Harry Guerrilla
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 28,951
- Reaction score
- 12,422
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The problem with that response is than you get into a discussion of whether moral considerations are sufficient for this type of enslavement. This is why I never like "greater good" arguments.
No example then? Ok, how about in the world. Give me an example.
If you have no choice, how is it duty?
The dictionary disagree's...
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.
I think the broad consensus, that most would agree to, is that killing innocent people and/or taking their stuff is not good.
Using that as a base line, I'm sure we can get somewhere.
I agree. But I think the reasoning most people use is different than what we are talking about in this thread, so it doesn't necessarily apply to this line of reasoning.
Talk to the men & women in Turkey or Israel in the military via a draft
That's just an argument over mechanics. Fact is, you're still being forced to support others.To be honest it is not. You are not being forced to do anything. You are paying your taxes to support the government. After that it is not your money to control.
I disagree with definitions 3 and 4 relating to what we are talking about which is the institution of slavery.
The draft is not slavery, it is national duty.
That's just an argument over mechanics. Fact is, you're still being forced to support others.
So it is in other words subjective.
I don't think there is a good basis for objective morality since it depends entirely on perspective. So yeah.
However, in dealing with the issue of coercion and slavery. I think if coercion (being the mechanism to force the actions of another) is slavery than it would mean that all forms of punishment are therefore slavery. This means that the term slavery becomes meaningless since me telling my two yearold daughter to get out of the dishwasher in a harsh manner (emotional coercion) would mean that I am enslaving her. I cannot agree with that because it is something necessary to do for her safety.
So than if you flip the argument over and say that some forms of coercion are better (per my previous example, noone would blame me for wanting my daughter out of a potentially dangerous area) than others, we have to look at when and where those lines are.
Overall, it just means that the simple definition that Hairy gave is not sufficient as far as I can tell.
It has everthing do to with mechanics - that being forced to provide for others isn't slavery because you're being taxed to do it, rather than being forced to do it directly. There's no real difference in those things as the necessary condition -- forced extraction of the value of one's labor to directly benefit others -- is present in both.It does not make it slavery as you are represented in government. It has nothing to do with mechanics, it has to do with fact.
There is a distinction though.
Is the coercion for personal benefit like theft or is it for the benefit of the person being coerced.
If it you force people to do things for your benefit, it is slavery.
If you force your child not to climb into the dish washer, it is for her benefit.
I didn't think of that. However, it doesn't completely settle my doubts. Me wanting government to force people to not murder is in some ways for my own benefit. I want to reduce the chances of me being murdered as much as possible. At least that is my primary personal motivation. Also, I greatly benefit from not living in a society where lives are routinely in danger.
Sure but remember also you are not requiring the potential murder to do "work" for your benefit.
You are requiring them to not do "work" for your benefit.
Work in this instance is defined as; doing something.
If you are given no choice under threat of force be it physical or imprisonment, it is slavery.
You can disagree all you like. It makes it no less true.
It has everthing do to with mechanics - that being forced to provide for others isn't slavery because you're being taxed to do it, rather than being forced to do it directly.
There's no real difference in those things as the necessary condition -- forced extraction of the value of one's labor to directly benefit others -- is present in both.
All you're doing is arguing that a representative government cannot enslave people, which is, on its face, unsound.
If it you force people to do things for your benefit, it is slavery.
Nice. Any argument I make is disqualified according to you. Conscription is not slavery. You are forced to do it but you are not property and you are paid.
That is an insufficient definition. If you do not reimburse them and if they are your property, then it is slavery. Otherwise, it is coercion.
And THAT is irrelevant. You're arguing that the government, not you, are providing for these people; this is disingenuous because everythig the govermnet has it gets from the people it governs. Directly or indirectly, you are being forced to provide for these people; directly or indiectly, that still makes you a slave.Irrelevant. After you pay it is no longer yours. It is the governments and spent by YOUR representatives.
You, yourself noted that:Yes I agree some aspects are present. It does not make it slavery though. That's like saying our Representative Republic is socialist because certain aspects of it are indeed socialist. It just is not the case here.
You placed some credence on the fact that It is the governments and spent by YOUR representatives.". If you are not arguing anythig 'remotely close to that', then your notation here is meaningless.I am not arguing anything even remotely close to that.
Coercion -
1.the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.
2.force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.
Synonym for Slavery -
Servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by a legal penalty: penal servitude. 4. moil, labor.
Looks like the same end by different means.
And THAT is irrelevant. You're arguing that the government, not you, are providing for these people; this is disingenuous because everythig the govermnet has it gets from the people it governs. Directly or indirectly, you are being forced to provide for these people; directly or indiectly, that still makes you a slave.
You, yourself noted that:
-So if the state owns you it is (not) OK.
-Sorry "national duty" is no less slavery by it's definition.
-If you are given no choice under threat of force be it physical or imprisonment, it is slavery.
All of these things can be correctly applied to the issue at hand.
You placed some credence on the fact that It is the governments and spent by YOUR representatives.". If you are not arguing anythig 'remotely close to that', then your notation here is meaningless.
I don't care what the dictionary says.
Then we have nothing further to discuss.
Nice to see you decline to question me, so that I am right:
"The institution of slavery requires that slaves are property. Coercion does not measure up to this standard."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?