upon would see you enslaved as soon as the economy took a downturn.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Wait, so you're saying that the enslavement wouldn't hurt them at all...?
Or am I misunderstanding?

[Tam Li Hua]

No. No I would not.

I might hire someone, but no, I wouldn't enslave them.

[Tam Li Hua]

Asmody: You're assuming that all the "needy" would willingly give themselves over to slavery as opposed to living on the streets. I'm sure some folks would be okay with that, but me personally, I think I'd rather take my chances on the streets than to be an actual slave to someone, even if they -were- kind. I've gotten rather used to doing whatever the hell I want, whenever I want [to a point], which is what makes freedom so addictive.

Besides that, I grew up learning a great deal more than I ever wanted to about the Underground Railroad, evil plantation owners, Harriet Tubman, and how all that relates to the Civil Rights Movement to ever see slavery as a good thing. [Thank you, Alabama educational system. -_-;;;]

I suspect that in your "utopia", there would be a LOT of uprisings.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by Madarame

Like that makes any difference.

No, I wouldn't. That answer came a little too easily though, I feel almost as if there is something about this question I'm missing but I just can't think of way to justify living comfortably to the detriment of someone else.

I imagine it will come up that all of us are indirectly guilty of enslavery (sp?) because the global economy is largely dependent upon exploitation.

[Madarame]

Originally Posted by viscus

I imagine it will come up that all of us are indirectly guilty of enslavery (sp?) because the global economy is largely dependent upon exploitation.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I read the question and why I was somewhat apprehensive about saying no as it seems a little hypocritical but Jillian did say to imagine that our lives don't hurt anyone.

[Asmoday]

JCC – why would you think that I’m trolling? Jillian asked a question and I gave an answer. Clearly nobody here shares my feeling, but that’s not gonna stop me from motivating my opinion.

Delkaetre – I agree that forceful enslavement and death threats to the family type of thing is not on, and if slavery were legal, there would have to be serious laws to make it work. Also there are people that would willingly give themselves up into slavery, and I say shouldn’t they be given that right if they so wish?

I’m not saying that unemployed people must be enslaved – because not all unemployed people are needy. Of course I also know that there simply aren’t enough jobs to go around and never will be. So I’ll admit that I’m being biased here - still you can’t deny that many able-bodied persons do choose to ride on the taxpayer’s back because it’s plain as fuck convenient for them. I have no patience or love for such people and couldn’t care less what became of them.

I define ‘needy’ as those in need of the most elemental survival systems – water, food and shelter. ‘Needy’ people are people who would otherwise die, unless someone provided these life-essential necessities to them, and if such a person existed, why should he/she not at the least receive their servitude in return? I don't think of enslavement as forcing someone to do labour and whipping them if they don’t comply, but rather as having someone work for you without you paying them.

If enslavement meant that you accept that, in return for your life, you have to give up your freedom and serve the person who ‘keeps you alive’ - if that were an option to someone on the brink of starvation – would he do it? I think the concept is plausible.

Slavery could very well be a means to the right to life (albeit an enforced right) as well as the right to 'lifestyle' (voluntary slavery if you will).

[Beneath the Shadows]

Out-in-the-field slave, or in-my-bed slave?

[Mir]

Asmoday: I find your views abhorrent.

[Asmoday]

Mir - suit yourself - but I would like to know why you find my idea so offensive?

[Mir]

If you can't see that for yourself, at your age, than anything I type beyond this point is waste of my time.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by Asmody

Also there are people that would willingly give themselves up into slavery, and I say shouldn’t they be given that right if they so wish?

I was under the impression that we weren't talking about BDSM, chosen lifestyle-type slavery here, but rather actual, forced, unpaid labor. :/

The kind of folks you speak of here find themselves "masters" all the time, but it's still their choice whether or not to be in that kind of relationship [not necessarily sexual].

Originally Posted by Asmody

still you can’t deny that many able-bodied persons do choose to ride on the taxpayer’s back because it’s plain as fuck convenient for them. I have no patience or love for such people and couldn’t care less what became of them.

It's pretty obvious you do care what happens to them in some respect, since you want to make such people slaves.

However, what makes you think that such people would be good, hard-working slaves if they aren't even willing to be good, hard-working free folk? [This is where the potential for -faaaar- too much abuse comes in on the part of the "owner".]

Originally Posted by Asmody

If enslavement meant that you accept that, in return for your life, you have to give up your freedom and serve the person who ‘keeps you alive’ - if that were an option to someone on the brink of starvation – would he do it? I think the concept is plausible.

Some would, perhaps. To go beyond that, some do. However, what you are suggesting in most of your posts isn't "voluntary slavery", which already exists *coughcoughbdsmcoughcough*, but rather forced slavery on those everyone you deem as "needy".

That being said, many of the folks who work in homeless shelters and the like have been "needy" themselves, and feel naturally obligated to help others who are in similar situations, to give back a little....which is what you suggested as well.

Honestly, I don't mind if part of my taxes are used to help the less fortunate. I see that as a MUCH better use of them than some random, nonsensical war out in the Middle East somewhere.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Asmoday

[*]Needy persons are a burden to the taxpayer and the economy and would provide the perfect harvesting ground for a highly lucrative slave trade, thereby boosting the economy.

Uh..... you're saying that you would rather have people oppressed for them to do your work so that you will live comfortably.
YOU are one of the "needy people", one of the leeches. That makes your argument hypocritical.

[gothicusmaximus]

Wait, someone? As in, singular? Just ONE slave? I'm a human being, not some kind of dog!