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?
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 01:57:49 PM
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?
On account of 'it's midnight' I am posting to say I will think on this, and offer something semi coherent later.
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.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 01:57:49 PM
1. Is de facto slavery (slavery in actual fact) any different, morally, from de jure slavery (slavery by law)?
By law, I'm required to spend one year of my life in the Norwegian Army, and if I refuse to do so, declare myself to be a pacifist and spend a year doing volunteer work. In actual fact, I got an exemption from both of those because I wrote in their online application form that "I'm not really that keen on doing this".
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 01:57:49 PM
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?
It's not. But since most humans alive today are either slaves, slavery profiteers or both, and slavery is such a key pillar of modern society, as long as you're part of society, it's pretty much impossible to keep out of it. If you try anyway, you risk becoming a nosy straight edge anarcho-primitivist punk who spends most of his time attacking lesser-pure fellow punks. And he gets nothing done, other than feeling holier than the rest of the world. One man's personal lifestyle crusade won't change anything.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 01:57:49 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 18, 2012, 02:59:15 PM
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.
Pretty much this.
I've been pondering lately, how to do something about it at a personal level without becoming a survivalist nutcase.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 18, 2012, 02:59:15 PM
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.
Which means the answer is "No, but...".
It's almost impossible to not buy something that resulted from slavery.
Doesn't mean we have to LIKE it, or BE QUIET about it.
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
As long as they have the decency to SHUT UP!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 18, 2012, 02:59:15 PM
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?
Quote from: Suu on July 18, 2012, 03:19:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 18, 2012, 02:59:15 PM
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?
Slavery can take 3 forms...Slavery to your own mind is YOUR problem.
1. Chattel slavery. You are literally bought and sold.
2. Prison labor. If you don't work the call center, you get no good time, effectively doubling your sentence.
3. Wage slavery/sweatshops, where you can't quit for one or more reasons. China's Apple plant is a good example. TECHNICALLY you can quit, but it means immediate starvation or government sanction. 12 year olds working in a garment factory under intolerable conditions also counts.
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?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 18, 2012, 04:36:01 PM
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?
I am not saying to walk away from civilization in some high-minded huff. It wouldn't help the problem at all, and would serve only to encourage hipster-esque self-righteousness.
What I'm saying is that most people disapprove of slavery, but aren't actually aware that it is going on, or - if they are aware that it exists - the extent of the problem. This is of course deliberate.
And there has to be a way to counteract that.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 04:40:00 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 18, 2012, 04:36:01 PM
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?
I am not saying to walk away from civilization in some high-minded huff. It wouldn't help the problem at all, and would serve only to encourage hipster-esque self-righteousness.
What I'm saying is that most people disapprove of slavery, but aren't actually aware that it is going on, or - if they are aware that it exists - the extent of the problem. This is of course deliberate.
And there has to be a way to counteract that.
Answers to the OP are FUCK NO, FUCK NO, AND FUCK NO.
Somebody asked at the amazon forum if people would be willing to pay more for goods made in the USA than China. I answered that the US and China were the same to me, I don't care where things are made and I would only pay more if I had assurance that the goods weren't made by kids, prison or sweatshop labor. I even posted a link about prison labor, guessing that these people were yahoos.
It was like the fucking post was
invisible. Nobody agreed, or disagreed or asked for more info. The thread just went on; "USA! USA!"
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 04:56:37 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 04:40:00 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 18, 2012, 04:36:01 PM
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?
I am not saying to walk away from civilization in some high-minded huff. It wouldn't help the problem at all, and would serve only to encourage hipster-esque self-righteousness.
What I'm saying is that most people disapprove of slavery, but aren't actually aware that it is going on, or - if they are aware that it exists - the extent of the problem. This is of course deliberate.
And there has to be a way to counteract that.
Answers to the OP are FUCK NO, FUCK NO, AND FUCK NO.
Somebody asked at the amazon forum if people would be willing to pay more for goods made in the USA than China. I answered that the US and China were the same to me, I don't care where things are made and I would only pay more if I had assurance that the goods weren't made by kids, prison or sweatshop labor. I even posted a link about prison labor, guessing that these people were yahoos.
It was like the fucking post was invisible. Nobody agreed, or disagreed or asked for more info. The thread just went on; "USA! USA!"
Sounds like a communication problem.
And even if the problem is at the other end, it still means that a different method is required.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 04:40:00 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 18, 2012, 04:36:01 PM
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?
I am not saying to walk away from civilization in some high-minded huff. It wouldn't help the problem at all, and would serve only to encourage hipster-esque self-righteousness.
Agreed 100%
Quote
What I'm saying is that most people disapprove of slavery, but aren't actually aware that it is going on, or - if they are aware that it exists - the extent of the problem. This is of course deliberate.
And there has to be a way to counteract that.
You seem to have a pretty optimistic view. I think many people know that their clothes/electronics/shoes/etc either come from sweat shops or are cheap because sweat shops decrease the cost to the market. There are new reports about companies all the time... Motorola, Adidas, Nike, Wal-Mart... and at worst these companies get a PR hit, a dip in the stocks and then business as usual.
I think it may simply be that the average consumer is so busy dealing with their own enslavement to the system that they don't really have the bandwidth to care about someone else's enslavement... or maybe, at least, when it does not directly involve chains and whips and cotton fields or diamond mines.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 18, 2012, 05:03:47 PM
You seem to have a pretty optimistic view. I think many people know that their clothes/electronics/shoes/etc either come from sweat shops or are cheap because sweat shops decrease the cost to the market. There are new reports about companies all the time... Motorola, Adidas, Nike, Wal-Mart... and at worst these companies get a PR hit, a dip in the stocks and then business as usual.
I think it may simply be that the average consumer is so busy dealing with their own enslavement to the system that they don't really have the bandwidth to care about someone else's enslavement... or maybe, at least, when it does not directly involve chains and whips and cotton fields or diamond mines.
I think it's that they just WON'T LOOK.
Should we try to make them look? I have that Jiminy Cockroach character in my head, making me look at shit. Shouldn't they be able to enjoy the same luxury?
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 05:08:51 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 18, 2012, 05:03:47 PM
You seem to have a pretty optimistic view. I think many people know that their clothes/electronics/shoes/etc either come from sweat shops or are cheap because sweat shops decrease the cost to the market. There are new reports about companies all the time... Motorola, Adidas, Nike, Wal-Mart... and at worst these companies get a PR hit, a dip in the stocks and then business as usual.
I think it may simply be that the average consumer is so busy dealing with their own enslavement to the system that they don't really have the bandwidth to care about someone else's enslavement... or maybe, at least, when it does not directly involve chains and whips and cotton fields or diamond mines.
I think it's that they just WON'T LOOK.
Should we try to make them look? I have that Jiminy Cockroach character in my head, making me look at shit. Shouldn't they be able to enjoy the same luxury?
It could be useful. I still want to be optimistic ;-)
It is wrong on all three part, but the monkeys don't want to listen. I brought this up in my global media class and I got either shocked looks or outright denial.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 05:08:51 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 18, 2012, 05:03:47 PM
You seem to have a pretty optimistic view. I think many people know that their clothes/electronics/shoes/etc either come from sweat shops or are cheap because sweat shops decrease the cost to the market. There are new reports about companies all the time... Motorola, Adidas, Nike, Wal-Mart... and at worst these companies get a PR hit, a dip in the stocks and then business as usual.
I think it may simply be that the average consumer is so busy dealing with their own enslavement to the system that they don't really have the bandwidth to care about someone else's enslavement... or maybe, at least, when it does not directly involve chains and whips and cotton fields or diamond mines.
I think it's that they just WON'T LOOK.
Should we try to make them look? I have that Jiminy Cockroach character in my head, making me look at shit. Shouldn't they be able to enjoy the same luxury?
Yes. They NEED Jiminy Cockroach.
Out of sight, out of mind. I have been in a discussion where the sentence "You can't industrialize without slavery" was uttered. People know what's going on, but they're not going to change their attitudes about it, much less their behaviors.
NUMBERS:
In China, which does a large part of production for cheap shit in America, average worker salaries are about 1/30th of salaries here. So, take the 32GB Apple iPad 2 for example. This device costs Apple $335 to produce, including labor. If it was produced in the USA, it would cost Apple $618 to make it. Right now the device sells for $729. To maintain the profit margin, a Made-in-USA iPad would need to sell for about $1,144. The current price would still make a profit for Apple, but only at 15% instead of 54%. This of course assumes that the supply chains for the components of the iPad stays the same. If we produced all the raw materials and components in the US, the price would again rise. Source (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/how-much-would-the-ipad-2-cost-if-it-were-made-in-the-us-about-1-140/238508/)
But at least with the iPad, the problem isn't that it's impossible to produce these things in the USA by workers who aren't subjected to slavery. The problem is that doing so would be uncomfortable for profit margins. It wouldn't put anyone out of business, but there would be fewer Free Bentley with the Purchase of This Mansion (http://www.luxurylaunches.com/real_estate/free_bentley_when_you_buy_a_house_in_paradise_valley.php) deals, and the Middle Class might not collapse. AND PRICES WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SKYROCKET.
So the answer to the questions in the OP isn't just "no," it's "FUCK NO AND WHY AREN'T WE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT?" Unfortunately that isn't a rhetorical question. It has an answer: we aren't doing anything about it because we don't fucking care.
Quote from: Guru Quixote on July 18, 2012, 05:25:23 PM
It is wrong on all three part, but the monkeys don't want to listen. I brought this up in my global media class and I got either shocked looks or outright denial.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 04:58:47 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 04:56:37 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 04:40:00 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 18, 2012, 04:36:01 PM
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?
I am not saying to walk away from civilization in some high-minded huff. It wouldn't help the problem at all, and would serve only to encourage hipster-esque self-righteousness.
What I'm saying is that most people disapprove of slavery, but aren't actually aware that it is going on, or - if they are aware that it exists - the extent of the problem. This is of course deliberate.
And there has to be a way to counteract that.
Answers to the OP are FUCK NO, FUCK NO, AND FUCK NO.
Somebody asked at the amazon forum if people would be willing to pay more for goods made in the USA than China. I answered that the US and China were the same to me, I don't care where things are made and I would only pay more if I had assurance that the goods weren't made by kids, prison or sweatshop labor. I even posted a link about prison labor, guessing that these people were yahoos.
It was like the fucking post was invisible. Nobody agreed, or disagreed or asked for more info. The thread just went on; "USA! USA!"
Sounds like a communication problem.
And even if the problem is at the other end, it still means that a different method is required.
Like the Leonard Cohen song... Everybody Knows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUfS8LyeUyM
QuoteEverybody knows the deal is rotten
Old black Joe's still pickin cotton
For your ribbons and bows
And everybody knows
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 18, 2012, 05:36:57 PM
Like the Leonard Cohen song... Everybody Knows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUfS8LyeUyM
QuoteEverybody knows the deal is rotten
Old black Joe's still pickin cotton
For your ribbons and bows
And everybody knows
That in fact is one of my top 3 favorite songs of all time.
Quote from: Guru Quixote on July 18, 2012, 05:25:23 PM
It is wrong on all three part, but the monkeys don't want to listen. I brought this up in my global media class and I got either shocked looks or outright denial.
Needs Jiminy Cockroach. MAKE them look.
See if you can get the prof on board.
Quote from: v3x on July 18, 2012, 05:33:42 PM
Out of sight, out of mind. I have been in a discussion where the sentence "You can't industrialize without slavery" was uttered. People know what's going on, but they're not going to change their attitudes about it, much less their behaviors.
Slavery hasn't been actually necessary since the invention of the horse collar.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 05:46:04 PM
Quote from: v3x on July 18, 2012, 05:33:42 PM
Out of sight, out of mind. I have been in a discussion where the sentence "You can't industrialize without slavery" was uttered. People know what's going on, but they're not going to change their attitudes about it, much less their behaviors.
Slavery hasn't been actually necessary since the invention of the horse collar.
Are mittens overdone? I want to post mittens.
Seriously...Before the horse collar, you HAD to use slaves, because a horse couldn't work as hard as 5 people because the harness would choke it if you went any faster...And a horse eats as much as 5 people.
After the horse collar, the horse could do the work of 8 people, and only eat as much as 5 people. Slavery became unnecessary at that point. We clung to it then for the same reason we cling to it now: Because we all want nice things, but we don't want to actually do the shit work.
That's why illegal aliens pick your food up out of the fields for less than a living wage (when they aren't just ripped off outright, as Garbo has talked about in the past). Americans won't pick cabbage at any price.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 05:44:55 PM
Quote from: Guru Quixote on July 18, 2012, 05:25:23 PM
It is wrong on all three part, but the monkeys don't want to listen. I brought this up in my global media class and I got either shocked looks or outright denial.
Needs Jiminy Cockroach. MAKE them look.
See if you can get the prof on board.
This was last quarter, and they already watched the wonders of recycling in China.
Quote from: Guru Quixote on July 18, 2012, 06:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 05:44:55 PM
Quote from: Guru Quixote on July 18, 2012, 05:25:23 PM
It is wrong on all three part, but the monkeys don't want to listen. I brought this up in my global media class and I got either shocked looks or outright denial.
Needs Jiminy Cockroach. MAKE them look.
See if you can get the prof on board.
This was last quarter, and they already watched the wonders of recycling in China.
Jesus.
IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND, THE ONE-EYED PIG IS KING.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: Guru Quixote on July 18, 2012, 06:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 05:44:55 PM
Quote from: Guru Quixote on July 18, 2012, 05:25:23 PM
It is wrong on all three part, but the monkeys don't want to listen. I brought this up in my global media class and I got either shocked looks or outright denial.
Needs Jiminy Cockroach. MAKE them look.
See if you can get the prof on board.
This was last quarter, and they already watched the wonders of recycling in China.
Jesus.
IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND, THE ONE-EYED PIG IS KING.
Pig? The hogs are at the table. :x
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: Guru Quixote on July 18, 2012, 06:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 05:44:55 PM
Quote from: Guru Quixote on July 18, 2012, 05:25:23 PM
It is wrong on all three part, but the monkeys don't want to listen. I brought this up in my global media class and I got either shocked looks or outright denial.
Needs Jiminy Cockroach. MAKE them look.
See if you can get the prof on board.
This was last quarter, and they already watched the wonders of recycling in China.
Jesus.
IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND, THE ONE-EYED PIG IS KING.
Pig? The hogs are at the table. :x
HELL IS EMPTY. ALL THE DEVILS ARE
HERE ON WALL STREET.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 06:57:23 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 18, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: Guru Quixote on July 18, 2012, 06:49:11 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 05:44:55 PM
Quote from: Guru Quixote on July 18, 2012, 05:25:23 PM
It is wrong on all three part, but the monkeys don't want to listen. I brought this up in my global media class and I got either shocked looks or outright denial.
Needs Jiminy Cockroach. MAKE them look.
See if you can get the prof on board.
This was last quarter, and they already watched the wonders of recycling in China.
Jesus.
IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND, THE ONE-EYED PIG IS KING.
Pig? The hogs are at the table. :x
HELL IS EMPTY. ALL THE DEVILS ARE HERE ON WALL STREET.
Hmmm...I wonder if hell has squatter's rights?
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.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 01:57:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 18, 2012, 04:36:01 PM
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".
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 20, 2012, 04:27:59 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 18, 2012, 04:36:01 PM
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 :D
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 20, 2012, 04:27:59 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 18, 2012, 04:36:01 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 20, 2012, 08:17:00 PM
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.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 21, 2012, 03:48:37 PM
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.
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).
Quote from: Cuddlefish on July 21, 2012, 06:12:01 PM
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...
Quote from: Suu on July 18, 2012, 03:19:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 18, 2012, 02:59:15 PM
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.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 21, 2012, 04:17:43 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 20, 2012, 08:17:00 PM
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.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 21, 2012, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on July 21, 2012, 06:12:01 PM
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.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 22, 2012, 12:37:48 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 21, 2012, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on July 21, 2012, 06:12:01 PM
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. :lol:
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 22, 2012, 06:55:35 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 22, 2012, 12:37:48 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 21, 2012, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on July 21, 2012, 06:12:01 PM
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. :lol:
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.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 22, 2012, 05:25:39 PM
Quote from: Phox, Mistress of Many Names on July 22, 2012, 06:55:35 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 22, 2012, 12:37:48 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 21, 2012, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: Cuddlefish on July 21, 2012, 06:12:01 PM
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. :lol:
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.
After a good deal of thinking this over, I absolutely agree with you. I am similarly disinclined to believe that "society" (which I've come to the conclusion is very, very vague in this context, and I'm not even sure it has any meaning whatsoever) has any power to impose "slavery" on anyone. The more I consider it, the more I think that such a concept is merely rationalizing a "fuck other people" kind of sentiment as a nearly conspiratorial (in the Illuminati sense) anti-establishment ideal. Not taking shots at you, Ratatosk, and to be honest, that's mostly likely the 32 hours of insomnia talking. :lulz:
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 18, 2012, 01:57:49 PM
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?
1 to the end user, no.
2 strictly speaking, no. Most morality in people seems tofail outside of their immediate airspace thou.
3 no, it just allowsfor maxkmization of the above effect.
When I say subjugation to society, I'm not saying that it is necessarily 'bad', but it is a form of slavery.
For example: The individual would like to do X. X doesn't hurt anyone but the society that the individual lives in has decided for one reason or another that X is badwrong. This might be through government (like the oft debated drug issue) or the 'morals'/'ethics' of the society (see the way homosexuality has been/is treated by 'the people' in many societies, even if the government doesn't specifically forbid it). Things like racism or other forms of prejudice may often be a product of society, rather than government... and they can (and do) limit the freedom of the individual.
Consider a perfectly 'normal' (per society standards) white person of sex A and a perfectly 'normal' black person of sex B in 1940's America. The society they lived in controlled their freedoms.
Consider an individual in the nation of Israel, circa 300BC. They either worshiped in line with the society, or they were banished. (though in that case religion, government and society are all kinda mushed together).
Every society will have things that are 'taboo', either by law or simply because society will not accept it. Long haired hippy types, need not apply. Irish need not apply. You can't work here if you have tattoos or piercings, because some customer might get offended.
When I say that we are enslaved by society, that's what I'm talking about. Sure, we all need to contribute to society, but at the same time most (if not all) individuals are held to 'the social norm' at one level or another. Social taboos on sex, on who you can be with, on what you should believe, how you should dress etc etc are all a sort of slavery that is, in my opinion, an 'ill'. I don't think its particularly avoidable for a social animal like humans, but I recognize it as something that does control the freedoms of the individual, often for no 'good' purpose.
Expanding the word cheapens it, IMO.
Slavery is an abomination from which you can't just walk away.
Feeling trapped by society is another, lesser matter entirely.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 24, 2012, 09:07:49 PM
Expanding the word cheapens it, IMO.
Slavery is an abomination from which you can't just walk away.
Feeling trapped by society is another, lesser matter entirely.
I agree that its a lesser matter. Which is what I said earlier.
Chattel Slavery we're slowly getting rid of as a society
Indentured Slavery and Sweat Shop Slavery we're not doing so well on.
The other stuff, maybe it will always be here (necessary ill as I said).
For me, it doesn't cheapen it, it brings it the whole issue into focus. Some would argue that getting paid shit to work in a dangerous environment isn't 'slavery' its just working at a crappy job for crappy pay. I think by pointing out that slavery exists in many forms, we circumvent that sort of thinking. But thats just my opinion.
QuoteThat two men have no more natural right to exercise any kind of authority over one, than one has to exercise the same authority over two. A man's natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or by any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government [or society].
- Lysander Spooner, No Treason
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 24, 2012, 09:24:39 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 24, 2012, 09:07:49 PM
Expanding the word cheapens it, IMO.
Slavery is an abomination from which you can't just walk away.
Feeling trapped by society is another, lesser matter entirely.
I agree that its a lesser matter. Which is what I said earlier.
Chattel Slavery we're slowly getting rid of as a society
Indentured Slavery and Sweat Shop Slavery we're not doing so well on.
The other stuff, maybe it will always be here (necessary ill as I said).
For me, it doesn't cheapen it, it brings it the whole issue into focus. Some would argue that getting paid shit to work in a dangerous environment isn't 'slavery' its just working at a crappy job for crappy pay. I think by pointing out that slavery exists in many forms, we circumvent that sort of thinking. But thats just my opinion.
Do you use the word "rape" this loosely as well?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 24, 2012, 09:06:15 PM
When I say subjugation to society, I'm not saying that it is necessarily 'bad', but it is a form of slavery.
For example: The individual would like to do X. X doesn't hurt anyone but the society that the individual lives in has decided for one reason or another that X is badwrong. This might be through government (like the oft debated drug issue) or the 'morals'/'ethics' of the society (see the way homosexuality has been/is treated by 'the people' in many societies, even if the government doesn't specifically forbid it). Things like racism or other forms of prejudice may often be a product of society, rather than government... and they can (and do) limit the freedom of the individual.
Consider a perfectly 'normal' (per society standards) white person of sex A and a perfectly 'normal' black person of sex B in 1940's America. The society they lived in controlled their freedoms.
Consider an individual in the nation of Israel, circa 300BC. They either worshiped in line with the society, or they were banished. (though in that case religion, government and society are all kinda mushed together).
Every society will have things that are 'taboo', either by law or simply because society will not accept it. Long haired hippy types, need not apply. Irish need not apply. You can't work here if you have tattoos or piercings, because some customer might get offended.
When I say that we are enslaved by society, that's what I'm talking about. Sure, we all need to contribute to society, but at the same time most (if not all) individuals are held to 'the social norm' at one level or another. Social taboos on sex, on who you can be with, on what you should believe, how you should dress etc etc are all a sort of slavery that is, in my opinion, an 'ill'. I don't think its particularly avoidable for a social animal like humans, but I recognize it as something that does control the freedoms of the individual, often for no 'good' purpose.
Well then, I guess we're all enslaved by our very nature.
No use having a problem with owning and exploiting people then.
Quote from: Net on July 25, 2012, 01:09:33 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 24, 2012, 09:24:39 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 24, 2012, 09:07:49 PM
Expanding the word cheapens it, IMO.
Slavery is an abomination from which you can't just walk away.
Feeling trapped by society is another, lesser matter entirely.
I agree that its a lesser matter. Which is what I said earlier.
Chattel Slavery we're slowly getting rid of as a society
Indentured Slavery and Sweat Shop Slavery we're not doing so well on.
The other stuff, maybe it will always be here (necessary ill as I said).
For me, it doesn't cheapen it, it brings it the whole issue into focus. Some would argue that getting paid shit to work in a dangerous environment isn't 'slavery' its just working at a crappy job for crappy pay. I think by pointing out that slavery exists in many forms, we circumvent that sort of thinking. But thats just my opinion.
Do you use the word "rape" this loosely as well?
Let's play the redefining game! Words mean what I want them to mean!
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 25, 2012, 06:33:50 AM
Quote from: Net on July 25, 2012, 01:09:33 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 24, 2012, 09:24:39 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 24, 2012, 09:07:49 PM
Expanding the word cheapens it, IMO.
Slavery is an abomination from which you can't just walk away.
Feeling trapped by society is another, lesser matter entirely.
I agree that its a lesser matter. Which is what I said earlier.
Chattel Slavery we're slowly getting rid of as a society
Indentured Slavery and Sweat Shop Slavery we're not doing so well on.
The other stuff, maybe it will always be here (necessary ill as I said).
For me, it doesn't cheapen it, it brings it the whole issue into focus. Some would argue that getting paid shit to work in a dangerous environment isn't 'slavery' its just working at a crappy job for crappy pay. I think by pointing out that slavery exists in many forms, we circumvent that sort of thinking. But thats just my opinion.
Do you use the word "rape" this loosely as well?
Let's play the redefining game! Words mean what I want them to mean!
LETS RAPE WORDS!
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 25, 2012, 06:32:21 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 24, 2012, 09:06:15 PM
When I say subjugation to society, I'm not saying that it is necessarily 'bad', but it is a form of slavery.
For example: The individual would like to do X. X doesn't hurt anyone but the society that the individual lives in has decided for one reason or another that X is badwrong. This might be through government (like the oft debated drug issue) or the 'morals'/'ethics' of the society (see the way homosexuality has been/is treated by 'the people' in many societies, even if the government doesn't specifically forbid it). Things like racism or other forms of prejudice may often be a product of society, rather than government... and they can (and do) limit the freedom of the individual.
Consider a perfectly 'normal' (per society standards) white person of sex A and a perfectly 'normal' black person of sex B in 1940's America. The society they lived in controlled their freedoms.
Consider an individual in the nation of Israel, circa 300BC. They either worshiped in line with the society, or they were banished. (though in that case religion, government and society are all kinda mushed together).
Every society will have things that are 'taboo', either by law or simply because society will not accept it. Long haired hippy types, need not apply. Irish need not apply. You can't work here if you have tattoos or piercings, because some customer might get offended.
When I say that we are enslaved by society, that's what I'm talking about. Sure, we all need to contribute to society, but at the same time most (if not all) individuals are held to 'the social norm' at one level or another. Social taboos on sex, on who you can be with, on what you should believe, how you should dress etc etc are all a sort of slavery that is, in my opinion, an 'ill'. I don't think its particularly avoidable for a social animal like humans, but I recognize it as something that does control the freedoms of the individual, often for no 'good' purpose.
Well then, I guess we're all enslaved by our very nature.
No use having a problem with owning and exploiting people then.
Yep. There's really no point in NOT having 9 year olds working in sweatshops.
And I think everyone who goes to a protest should bring signs talking about their own pet cause, instead of signs dealing with the point of the protest.
Because it's not FREEDOM if you don't impose YOUR cause into everything that is even tangentially related.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 25, 2012, 09:27:02 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 25, 2012, 06:33:50 AM
Quote from: Net on July 25, 2012, 01:09:33 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 24, 2012, 09:24:39 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 24, 2012, 09:07:49 PM
Expanding the word cheapens it, IMO.
Slavery is an abomination from which you can't just walk away.
Feeling trapped by society is another, lesser matter entirely.
I agree that its a lesser matter. Which is what I said earlier.
Chattel Slavery we're slowly getting rid of as a society
Indentured Slavery and Sweat Shop Slavery we're not doing so well on.
The other stuff, maybe it will always be here (necessary ill as I said).
For me, it doesn't cheapen it, it brings it the whole issue into focus. Some would argue that getting paid shit to work in a dangerous environment isn't 'slavery' its just working at a crappy job for crappy pay. I think by pointing out that slavery exists in many forms, we circumvent that sort of thinking. But thats just my opinion.
Do you use the word "rape" this loosely as well?
Let's play the redefining game! Words mean what I want them to mean!
LETS RAPE WORDS!
In england "rape" is a kind of plant/crop.
The first thing I thought of when reading these questions was the conundrum of Thomas Jefferson. He understood the underlying moral issues with slavery, and maybe even saw the untenable nature of that institution as a lasting economic base. He wrote documents propounding the moral failure of slavery, but continued to practice it regardless. How should we judge him? As a complete hypocrite who would not implement what he felt in his heart to be true? Or as a visionary who saw what was right and laid the framework for it to gain ascendancy, even though he couldn't realize it in his life? There is value in both of those perspectives, and to many others, I'm sure. The lesson I take from this, is that even making small changes, can have large effects well beyond the small world I inhabit.
Quote from: wlfjstr on July 25, 2012, 05:01:34 PM
The first thing I thought of when reading these questions was
...That everyone who has a different opinion of you is unbalanced, probably due to drug consumption.
DO I WIN?
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 25, 2012, 05:02:36 PM
Quote from: wlfjstr on July 25, 2012, 05:01:34 PM
The first thing I thought of when reading these questions was
...That everyone who has a different opinion of you is unbalanced, probably due to drug consumption.
DO I WIN?
More or less but sadly you dont have enough hand eye coordination to claim the grand prize of me caring.
Quote from: Trollbear on July 25, 2012, 05:20:49 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 25, 2012, 05:02:36 PM
Quote from: wlfjstr on July 25, 2012, 05:01:34 PM
The first thing I thought of when reading these questions was
...That everyone who has a different opinion of you is unbalanced, probably due to drug consumption.
DO I WIN?
More or less but sadly you dont have enough hand eye coordination to claim the grand prize of me caring.
Hey, trollbear...You really want to get in the middle of this?
Because I'm okay with it if you are.
Just excuse me folks, my brain is feeling sluggish.
I only just figured out this thread was about slavery. Yikes.
Quote from: Sir Bearington on July 25, 2012, 05:26:54 PM
Just excuse me folks, my brain is feeling sluggish.
I only just figured out this thread was about slavery. Yikes.
This is just a suggestion, but you might take a few hours off and lurk a bit. Read what shit is about. That will help you to keep from sticking your foot in it every third post.
Quote from: Sir Bearington on July 25, 2012, 02:07:54 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 25, 2012, 09:27:02 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 25, 2012, 06:33:50 AM
Quote from: Net on July 25, 2012, 01:09:33 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 24, 2012, 09:24:39 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 24, 2012, 09:07:49 PM
Expanding the word cheapens it, IMO.
Slavery is an abomination from which you can't just walk away.
Feeling trapped by society is another, lesser matter entirely.
I agree that its a lesser matter. Which is what I said earlier.
Chattel Slavery we're slowly getting rid of as a society
Indentured Slavery and Sweat Shop Slavery we're not doing so well on.
The other stuff, maybe it will always be here (necessary ill as I said).
For me, it doesn't cheapen it, it brings it the whole issue into focus. Some would argue that getting paid shit to work in a dangerous environment isn't 'slavery' its just working at a crappy job for crappy pay. I think by pointing out that slavery exists in many forms, we circumvent that sort of thinking. But thats just my opinion.
Do you use the word "rape" this loosely as well?
Let's play the redefining game! Words mean what I want them to mean!
LETS RAPE WORDS!
In england "rape" is a kind of plant/crop.
It's called CANOLA in this century, bub.
Otherwise that shit in the store would be called "rape oil".
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 26, 2012, 12:06:07 AM
Quote from: Sir Bearington on July 25, 2012, 02:07:54 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 25, 2012, 09:27:02 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 25, 2012, 06:33:50 AM
Quote from: Net on July 25, 2012, 01:09:33 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 24, 2012, 09:24:39 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 24, 2012, 09:07:49 PM
Expanding the word cheapens it, IMO.
Slavery is an abomination from which you can't just walk away.
Feeling trapped by society is another, lesser matter entirely.
I agree that its a lesser matter. Which is what I said earlier.
Chattel Slavery we're slowly getting rid of as a society
Indentured Slavery and Sweat Shop Slavery we're not doing so well on.
The other stuff, maybe it will always be here (necessary ill as I said).
For me, it doesn't cheapen it, it brings it the whole issue into focus. Some would argue that getting paid shit to work in a dangerous environment isn't 'slavery' its just working at a crappy job for crappy pay. I think by pointing out that slavery exists in many forms, we circumvent that sort of thinking. But thats just my opinion.
Do you use the word "rape" this loosely as well?
Let's play the redefining game! Words mean what I want them to mean!
LETS RAPE WORDS!
In england "rape" is a kind of plant/crop.
It's called CANOLA in this century, bub.
Otherwise that shit in the store would be called "rape oil".
The mind boggles.
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 26, 2012, 03:01:03 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 26, 2012, 12:06:07 AM
Quote from: Sir Bearington on July 25, 2012, 02:07:54 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 25, 2012, 09:27:02 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 25, 2012, 06:33:50 AM
Quote from: Net on July 25, 2012, 01:09:33 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 24, 2012, 09:24:39 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 24, 2012, 09:07:49 PM
Expanding the word cheapens it, IMO.
Slavery is an abomination from which you can't just walk away.
Feeling trapped by society is another, lesser matter entirely.
I agree that its a lesser matter. Which is what I said earlier.
Chattel Slavery we're slowly getting rid of as a society
Indentured Slavery and Sweat Shop Slavery we're not doing so well on.
The other stuff, maybe it will always be here (necessary ill as I said).
For me, it doesn't cheapen it, it brings it the whole issue into focus. Some would argue that getting paid shit to work in a dangerous environment isn't 'slavery' its just working at a crappy job for crappy pay. I think by pointing out that slavery exists in many forms, we circumvent that sort of thinking. But thats just my opinion.
Do you use the word "rape" this loosely as well?
Let's play the redefining game! Words mean what I want them to mean!
LETS RAPE WORDS!
In england "rape" is a kind of plant/crop.
It's called CANOLA in this century, bub.
Otherwise that shit in the store would be called "rape oil".
The mind boggles.
Simpler times, simpler times.
There's also Broccoli Rabe (the long leafy bits off the stem), that used to be Broccoli Rape.
No wonder George HW Bush hated it.
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 26, 2012, 03:09:51 AM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 26, 2012, 03:01:03 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 26, 2012, 12:06:07 AM
Quote from: Sir Bearington on July 25, 2012, 02:07:54 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on July 25, 2012, 09:27:02 AM
Quote from: PROFOUNDLY RETARDED CHARLIE MANSON on July 25, 2012, 06:33:50 AM
Quote from: Net on July 25, 2012, 01:09:33 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on July 24, 2012, 09:24:39 PM
Quote from: The Dead Reverend Roger on July 24, 2012, 09:07:49 PM
Expanding the word cheapens it, IMO.
Slavery is an abomination from which you can't just walk away.
Feeling trapped by society is another, lesser matter entirely.
I agree that its a lesser matter. Which is what I said earlier.
Chattel Slavery we're slowly getting rid of as a society
Indentured Slavery and Sweat Shop Slavery we're not doing so well on.
The other stuff, maybe it will always be here (necessary ill as I said).
For me, it doesn't cheapen it, it brings it the whole issue into focus. Some would argue that getting paid shit to work in a dangerous environment isn't 'slavery' its just working at a crappy job for crappy pay. I think by pointing out that slavery exists in many forms, we circumvent that sort of thinking. But thats just my opinion.
Do you use the word "rape" this loosely as well?
Let's play the redefining game! Words mean what I want them to mean!
LETS RAPE WORDS!
In england "rape" is a kind of plant/crop.
It's called CANOLA in this century, bub.
Otherwise that shit in the store would be called "rape oil".
The mind boggles.
Simpler times, simpler times.
Over here as far as im aware it's still called "rape"