Debates
24 Feb 07
26 Feb 07
Originally posted by SeitseIt (slavery) was always doomed. To force labour out of a person takes almost as much input as what is managed to be wrung out of the slave. IMHO the only thing that kept it alive was that many simply didn't know any better. As information became more freely available so slaves realised what was happening was wrong and may have become even less productive.
Independently from being or not capitalism, which is another debate...
what do you think about William's theory?
"To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion." Ayn Rand
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by WajomaGood grief you've got no logical basis for that claim what so ever, Roman society was built on slavery and survived for over a thousand years. Capitalism has only been going for around 300. Slavery of one form or another has been around for at least 5,000 years (see eg Exodus).
It (slavery) was always doomed. To force labour out of a person takes almost as much input as what is managed to be wrung out of the slave. IMHO the only thing that kept it alive was that many simply didn't know any better. As information became more freely available so slaves realised what was happening was wrong and may have become even less productive. ...[text shortened]... "To deal with men by force is as impractical as to deal with nature by persuasion." Ayn Rand
And understand this: capitalism was built on the slave trade. There is nothing in your precious free market that protects against slavery. It is a logical consequence of a free market in which anything is commodifiable, this includes people, either as wage labourers or as slaves. The prohibition against slavery in modern capitalist states is about convincing the mass of people that the system is fair. If the free market were left to it's own devices then slavery would return, as you have pointed out an illegal slave trade exists.
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by wittywonkabecause europeans always like to take the negative things we americans do and magnify them as being worse than if a european does it...
Today, I watched the move Amazing Grace that was just released today. It told the story of the abolitionist movement in Great Britain soon after the American Revolution. It was a great movie, and I reccomend it to all.
Anyway, on to the debate. My friend, who also watched it, and I pondered over this question, but we could not find an answer. ...[text shortened]... lavery in the Americas considered so much worse than other countries who had practiced slavery?
we are often condoned for being a country driven by sex and sin
where europe has more nude beaches than any continent besides Antarctica
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30Are you really trying to equate nakedness and sex? You can be naked and have a perfectly functional society, without sex arising [cough cough] at all.
because europeans always like to take the negative things we americans do and magnify them as being worse than if a european does it...
we are often condoned for being a country driven by sex and sin
where europe has more nude beaches than any continent besides Antarctica
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30I think you mean condemned.
because europeans always like to take the negative things we americans do and magnify them as being worse than if a european does it...
we are often condoned for being a country driven by sex and sin
where europe has more nude beaches than any continent besides Antarctica
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by wittywonka"Why was slavery in the Americas considered so much worse than other countries who had practiced slavery?"
Today, I watched the move Amazing Grace that was just released today. It told the story of the abolitionist movement in Great Britain soon after the American Revolution. It was a great movie, and I reccomend it to all.
Anyway, on to the debate. My friend, who also watched it, and I pondered over this question, but we could not find an answer. ...[text shortened]... lavery in the Americas considered so much worse than other countries who had practiced slavery?
.........................
Didn't realize it was, where'd that come from? I always figured slavery was slavery where ever it was taking place.
Slavery hasn't gone away. I could take you right now to Chinatown in LA Calif. USA and find you a young Asian sex slave .. for rent.
Every major city in the USA will have sex slaves.
Don't know about Europe, but would imagine it's the same.
The World condones slavery. The UN condones slavery.
Humanity condones slavery ... "made in China" "made in India" " made in Sri Lanka" .. we buy it, we wear it, we condone it.
27 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWell, in classical times, you'd be a slave from cradle to grave unless you were manumitted or managed to buy your freedom. (The same applied in the Cape under Dutch corporate rule, although I'm not sure if they could buy their freedom). There were different classes of slaves...a scribe would be a lot better off than a miner. Ownership implied not only rights but duties, which altered with time. Eventually it became impermissible to thrash your slave to death on a whim...just as it became impermissible for a paterfamilias to exercise his right of life and death over his wife and children.
Well, the slavery I was referring to was during that period, but when I asked "anywhere else" I meant anywhere, anywhen.
Supposedly the ratio of citizens to slaves in ancient Rome was 1:3. You just couldn't get by without them...
27 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtHey Guy, take it easy, just because I kicked r's on the "Making the world a better place thread" Do you know what IMHO means. And it's an opinion I'm sticking to it, people that realise that they are the rightful owners of their own lives do not make good slaves, and for thousands of years there have been people that have not known this.
Good grief you've got no logical basis for that claim what so ever, Roman society was built on slavery and survived for over a thousand years. Capitalism has only been going for around 300. Slavery of one form or another has been around for at least 5,000 years (see eg Exodus).
And understand this: capitalism was built on the slave trade. There is own devices then slavery would return, as you have pointed out an illegal slave trade exists.
What you need to do is invest in a good dictionary so that you can understand the difference between commodifying labour and commodifying people. Capitalism was not built on slavery, it is a system of private ownership and for one to own something one must first own their own life. Capitalism and slavery is incompatible. As before when I asked you to provide some reputable source that defined the cessation of a contract (i.e. when two parties cease to trade with each other, when they have nothing to do with each other, when neither interferes with the other in anyway, when they go their seperate ways) as an act of violence, I ask you now to show some reputable source (not the workers socialist union of shirkers party manifesto red book) that says capitalism means; owning another human being.
27 Feb 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSo they could buy their freedom. That's different...there's a way out of it.
Well, in classical times, you'd be a slave from cradle to grave unless you were manumitted or managed to buy your freedom. (The same applied in the Cape under Dutch corporate rule, although I'm not sure if they could buy their freedom). There were different classes of slaves...a scribe would be a lot better off than a miner. Ownership implied not only ...[text shortened]... ratio of citizens to slaves in ancient Rome was 1:3. You just couldn't get by without them...