• 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!

Is Slavery Always Wrong All of the Time?

Is slavery always wrong all of the time?

  • Yes. It's always wrong.

    Votes: 34 77.3%
  • Forced labor is appropriate under some circumstances.

    Votes: 8 18.2%
  • I can't decide. I'm a human tower of jello. Lead me around like the sheep i am.

    Votes: 2 4.5%

  • Total voters
    44
Indentured servitude is immoral because it takes away peoples fundamental rights... It is impossible to sign your fundamental rights away, even if you want to...

you can't legitimately forfeit those rights, because it would always be a crime for others to violate them, no matter what contract you sign.

If you're trying to tell me indentured servitude is illegal, I agree. My point wasn't that it is legal, it was that it ought to be legal.

Nothing wrong with working for room and board.
 
If you're trying to tell me indentured servitude is illegal, I agree. My point wasn't that it is legal, it was that it ought to be legal.

Nothing wrong with working for room and board.

If you believe in ones inalienable rights... it should never be legal...or rather, impossible to be legal
 
If you believe in inalienable rights, it should be impossible to go to prison.

Why is that? it protects against the cruel and unusual...but when you are an individual who violates other peoples rights.... you forfeit your own, at least in the society you belong in....or maybe you just forfeit being in the society all together. I'd be cool with exporting violent criminals to a uninhabited island for them to live in a free for all.... as long as said island as no way of them returning or going elsewhere.
 
Why is that? it protects against the cruel and unusual...but when you are an individual who violates other peoples rights.... you forfeit your own, at least in the society you belong in....or maybe you just forfeit being in the society all together. I'd be cool with exporting violent criminals to a uninhabited island for them to live in a free for all.... as long as said island as no way of them returning or going elsewhere.

Send them to Australia.

I'm just saying if rights are INALIENABLE, then nothing you say or do should allow or compel you to forfeit those rights.

I personally think the term "inalienable rights" is a euphemism and can't be taken literally.
 
I'll leave it at that for now. What are your thoughts?


Slavery implies that someone owns you and that you are doing work for that person for free.Community service, chain gangs or requiring welfare mooches to work is not slavery, it is punishment for committing an illegal activity. or to make sure they are earning the money in exchange for certain aid.I do think welfare mooches should have to work.Now when I am saying welfare mooch I am not talking about everyone on welfare. I am talking about the able bodied adult who is not working while collecting welfare, not people who do work while collecting welfare or people who are crippled or not able bodied. Chain gangs and community service generally should be for non-for profit work.Convicted criminals should not be doing jobs that someone would normally get paid to do like construction work,or some other job especially when we have unemployment.
 
I voted three. I lied of course but I felt the effort put into formulating that option deserved some credit. :mrgreen:

Slavery implies ownership by human(s) over another or more. The buck stops long before that.
 
After WWII, the Allies used German civilians and POWs in forced labor. Was that wrong, or was it just?
 
None of what you've outlined equates to justifiable slavery. The welfare queen is the only character among your scenarios who has not committed a crime. Therefore, why should she be "enslaved" simply because someone doesn't like the fact that she was deemed (repeatedly) eligible to receive those welfare benefits? All others you've characterized above should do their penance accordingly as the law dictates. Now, if that penance involves making small rocks out of big ones, pressing license plates, harvesting crops on the corporate farm, repaving roads or digging ditches, then so be it. That's part of forfeiting your right to live among a peaceful, law abiding society. But I wouldn't call this slavery. I'd call it imprisonment. No one owns them; they're just locked away from society for the crimes they've committed until time served (less a life sentence or the death penalty).

Now, as a Black man do I believe slavery should never be allowed? I have to say yes. I'm against the ownership of anyone as property. However, I can see where indentured servitude can work because it's no different than being a contract employee only instead of being "hired" to perform a specific task (or tasks), you perform any task assigned to you for the agreed upon timeframe at the agreed upon price. Think Joseph, for example.

Your feedback is simply terrific! You've expressed everything I wanted to say far better than I ever could. Thank you.
 
Here I am in the minority , nothing new ..
Forced labor as a punishment for some, if not all serious true crimes ? YES !
 
There is a difference between slavery and forced labor.

A slave can be brought and sold. His or her liberty does not exist at all. They will never get to be free unless the owner chooses to free them.

Whilst the US criminal justice system comes very close to such a state it is not quite a slave state yet.
 
Except among those whose education has been in the minimalist style, it is understood that hasty moral judgments about the past are a form of injustice.

Jacques Barzun

The key language is "all of the time." If an ancient city state, for example, fights for decades and finally triumphs against another city state, it has few choices: (i) utter destruction of the city and its people, (ii) utter destruction of city leaving people to mill about the country side in bands of highly pissed off groups, (iii) a combination, e.g. kill men, keep women and children (hoping to assimilate last two groups), and (iv) take all or some of people for forced labor.

Another example would be the Spartans' treatment of the Helots. Immoral by the standards of that time? Should Spartans born after the system was established simply treat all of the helots (who may have outnumbered them by a 7:1 ratio) as equal citizens? Could they expect the Helots to let bygones be bygones? What were their moral options?

Much of that system is disgusting by today's standard but some of it is better than the system we established not long ago. At least Helots could keep their families together, in terror certainly, but together. They could, at times, hope to be emancipated by military service whereas an African American slave would always be marked as inferior by every square inch of his skin.

I do not purport to know what went on in ancient times but it seems obvious that slavery originated for the simple reason that it helped victors survive. If the tribes who did not keep slaves had a competitive advantage, that would have been the norm. Slavery may have been rare in hunter/gatherer societies but perhaps only because tribes in ancient days did not have the numbers to support social stratification. This may have meant that more conquered tribes were killed in defeat.
 
Penile labor is the same thing as slavery.

princessbride4.jpg
 
We don't believe involuntary servitude is always wrong in the United States. That is why we allow it as punishment for crimes. That exception in the Thirteenth Amendment authorizes chain gangs, which I would like to see my own state use.
 
not funny nor necessary .

It is neither funny nor necessary

or

It's not funny or necessary


English is a great language when used properly, hence my post was both funny and necessary.
 
Back
Top Bottom