Three Little Questions

[Juana]

No to all of Rog's questions. This actually touches on the bit I'm going to contribute to the BIP2012, so I'll say no more for now.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

1.  Is de facto slavery (slavery in actual fact) any different, morally, from de jure slavery (slavery by law)?
2.  Is it ever morally permissable to benefit in any way (including enjoying lower prices and thus a higher level of purchasing power/standard of living) from slavery?
3.  If you purchase goods from other nations that used slavery to make those goods, is that morally any different from having slavery right here at home?

NO

NO

and NO.

In fact, it is preferable to ACTUALLY OWN SLAVES because then, as a moral person, you actually have influence over their living conditions rather than merely benefiting from slavery without any responsibility whatsoever.

Almost every American, with the exception of those who are dispossessed and exploited, benefits directly from slavery elsewhere, and that is morally untenable.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Been poking at Lysander Spooner again?

Slavery, in any form is slavery... anytime the individual is forced to do X or not do X (within the context of their personal decisions about their personal life) it is a form of slavery, doesn't matter if the person doing the forcing is a Southern Plantation owner, a sweat shop boss or the local government.

From a moral perspective, given the above statement, it would be impossible not to benefit from slavery indirectly. To use the old stereotype... if you pay less taxes because some prisoner is making the license plates/cleaning the roads... you're benefiting from slavery. If you buy a product, even from a reputable shop... their prices are influenced by the supply provided to the market by Wal-Mart... again you're benefiting.

So I think, for me, it is ethically wrong to directly support, or benefit from slavery in any form within the confines of the society I'm struck in.

Unless I'm gonna go live in the woods, live off the land, make my own everything and become the 21st century Daniel Boone... its simply not possible. Hell, how many of the electronic components that are installed in servers/routers/computers that we're using to have this discussion exist either directly or were cheaper because of 'slavery' in one form or another?

That's fine to acknowledge, as long as "it's not possible" =/= "give up trying".

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Been poking at Lysander Spooner again?

Slavery, in any form is slavery... anytime the individual is forced to do X or not do X (within the context of their personal decisions about their personal life) it is a form of slavery, doesn't matter if the person doing the forcing is a Southern Plantation owner, a sweat shop boss or the local government.

From a moral perspective, given the above statement, it would be impossible not to benefit from slavery indirectly. To use the old stereotype... if you pay less taxes because some prisoner is making the license plates/cleaning the roads... you're benefiting from slavery. If you buy a product, even from a reputable shop... their prices are influenced by the supply provided to the market by Wal-Mart... again you're benefiting.

So I think, for me, it is ethically wrong to directly support, or benefit from slavery in any form within the confines of the society I'm struck in.

Unless I'm gonna go live in the woods, live off the land, make my own everything and become the 21st century Daniel Boone... its simply not possible. Hell, how many of the electronic components that are installed in servers/routers/computers that we're using to have this discussion exist either directly or were cheaper because of 'slavery' in one form or another?

That's fine to acknowledge, as long as "it's not possible" =/= "give up trying".

Of course! You know me... I have all sorts of hopes and expectations that will never come to fruition

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Been poking at Lysander Spooner again?

Slavery, in any form is slavery... anytime the individual is forced to do X or not do X (within the context of their personal decisions about their personal life) it is a form of slavery, doesn't matter if the person doing the forcing is a Southern Plantation owner, a sweat shop boss or the local government.

From a moral perspective, given the above statement, it would be impossible not to benefit from slavery indirectly. To use the old stereotype... if you pay less taxes because some prisoner is making the license plates/cleaning the roads... you're benefiting from slavery. If you buy a product, even from a reputable shop... their prices are influenced by the supply provided to the market by Wal-Mart... again you're benefiting.

So I think, for me, it is ethically wrong to directly support, or benefit from slavery in any form within the confines of the society I'm struck in.

Unless I'm gonna go live in the woods, live off the land, make my own everything and become the 21st century Daniel Boone... its simply not possible. Hell, how many of the electronic components that are installed in servers/routers/computers that we're using to have this discussion exist either directly or were cheaper because of 'slavery' in one form or another?

That's fine to acknowledge, as long as "it's not possible" =/= "give up trying".

I think maybe I should have expanded on that a bit more.

I don't think something is ethically "wrong" if its unavoidable. We can, and should (IMO), continue to try to improve the situation as much as possible. We should absolutely call out unethical actions whenever we can. We should do whatever we can within our sphere of influence (or even beyond it) to stop things like slavery (chattel or otherwise). However, I think its an unnecessary guilt trip to blame ourselves with terms like 'immoral' or 'unethical', because we are stuck in a world that exists (in many ways) because of unethical and immoral actions.

As far as it depends on us, in the decisions we make, in the influence we have, in the choices we make... we have a ethical responsibility. Beyond that though, I don't think we can place blame on ourselves... I mean, we can, but I don't know what value that provides beyond making us feel like martyrs.

I hate what happened to the Native Americans... but as far as I know from a genealogical perspective, neither I nor my ancestors had anything to do with that shit. I detest the fact that slavery was ever legal, but again, as far as I know, all my ancestors were poor northerners and immigrants who didn't have any slaves. I find the behaviors of this nation unethical in the extreme, horrific in many cases... but I'm not going to blame myself for those actions.

Freedom, real freedom, means being completely responsible for your actions... but if you take blame/responsibility for actions of people long dead, or completely outside of your influence (Nike, Adadis etc) its just another form of slavery. You can choose in your own actions to fight the effects of those long dead unethical assholes, or fight the power of corporations that use sweat shops... but you don't need to take some personal blame for living in a society that has benefited from those behaviors.

The ancient Hebrew system had a belief of shared responsibility. For example, when the city of Jericho was destroyed, all the spoils were supposed to go to God. Instead one dude, Achan, and his family swiped some gold (or silver I forget) and a nice robe and some other shit. So the next time they go to fight, God lets thousands of Hebrew warriors die... because he held them responsible for the actions of Achan. This kind of thinking pervades throughout the Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths... Adam and Eve sinned, therefore we are all condemned to die. I find this sort of thinking to be an insidious form of slavery. The ancient jewish system even held that by association with the bloodguilty, you share in their guilt.

It s the same broken, icky logic some people use to blame 'all jews' for the death of Jesus.

So I'd have to respond to the original post like this:

1.  Is de facto slavery (slavery in actual fact) any different, morally, from de jure slavery (slavery by law)?

No.

2.  Is it ever morally permissable to benefit in any way (including enjoying lower prices and thus a higher level of purchasing power/standard of living) from slavery?

Only if its something you have control over.

3.  If you purchase goods from other nations that used slavery to make those goods, is that morally any different from having slavery right here at home?

No.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I guess my perspective is that benefiting from an unethical situation is only ethically justifiable if a person is actively trying to minimize  their benefit AND actively trying to change the situation.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I don't think something is ethically "wrong" if it's unavoidable.

There might actually BE a way to avoid it, but it would be hard as fuck. You'd have to be 100% survivalist-off-the-grid, maybe have a small farm somewhere and an extremely primitive lifestyle. Most of us couldn't pull it off, and there would most likely never be enough people doing it to make any difference.

So, what you and Nigel said.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I guess my perspective is that benefiting from an unethical situation is only ethically justifiable if a person is actively trying to minimize  their benefit AND actively trying to change the situation.

Agreed. Choosing not to buy from companies that directly make use of unethical work practices, or choosing to buy from places that actively work to improve the situation is a good start. Highlighting the unethical behavior to the public, working with groups that try to make changes etc are also good.

Doing absolutely nothing, on the other hand is no better than supporting it.

[Cuddlefish]

In America, and large portions of the world, what you own, what everybody owns, is another person's debt. We are all slaves and slave masters. Money, as it exists today, is slavery. And it's all perfectly legal. Monetary reform, I believe, will be a pivotal part in the elimination of slavery.

(If the above is stupid, let me know. I'm trying out some new brain-thoughts, and I might not quite have it "down" yet).

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

In America, and large portions of the world, what you own, what everybody owns, is another person's debt. We are all slaves and slave masters. Money, as it exists today, is slavery. And it's all perfectly legal. Monetary reform, I believe, will be a pivotal part in the elimination of slavery.

(If the above is stupid, let me know. I'm trying out some new brain-thoughts, and I might not quite have it "down" yet).

In some sense, I agree... but if we consider the idea that money as a 'bio-survival' tool replaced the tribal/community inter-reliance, its not necessarily more or less slavery. In fact, you could argue its somewhat less. If you are part of a tribe and survival depends on the tribe working together, then (in most cases) you're going to believe what the tribe believes, behave as the tribe expects and follow the rules of the tribe in all things, because if you don't you'll get kicked out of the tribe and lose your survival advantage. Money still maintains a level of control, but it reduces the social pressure associated with the communal system that came before it.

On the other hand, the banking system here in the States really puts all of Americans and their government as slaves to the Central Bank. The government gets its money from the Central Bank. The Central Bank charges the government interest... So it costs the government more than $1 to put $1 into circulation. The more money we get, the more interest we owe... it seems very much like the slavery of the "Company Town/Company Store" model that used to be done by mining companies. Of course, the previous system, on the Gold Standard, had its share of problems and enslavement as well.

As long as humans exist in a community/society there will be some level of subjugation of the individual to the majority. Unless the individual has the choice of voluntary association at all levels, then there will always be a 'form' of slavery, whether its enslavement to the group, the bank, the government or some combination of all three. There are some concepts that would do away with this problem... but I doubt they'd work. The Venus Project for example, is chock full of nutty... but the idea that "all natural resources belong to all humans" is an idea that "if" it could be implemented would certainly strike a blow at social slavery.

I think, then that we have levels of slavery.

Chattel slavery - people being owned by other people outright.
Sweat Shop Slavery - People "working" for a company in a situation where they have no choice, or where they get little or no real compensation for the work.
Governmental Slavery - Prison labor, laws passed by representatives without agreement from the citizens etc.
Monetary Slavery - You get money, but its only worth what the bank who gave it to you decides... and they try to take back as much of it as possible through manipulative fees, interest, usury etc
Social Slavery - The subjugation of the individual to the society.

The first two seem to be the worst, the second two are more insidious, but less direct and the last one is maybe a necessary ill of being part of human society.

Just some thinking out loud here...

[BabylonHoruv]

The simple answer to these questions is "no" to all three.



The realization that I behave as if the answer is "yes" makes me extremely uncomfortable.

This.

But then, what definition of "slavery" is being used?

Is it actual, damn me for saying this, "Cotton-pickin" slavery? Or a form of mental slavery? Do we not also allow ourselves, even in a "free" country as "free" people, to become "slaves" to our jobs or our daily way of life?

The folks who make our toys are in a condition that is basically "cotton pickin" slavery. 

[BabylonHoruv]

I don't think something is ethically "wrong" if it's unavoidable.

There might actually BE a way to avoid it, but it would be hard as fuck. You'd have to be 100% survivalist-off-the-grid, maybe have a small farm somewhere and an extremely primitive lifestyle. Most of us couldn't pull it off, and there would most likely never be enough people doing it to make any difference.

So, what you and Nigel said.

You could trade with other people who also were not using slavery products, and it would be a good idea to do so.  However dropping out isn't going to stop the slavery, or improve their condition.  It might make you feel good about yourself, but it isn't doing any damn good for the actually suffering people.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In America, and large portions of the world, what you own, what everybody owns, is another person's debt. We are all slaves and slave masters. Money, as it exists today, is slavery. And it's all perfectly legal. Monetary reform, I believe, will be a pivotal part in the elimination of slavery.

(If the above is stupid, let me know. I'm trying out some new brain-thoughts, and I might not quite have it "down" yet).

In some sense, I agree... but if we consider the idea that money as a 'bio-survival' tool replaced the tribal/community inter-reliance, its not necessarily more or less slavery. In fact, you could argue its somewhat less. If you are part of a tribe and survival depends on the tribe working together, then (in most cases) you're going to believe what the tribe believes, behave as the tribe expects and follow the rules of the tribe in all things, because if you don't you'll get kicked out of the tribe and lose your survival advantage. Money still maintains a level of control, but it reduces the social pressure associated with the communal system that came before it.

On the other hand, the banking system here in the States really puts all of Americans and their government as slaves to the Central Bank. The government gets its money from the Central Bank. The Central Bank charges the government interest... So it costs the government more than $1 to put $1 into circulation. The more money we get, the more interest we owe... it seems very much like the slavery of the "Company Town/Company Store" model that used to be done by mining companies. Of course, the previous system, on the Gold Standard, had its share of problems and enslavement as well.

As long as humans exist in a community/society there will be some level of subjugation of the individual to the majority. Unless the individual has the choice of voluntary association at all levels, then there will always be a 'form' of slavery, whether its enslavement to the group, the bank, the government or some combination of all three. There are some concepts that would do away with this problem... but I doubt they'd work. The Venus Project for example, is chock full of nutty... but the idea that "all natural resources belong to all humans" is an idea that "if" it could be implemented would certainly strike a blow at social slavery.

I think, then that we have levels of slavery.

Chattel slavery - people being owned by other people outright.
Sweat Shop Slavery - People "working" for a company in a situation where they have no choice, or where they get little or no real compensation for the work.
Governmental Slavery - Prison labor, laws passed by representatives without agreement from the citizens etc.
Monetary Slavery - You get money, but its only worth what the bank who gave it to you decides... and they try to take back as much of it as possible through manipulative fees, interest, usury etc
Social Slavery - The subjugation of the individual to the society.

The first two seem to be the worst, the second two are more insidious, but less direct and the last one is maybe a necessary ill of being part of human society.

Just some thinking out loud here...

I'm not sure that last one is an ill at all, let alone a form of slavery.

[Phox]

In America, and large portions of the world, what you own, what everybody owns, is another person's debt. We are all slaves and slave masters. Money, as it exists today, is slavery. And it's all perfectly legal. Monetary reform, I believe, will be a pivotal part in the elimination of slavery.

(If the above is stupid, let me know. I'm trying out some new brain-thoughts, and I might not quite have it "down" yet).

In some sense, I agree... but if we consider the idea that money as a 'bio-survival' tool replaced the tribal/community inter-reliance, its not necessarily more or less slavery. In fact, you could argue its somewhat less. If you are part of a tribe and survival depends on the tribe working together, then (in most cases) you're going to believe what the tribe believes, behave as the tribe expects and follow the rules of the tribe in all things, because if you don't you'll get kicked out of the tribe and lose your survival advantage. Money still maintains a level of control, but it reduces the social pressure associated with the communal system that came before it.

On the other hand, the banking system here in the States really puts all of Americans and their government as slaves to the Central Bank. The government gets its money from the Central Bank. The Central Bank charges the government interest... So it costs the government more than $1 to put $1 into circulation. The more money we get, the more interest we owe... it seems very much like the slavery of the "Company Town/Company Store" model that used to be done by mining companies. Of course, the previous system, on the Gold Standard, had its share of problems and enslavement as well.

As long as humans exist in a community/society there will be some level of subjugation of the individual to the majority. Unless the individual has the choice of voluntary association at all levels, then there will always be a 'form' of slavery, whether its enslavement to the group, the bank, the government or some combination of all three. There are some concepts that would do away with this problem... but I doubt they'd work. The Venus Project for example, is chock full of nutty... but the idea that "all natural resources belong to all humans" is an idea that "if" it could be implemented would certainly strike a blow at social slavery.

I think, then that we have levels of slavery.

Chattel slavery - people being owned by other people outright.
Sweat Shop Slavery - People "working" for a company in a situation where they have no choice, or where they get little or no real compensation for the work.
Governmental Slavery - Prison labor, laws passed by representatives without agreement from the citizens etc.
Monetary Slavery - You get money, but its only worth what the bank who gave it to you decides... and they try to take back as much of it as possible through manipulative fees, interest, usury etc
Social Slavery - The subjugation of the individual to the society.

The first two seem to be the worst, the second two are more insidious, but less direct and the last one is maybe a necessary ill of being part of human society.

Just some thinking out loud here...

I'm not sure that last one is an ill at all, let alone a form of slavery.

Yes, the last seems... hmm. I'm not sure what to feel about that. Given that my primary beliefs on ethics and morals center around the fact that it is, ultimately, the goal of a person and a society to survive, with a general leaning towards the good of the whole > the good of the individual, I have trouble rectifying ideals of radical individualism with that of my version the social contract. I must think on this.

^No idea why your comments prompted this line of thinking, but... hey, self-examination and all that. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In America, and large portions of the world, what you own, what everybody owns, is another person's debt. We are all slaves and slave masters. Money, as it exists today, is slavery. And it's all perfectly legal. Monetary reform, I believe, will be a pivotal part in the elimination of slavery.

(If the above is stupid, let me know. I'm trying out some new brain-thoughts, and I might not quite have it "down" yet).

In some sense, I agree... but if we consider the idea that money as a 'bio-survival' tool replaced the tribal/community inter-reliance, its not necessarily more or less slavery. In fact, you could argue its somewhat less. If you are part of a tribe and survival depends on the tribe working together, then (in most cases) you're going to believe what the tribe believes, behave as the tribe expects and follow the rules of the tribe in all things, because if you don't you'll get kicked out of the tribe and lose your survival advantage. Money still maintains a level of control, but it reduces the social pressure associated with the communal system that came before it.

On the other hand, the banking system here in the States really puts all of Americans and their government as slaves to the Central Bank. The government gets its money from the Central Bank. The Central Bank charges the government interest... So it costs the government more than $1 to put $1 into circulation. The more money we get, the more interest we owe... it seems very much like the slavery of the "Company Town/Company Store" model that used to be done by mining companies. Of course, the previous system, on the Gold Standard, had its share of problems and enslavement as well.

As long as humans exist in a community/society there will be some level of subjugation of the individual to the majority. Unless the individual has the choice of voluntary association at all levels, then there will always be a 'form' of slavery, whether its enslavement to the group, the bank, the government or some combination of all three. There are some concepts that would do away with this problem... but I doubt they'd work. The Venus Project for example, is chock full of nutty... but the idea that "all natural resources belong to all humans" is an idea that "if" it could be implemented would certainly strike a blow at social slavery.

I think, then that we have levels of slavery.

Chattel slavery - people being owned by other people outright.
Sweat Shop Slavery - People "working" for a company in a situation where they have no choice, or where they get little or no real compensation for the work.
Governmental Slavery - Prison labor, laws passed by representatives without agreement from the citizens etc.
Monetary Slavery - You get money, but its only worth what the bank who gave it to you decides... and they try to take back as much of it as possible through manipulative fees, interest, usury etc
Social Slavery - The subjugation of the individual to the society.

The first two seem to be the worst, the second two are more insidious, but less direct and the last one is maybe a necessary ill of being part of human society.

Just some thinking out loud here...

I'm not sure that last one is an ill at all, let alone a form of slavery.

Yes, the last seems... hmm. I'm not sure what to feel about that. Given that my primary beliefs on ethics and morals center around the fact that it is, ultimately, the goal of a person and a society to survive, with a general leaning towards the good of the whole > the good of the individual, I have trouble rectifying ideals of radical individualism with that of my version the social contract. I must think on this.

^No idea why your comments prompted this line of thinking, but... hey, self-examination and all that. 

Well, we are a social species. That's our nature. If society is slavery, then we're an enslaved species by nature.

And that line of thinking is starting to verge on religion, so I'm disinclined to respect it.