• 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 a matter of perspective?

Is slavery a matter of perspective?

  • Total voters
    29
Skateguy said:
I thank God daily for giving me the Courage to live FREE, and by no mans leave.
Click to expand...
You live in a country with a government which imposes it's authority on you. You are not living "free".

See the definition Anarchism. [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism]Anarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
So...

Perhaps the answer to the poll question is "Yes"?

Because it is apparent that there are differing perspectives as to what slavery is.
 
Blackdog said:
That is just one form of slavery. Any state of bondage or subjugation is slavery.

For instance; some see forced military service as slavery. People can be slaves to drugs etc.
Click to expand...

Social or moral slavery isn't slavery. It's people either not being strong enough to resist temptation or other people not taking the necessary steps at a particular point in their lives to put themselves in a better position to care for themselves. If I had to chose what constitutes "slaves" today, I'd have to say those who are forced to perform sexual acts against their will or forced into labor. But even with these two examples, I'd group them more inline w/people taking advantage of other people who are weaker than they are. IMO, NONE are "slaves" in the sense of treating people as property and forcing them into servatude against their will. That's slavery!
 
Last edited:
Conscription may be compulsory labor, but it is not slavery. Conscripts are not, as has been asserted, owned by the government. They are compensated for their labor and free to own property. The terms and duration of their service are defined by law, they may not be sold or traded, and they are entitled to strict legal protection concerning their treatment.

If they can not be beaten, sold, or killed by the government, then they are not owned by the government and are thus not slaves of the government. Mandatory military service is no more slavery than mandatory elementary education is.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
You live in a country with a government which imposes it's authority on you. You are not living "free".
Click to expand...

In that case, there has never been a free man in all of human history, with the possible exception of a handful of hermits and absolute despots. Even kings are subject to the authority and the laws of their own governments, and defy them at their peril.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Conscription may be compulsory labor, but it is not slavery. Conscripts are not, as has been asserted, owned by the government. They are compensated for their labor and free to own property. The terms and duration of their service are defined by law, they may not be sold or traded, and they are entitled to strict legal protection concerning their treatment.

If they can not be beaten, sold, or killed by the government, then they are not owned by the government and are thus not slaves of the government. Mandatory military service is no more slavery than mandatory elementary education is.
Click to expand...

You seem to have the false impression that a condition of slavery is ownership. Again, Slavery is when one benefits from the labor of another in inequity.
 
NoJingoLingo said:
You seem to have the false impression that a condition of slavery is ownership. Again, Slavery is when one benefits from the labor of another in inequity.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a false definition of "slavery", and it's useless to boot: "one benefits from the labor of another in inequity" describes every human socioeconomic system that has ever been practiced on a large scale. This kind of ideological abuse of the English language distorts the meanings of words beyond all meaningful use and should not be tolerated.
 
Last edited:
NoJingoLingo said:
You seem to have the false impression that a condition of slavery is ownership. Again, Slavery is when one benefits from the labor of another in inequity.
Click to expand...

that is capitalism, any time someone makes a profit off anothers labour, that is slavery, by your definition, say i decide to build a house, i pay a bunch of blokes to build it for me, and i pay them in total only half the value of the house, does that then make me a slaver?
 
Objective Voice said:
Social or moral slavery isn't slavery. It's people either not being strong enough to resist temptation or other people not taking the necessary steps at a particular point in their lives to put themselves in a better position to care for themselves. If I had to chose what constitutes "slaves" today, I'd have to say those who are forced to perform sexual acts against their will or forced into labor. But even with these two examples, I'd group them more inline w/people taking advantage of other people who are weaker than they are. IMO, NONE are "slaves" in the sense of treating people as property and forcing them into servatude against their will. That's slavery!
Click to expand...
See post #143
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
You seem to have a false definition of "slavery", and it's useless to boot: "one benefits from the labor of another in inequity" describes every human socioeconomic system that has ever been practiced on a large scale. This kind of ideological abuse of the English language distorts the meanings of words beyond all meaningful use and should not be tolerated.
Click to expand...
Please explain how the bold text is meaningful to my definition. The fact that you had to insert the qualifier "on a large scale" exposes the error in your rebuttal.

My definition is not an ideological abuse.


slav·er·y
   /ˈsleɪvəri, ˈsleɪvri/ Show Spelled[sley-vuh-ree, sleyv-ree] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the condition of a slave; bondage.
2.
the keeping of slaves as a practice or institution.
3.
a state of subjection like that of a slave: He was kept in slavery by drugs.
4.
severe toil; drudgery.
Click to expand...

What is being in "a state of subjection"?

sub·jec·tion
   /səbˈdʒɛkʃən/ Show Spelled[suhb-jek-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the act of subjecting.
2.
the state or fact of being subjected.
Click to expand...

sub·ject (sŭb'jĭkt)
adj.

1. Being in a position or in circumstances that place one under the power or authority of another or others: subject to the law.
2. Prone; disposed: a child who is subject to colds.
3. Likely to incur or receive; exposed: a directive subject to misinterpretation.
4. Contingent or dependent: a vacation subject to changing weather.

n.

1. One who is under the rule of another or others, especially one who owes allegiance to a government or ruler.

1. To submit for consideration.
2. To submit to the authority of.
3. To expose to something: patients subjected to infection.
4. To cause to experience: subjected to extreme weather.
5. To subjugate; subdue.
Click to expand...


slav·er·y (slā'və-rē, slāv'rē)
n. pl. slav·er·ies

1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household.
2.
1. The practice of owning slaves.
2. A mode of production in which slaves constitute the principal work force.
3. The condition of being subject or addicted to a specified influence.
4. A condition of hard work and subjection: wage slavery.
Click to expand...

What is wage slavery?

Wage slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person's livelihood depends on wages, especially in a total and immediate way.[1][2] The term's analogy between slavery and wage labor may refer only to an "[un]equal bargaining situation between labor and capital,"[3] particularly where workers are paid comparatively low wages (e.g. sweatshops). Or it may draw similarities between owning and employing a person, which equates the term with a lack of workers' self-management.[4][5][6] This covers a wider range of employment choices bound by the pressures of a hierarchical social environment e.g. working for a wage not only under threat of starvation or poverty, but also of social stigma or status diminution.
Click to expand...
 
spud_meister said:
that is capitalism, any time someone makes a profit off anothers labour, that is slavery, by your definition, say i decide to build a house, i pay a bunch of blokes to build it for me, and i pay them in total only half the value of the house, does that then make me a slaver?
Click to expand...
Not if you paid a fair wage for the labor, you gained a house and the workers were fairly compensated. If, at the completion of work, the house is worth more than you spent then someone didn't get paid their worth. This has nothing to do with the value raising later.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's "labor theory of value" holds that when labor or its product is sold, it ought to receive in exchange, an equal amount of labor or a product that required the same amount of labor to produce.

Mutualists believe that a natural economic consequence of a truly laissez-faire economy, would be that income to individuals would be proportional to the amount of labor they exert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom