The Slavery That Does Not Exist Yet Does Anyway.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

@Carleas

@HaHaHa

You lost all credibility Carleas when you’re trying to compare social interactive captivity with something ubiquitous like that of gravity.

I apologize if I wasn’t clear before, but I meant to accuse you of doing exactly this. By your definition of slavery as “existential bondage”, rocks are slaves to gravity. I’m glad you agree that this outcome is absurd; it is a serious problem with the way you’re using “slavery” in this thread and elsewhere.

@HaHaHa

No other animal species utilizes rent, currency, and price control mechanisms for survival.

Granted. But many social species have strict and brutally enforced hierarchies, with deadly consequences for failing to fall in line or contribute sufficiently. These are the same social mechanisms by different means. It seems odd to say that if, rather than brutalizing lower-ranked males, chimps just stopped paying them, that would be the transition to a master-slave relationship. Is that your claim?

@HaHaHa

By all means, keep telling us in this thread why everything is awesome with the status quo

I’m doing anything of the sort. To be explicit: my argument here is just that the people you’re claiming are enslaved are not, in fact, slaves. I think there’s a lot wrong with the status quo, but that’s not the question here.

Are you retreating to that easier claim, and setting up a straw version of my position to attack, as a way of conceding that people are not, in fact, slaves?

I apologize if I wasn’t clear before, but I meant to accuse you of doing exactly this. By your definition of slavery as “existential bondage”, rocks are slaves to gravity. I’m glad you agree that this outcome is absurd; it is a serious problem with the way you’re using “slavery” in this thread and elsewhere.

A social and culturally constructed existential bondage. Gravity is not a social or cultural construction. There’s no comparison to be made between the two. I’ve never used the analogy between the two where that is your interjected distortion to the conversation, not mine.

Granted. But many social species have strict and brutally enforced hierarchies, with deadly consequences for failing to fall in line or contribute sufficiently. These are the same social mechanisms by different means. It seems odd to say that if, rather than brutalizing lower-ranked males, chimps just stopped paying them, that would be the transition to a master-slave relationship. Is that your claim?

No, not really. Other species don’t enslave members of their own. That is a unique human phenomena.

No, I am saying those are enhancers of codependency socially and culturally that creates an environment of slavery.

Yes, I would say human or society does revolve around a master slave relationship in many ways that are masqueraded by freedom and equality so that such an existence of the status quo isn’t questioned as it pretends to be something else entirely.

Today’s institutional government authority is one of moral impunity and tyranny. It pretends to be moral to keep the masses satiated even when its whole organization rests upon non-moral foundations that contradicts its public moral posturing. A Jack boot with a happy face and humane sticker on the end of it, you know because self righteous ideals you can justify anything…

I’m doing anything of the sort. To be explicit: my argument here is just that the people you’re claiming are enslaved are not, in fact, slaves. I think there’s a lot wrong with the status quo, but that’s not the question here.

They’re not enslaved in your view, well what are they? Free, equal, and independent? Grateful, secure?

How would you categorize existentially the lowest segments of society or civilization socially, culturally, and economically?

Are you retreating to that easier claim, and setting up a straw version of my position to attack, as a way of conceding that people are not, in fact, slaves?

Oh, you didn’t think that I would make it that easy for you Carleas, did you? Nice try.

There is no winning a debate by technicalities in this unstructured thread.

[Carleas]

@HaHaHa

Other species don’t enslave members of their own. That is a unique human phenomena.

Chattel slavery is certainly uniquely human – after all, property, law, and other institutions necessary as foundations for a system of chattel property are also uniquely human.

But by your definition of slavery, no, it isn’t uniquely human. “Socially and culturally constructed existential bondage” still captures plenty of activities of non-human animals who live in a packs with an enforced hierarchy. How about ants and bees, where millions of drones work to support the reproductive efforts of a single individual? How about basically any social predator, where the dominant members gets first dibs on the spoils of the hunt?

In any case, you had previously defined slavery not as mere social and cultural existential bondage, but acts taken “under threat of starvation or poverty, but also of social stigma and status diminution”. That is the existential bondage of the state of nature, that’s the slavery of the gravity well. I am glad we’re moving away from that definition, and that you implicitly recognize that it leads to absurd conclusions.

@HaHaHa

They’re not enslaved in your view, well what are they? Free, equal, and independent? Grateful, secure?

How would you categorize existentially the lowest segments of society or civilization socially, culturally, and economically?

This question is not particularly well framed. I don’t know what you mean by “categorize existentially”, nor do I think you’re referring to a coherent group. Some people who are desperately poor are free, equal, and independent by any reasonable definition (e.g. members of uncontacted tribes, or the bottom 5% of a social democracy). Some people who are relatively well-off by global standards are strictly constrained (e.g. high-raking lieutenant in a despotic government, who are in the 90th percentile of a rather inflexible hierarchy).

But what most of them aren’t is literally owned by another human being, i.e. slaves.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

@Carleas

@HaHaHa

Other species don’t enslave members of their own. That is a unique human phenomena.

Chattel slavery is certainly uniquely human – after all, property, law, and other institutions necessary as foundations for a system of chattel property are also uniquely human.

But by your definition, no, it isn’t uniquely human. “Socially and culturally constructed existential bondage” still captures plenty of activities of non-human animals who live in a packs with an enforced hierarchy. How about ants and bees, where millions of drones work to support the reproductive efforts of a single individual? How about basically any social predator, where the dominant members gets first dibs on the spoils of the hunt?

In any case, you had previously defined slavery not as mere social and cultural existential bondage, but acts taken “under threat of starvation or poverty, but also of social stigma and status diminution”. That is the existential bondage of the state of nature, that’s the slavery of the gravity well. I am glad we’re moving away from that definition, and that you implicitly recognize that it leads to absurd conclusions.

@HaHaHa

They’re not enslaved in your view, well what are they? Free, equal, and independent? Grateful, secure?

How would you categorize existentially the lowest segments of society or civilization socially, culturally, and economically?

This question is not particularly well framed. I don’t know what you mean by “categorize existentially”, nor do I think you’re referring to a coherent group. Some people who are desperately poor are free, equal, and independent by any reasonable definition (e.g. members of uncontacted tribes, or the bottom 5% of a social democracy). Some people who are relatively well-off by global standards are strictly constrained (e.g. high-raking lieutenant in a despotic government, who are in the 90th percentile of a rather inflexible hierarchy).

But what most of them aren’t is literally owned by another human being, i.e. slaves.

Chattel slavery is certainly uniquely human – after all, property, law, and other institutions necessary as foundations for a system of chattel property are also uniquely human.

Yes, it is. Tell me how the plight of lower segments of any society or civilization especially in the west is different from Chattel slavery.

But by your definition, no, it isn’t uniquely human. “Socially and culturally constructed existential bondage” still captures plenty of activities of non-human animals who live in a packs with an enforced hierarchy. How about ants and bees, where millions of drones work to support the reproductive efforts of a single individual? How about basically any social predator, where the dominant members gets first dibs on the spoils of the hunt?

Look, you accused me of speaking in metaphors where I replied how human slavery revolves around cultural, social, and economic apparatuses that are purely metaphorical themselves revolving around various mental idealisms.

Are there similarities between human beings as the homo sapien species in comparison to others? Absolutely.

Still, the way human slavery exists it is the more cruel variety especially since the enslaved are fully conscious of their own slavery enduring under it. The applied methods of human slavery is unique amongst itself compared to other species.

For instance our usage of depersonalization, dehumanization, alienation, isolation, humiliation, and public scorn as examples.

You will not see this in other species largely because they don’t possess human intelligence obviously which is somewhat ironic that for a species with intelligence that prides itself on elevation or viewing itself unique above nature in comparison to other species in all actuality acts pretty much the same.

Either equality, freedom, human rights, independence, autonomy, and individual sovereignty exists for all going by your ideals arguing in this thread or it doesn’t exist for all. If they don’t exist for all we must ponder the plight of those which have none of that and ask why. If for some reason you’re arguing that everybody has all of those things I want an explanation for your reasoning behind that.

Well, do all people in the west enjoy equality, freedom, human rights, independence, autonomy, and individual sovereignty? Either all do or don’t.

In this thread I am arguing slavery is still practiced and exists in western societies where it is socially acceptable or permissible in this sort of cultural denial that denies it exists at all. It’s permitted by western governments and collective societies as a whole. You’re arguing at the very least for western nations that it doesn’t exist and if does it’s somehow not endorsed or permitted by the state/society, correct?

What kind of absurd conclusions are you talking about? Are you trying to argue my points for me?

This question is not particularly well framed. I don’t know what you mean by “categorize existentially”,

Simple, give a general explanation of what you think their existence comprises of.

nor do I think you’re referring to a coherent group.

What?

Some people who are desperately poor are free, equal, and independent by any reasonable definition (e.g. members of uncontacted tribes, or the bottom 5% of a social democracy).

Describe and define.

Some people who are relatively well-off by global standards are strictly constrained (e.g. high-raking lieutenant in a despotic government, who are in the 90th percentile of a rather inflexible hierarchy).

Yes, some things are relative to nation, territory, or region in the world but the underlying things that unites them makes it almost all identical.

But what most of them aren’t is literally owned by another human being, i.e. slaves.

Is that so? Well, let’s test that out, shall we? Let’s test this perception of yours.

I want you to impress me with that lawyer wit of yours.

What happens if I don’t pay rent or taxes?

What happens if I can’t afford food, utilities, commodities, or goods? What happens if I don’t work, am unemployed, and have no income?

Do I have the freedom or independence to live anywhere of my choosing?

Do I have freedom or independence in my mobility?

Can I hunt, fish, and forage anywhere or whenever I want to?

Remember now, ownership doesn’t exist Carleas. We’re all just individually free entities.