• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

If you're really free, why can't you sell yourself into slavery?

Viktyr Gehrig said:
I'm opposed to most forms of slavery, but some historical forms have been more civilized than others. American slavery was just one of the nastier ones.
Click to expand...


True. Historically, many forms of slavery included some rights for the slave and a limited term of slavery.

It sort of grew out of ancient circumstances where you had one family that had "made it big" and had excesses of land/cattle/etc and needed help working it, and other people who for one reason or another had nothing and desperately needed a job... they didn't have the concept of "employee" back then so you were either a slave or an indentured servant, "contract labor"... but not necessarily treated as a non-person depending on the culture and laws of the time and place. It was the way things were: there were masters and slaves/servants.

Some slaves or servants could rise to positions of considerable wealth and power under their master. It wasn't always abominable; obviously many considered it preferable to starvation or poverty on their own. That was the way in the ancient world: either you rose to power and wealth, or you attached yourself to someone who had as either a kinsman, armsman, retainer, servant or slave.
 
Goshin said:
It is similar to how one may choose to look at "fundamental rights". One viewpoint says they are societal constructs based on collective ideals. Another viewpoint says they are God-given rights, or "Natural" rights intrinsic to humanity. You can take either view, but if you want those rights to be secure, you would do far better to teach society as a whole that they are God-given or "Natural and inalienable" than to teach that they are merely a social construct...
Click to expand...
No disagreement there. If rights are merely a social construct, then what you have isnt rights, but privileges. What society giveth, society can taketh away.

To me, "self ownership" is a cold and materialistic way to look at the wonder that is life and humanity.
Click to expand...
The human body is a material thing, though. If you dont vigorously argue for self-ownership, rest assured there will be plenty of voices staking a claim that your body is theirs to dispose of.
 
Fletch said:
No disagreement there. If rights are merely a social construct, then what you have isnt rights, but privileges. What society giveth, society can taketh away.

The human body is a material thing, though. If you dont vigorously argue for self-ownership, rest assured there will be plenty of voices staking a claim that your body is theirs to dispose of.
Click to expand...




One could argue that one's person is even better protected, if society as a whole strongly believes in the dignity and honor of being human, of life and liberty being sacrosanct as either divinely ordained or natural and inalienable, rather than as an expression of property rights.
 
I'm equating, not advocating.

How do you feel about these Corporation that lay you off 1 year before your retirement is due?

Sure, we here at DP are all intelligent, good looking and have many abilities. But what about the guy who screwed bolts onto new car wheels for most of his working life and then lost his job at the age of 57?


Goshin said:
And be put out into the cold cruel world in their later years to work or starve, being completely unprepared for freedom and choice due to a lifetime of lacking same...


... sorry, had to throw that in there. :)
Click to expand...

Viktyr Gehrig said:
I'm opposed to most forms of slavery, but some historical forms have been more civilized than others. American slavery was just one of the nastier ones.
Click to expand...
 
Goshin said:
True. Historically, many forms of slavery included some rights for the slave and a limited term of slavery.
Click to expand...

I believe in thralldom as an intermediate state between alien and citizen. Thralls should have some limited rights, but the full rights of citizenship-- including many things incorrectly labeled "human rights"-- should not be granted until the person has earned them. Not dissimilar to the way that children do not have full rights until they have become adults, except that adulthood and the full rights of citizenship are no longer earned in modern society.

Goshin said:
Some slaves or servants could rise to positions of considerable wealth and power under their master. It wasn't always abominable; obviously many considered it preferable to starvation or poverty on their own. That was the way in the ancient world: either you rose to power and wealth, or you attached yourself to someone who had as either a kinsman, armsman, retainer, servant or slave.
Click to expand...

The way my distant ancestors practiced slavery-- I am also descended from American slave-owners-- a valuable slave could be allowed to become a part of the master's family. I do not know how common this was, but it feels right to me.
 
freedom's just another word for nothin left to lose.....
 
OscarB63 said:
freedom's just another word for nothin left to lose.....
Click to expand...


I KNEW someone was gonna do that! :)


I started to, but I hate quoting Janis Joplin....
 
Goshin said:
I KNEW someone was gonna do that! :)


I started to, but I hate quoting Janis Joplin....
Click to expand...

in soviet russia...janis joplin quotes you
 
Oftencold said:
If you're really free, why can't you sell yourself into slavery?

I have found that to be an interesting question, and one that illustrates some of the quirky limits a generally free Society places upon freedom.

There's an old adage too as I recall, that states that the proof of ownership lies in the right and ability to sell. That is, if you aren't allowed to sell something, then it really isn't yours. This would be expected to extend to one's person as well, I should think.


In passing I'll just mention that I think many, possibly most people would be content as slaves, so long as they were well cared for and weren't called a slave. This would explain a great deal about popular political movements.
Click to expand...

Because you don't own yourself you ARE yourself, ownership is the relationship between a person and a peice of nature, you can't have ownership without the person and the peice of nature.

Saying I own myself is like saying I'm married to myself, it's just nonsense.
 
MaggieD said:
I think that some of our entitlement programs do exactly that. The recipients just don't know it. Imagine what our unemployment numbers would really be if all those babies' mama's were out there seriously looking for work. And the 50% unemployed males in many of our inner cities really wanted jobs...
Click to expand...

Unemployment ONLY counts those who are actually looking for work ....

Do you really think when unemployment went way high in 2007 it was just more people becoming lazy? If you think that unemployment comes from laziness you'd have to, which is rediculous.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
I'm opposed to most forms of slavery, but some historical forms have been more civilized than others. American slavery was just one of the nastier ones.
Click to expand...

Much of ancient near eastern slavery was pretty civilized, in the sense that slaves had more rights than wage workers, which is why some slaves, after they had gained freedom remained slaves.

The real brutal slavery comes from conquered slavery, i.e. Roman slavery, Persian slavery, American Slavery and some others.
 
Fletch said:
The human body is a material thing, though. If you dont vigorously argue for self-ownership, rest assured there will be plenty of voices staking a claim that your body is theirs to dispose of.
Click to expand...

Even if you argue for self-ownership people will still claim that your body is theirs.

But a claim doesn't mean ****.

Ownership BY DEFINITION is a persons relationship with a part of nature, with out the latter you can't have the relationship.

Again it's like saying "I am married to myself," it makes no sense.
 
specklebang said:
I'm equating, not advocating.

How do you feel about these Corporation that lay you off 1 year before your retirement is due?

Sure, we here at DP are all intelligent, good looking and have many abilities. But what about the guy who screwed bolts onto new car wheels for most of his working life and then lost his job at the age of 57?
Click to expand...

Modern wage slavery, especially when combined with forced debt (school debt, healthcare debt for example), is essencially the same as old slavery, excect the employer or the bank has no obligation towards you.
 
Because in a Republic your rights are precisely the kind of thing you cannot vote away, they are always there.
 
Slavery is an over-used term. A slave can not "quit" and seek to advance. Hardly the case in the US. Debt is debt - you borrow and you owe. There are far more successful people than there are "minimum wage slaves". In a more perfect world, everything would be free. Nobody has figured out that or FTL yet. Maybe some day you'll get a free lunch identical to everyone else's free lunch but for now, it seems unlikely and impractical.



RGacky3 said:
Modern wage slavery, especially when combined with forced debt (school debt, healthcare debt for example), is essencially the same as old slavery, excect the employer or the bank has no obligation towards you.
Click to expand...
 
specklebang said:
Slavery is an over-used term. A slave can not "quit" and seek to advance. Hardly the case in the US. Debt is debt - you borrow and you owe. There are far more successful people than there are "minimum wage slaves". In a more perfect world, everything would be free. Nobody has figured out that or FTL yet. Maybe some day you'll get a free lunch identical to everyone else's free lunch but for now, it seems unlikely and impractical.
Click to expand...

in ancient times, a whole lot of slavery was people in debt, who couldn't pay it off, so sold themselves as slaves.

There are not far more succussful people out there than there are minimum wage slaves, look at the world, most people live of very little, and live a hand to mouth existence, they CANNOT quit in practice because they cannot survive without a pay check and they have no access to capital, also advancement is minimal in most of the world.

Many times if you want a shot at a decent middle class life you need a university degree, and for a lot of people to get that you need to go into debt, then you are enslaved for a while to that debt, you have to pay off that loan, of coarse you CAN quit your job, but you still have to pay off the loan.

Of coarse it isn't the same as slavery, but the outcome is more or less the same, and I think ancients, would look at todays sweat shop workers as essencially slaves, only slaves where the boss has no obligation to their welfare.

In a more perfect world university would be a public good, not a market commodity, and workers would have a larger say over the way the buisiness is run and enough compensation to grant them economic freedom, it isn't THAT difficult.
 
Lets just talk about America rather than extending our brilliant analyses globally.

There are more people well off then there are people who aren't. Even I, with nothing but a GED have been reasonably successful. Every friend I have (other than retirees) make decent livings. They all have a place to live that has utilities. Most of them own cars (or don't drive). None of them have empty stomachs.

Other than fast food, nobody I know works for minimum wage. So, I contend that poverty is a minority and can in many cases be ascribed to irresponsibility or drug misuse.

The same is true in many countries as well. The Europens seem to be OK. South Korea, when I was there in 1963 epitomized poverty. Now, they are one of the most successful economies in the world. There is a great deal of evidence that those who aspire and invest effort can easily obtain a decent middle-class lifestyle. I live at least as well as Mitt Romney or Warren Buffet. Sure, I don't have a private jet but how much happiness would that afford me?

My son got his degree from a Community College. The Military paid for it for his service. He earns $83K plus benefits and he just bid himself out at $85 per hour. If I can succeed and he can succeed, anybody with 1/2 a brain can also., But if you don't try and just wait for a free ride, yes, you might effectively sell yourself into slavery. But that's a choice, not a rule.



RGacky3 said:
in ancient times, a whole lot of slavery was people in debt, who couldn't pay it off, so sold themselves as slaves.

There are not far more succussful people out there than there are minimum wage slaves, look at the world, most people live of very little, and live a hand to mouth existence, they CANNOT quit in practice because they cannot survive without a pay check and they have no access to capital, also advancement is minimal in most of the world.

Many times if you want a shot at a decent middle class life you need a university degree, and for a lot of people to get that you need to go into debt, then you are enslaved for a while to that debt, you have to pay off that loan, of coarse you CAN quit your job, but you still have to pay off the loan.

Of coarse it isn't the same as slavery, but the outcome is more or less the same, and I think ancients, would look at todays sweat shop workers as essencially slaves, only slaves where the boss has no obligation to their welfare.

In a more perfect world university would be a public good, not a market commodity, and workers would have a larger say over the way the buisiness is run and enough compensation to grant them economic freedom, it isn't THAT difficult.
Click to expand...
 
Oftencold said:
If you're really free, why can't you sell yourself into slavery?

I have found that to be an interesting question, and one that illustrates some of the quirky limits a generally free Society places upon freedom.

There's an old adage too as I recall, that states that the proof of ownership lies in the right and ability to sell. That is, if you aren't allowed to sell something, then it really isn't yours. This would be expected to extend to one's person as well, I should think.


In passing I'll just mention that I think many, possibly most people would be content as slaves, so long as they were well cared for and weren't called a slave. This would explain a great deal about popular political movements.
Click to expand...

Because you cannot actually transfer ownership of your body.
 
Ikari said:
Because you cannot actually transfer ownership of your body.
Click to expand...

Then, you really don't own it, and legal arguments based inb that assumption must be absurd.

In other words you are only responsible for your flesh, not its owner. This is similar to the way a soldier is isssued gear for which he is responsible but which he does not own. Ownership in this case is maintained by the State. I suppose we can conclude that the State owns our flesh as well.
 
Oftencold said:
If you're really free, why can't you sell yourself into slavery?

I have found that to be an interesting question, and one that illustrates some of the quirky limits a generally free Society places upon freedom.

There's an old adage too as I recall, that states that the proof of ownership lies in the right and ability to sell. That is, if you aren't allowed to sell something, then it really isn't yours. This would be expected to extend to one's person as well, I should think.


In passing I'll just mention that I think many, possibly most people would be content as slaves, so long as they were well cared for and weren't called a slave. This would explain a great deal about popular political movements.
Click to expand...

What makes you think I cannot?
 
RGacky3 said:
Because you don't own yourself you ARE yourself, ownership is the relationship between a person and a peice of nature, you can't have ownership without the person and the peice of nature.

Saying I own myself is like saying I'm married to myself, it's just nonsense.
Click to expand...

But you cannot sell your flesh, and its function, which must people incorrectly assume that they do own.

As for marrying yourself, I no longer believe that any form of "marriage" can legitimately be called nonsense in a political sense. Obviously we discriminate against narcissistic masturbators by not allowing them to marry who they love.
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
The problem here is that you-- and most libertarians-- confuse freedom with self-ownership. People are not property, and you cannot have freedom if people are property.
Click to expand...

Actually, people can have very little freedom at all ever. Just try to be free from age, gravity, or the needs for food, sleep and oxygen. This is why what freedom we can gain is so precious, or should be.
 
joko104 said:
I believe human nature is such that virtually NO ONE would be content as slaves and I have no clue where you get that from. Point to people who WANT to work 2 full time jobs for the joys of the jobs and not the money - let alone being an employee 24/7 and you can start making their case.
Click to expand...

Because minimally enlightened slavery offers security, health care, guaranteed food and shelter and compels authority figures to make life's hard choices for one. Please don't confuse this with extremely similar concepts, such as the Democrat Platform.

The trick, of course is to allow people who sell themselves into slavery to use other terms for the bondage they so joyfully accept.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
What makes you think I cannot?
Click to expand...

Because it is illegal. I grant that you can do exactly that as a private matter, but under the laws and customs of Society, you are barred from doing so. Legally, you do not own your self, or your flesh. (You may legally rent your flesh, in a few Nevada counties.)
 
Oftencold said:
Then, you really don't own it, and legal arguments based inb that assumption must be absurd.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I have inalienable ownership of my body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom