3 ms·

If generations are exploited and then we decide we can no longer carry the ethical burden of exploitation, then we have a responsibility to help them recover as

by beat 11y ago

If generations are exploited and then we decide we can no longer carry the ethical burden of exploitation, then we have a responsibility to help them recover as well (or hell, reparations). But in these "We must keep the slaves so they don't starve" arguments, there's always a nasty whiff of condescension - the implication that they cannot care for themselves, without handouts. Given freedom and sufficient resources, most people will choose to better their circumstances. Humans fed themselves for a long time before they were enslaved. Getting back to feeding themselves may not be easy, but it's certainly not impossible.

eropple 11y ago
I poked at a different part of this post, but I'm glad you replied with tihs. You've isolated a big problem with the rhetoric in this thread. Kipling would be nodding at a whole bunch of it.
brightball 11y ago
The problem in the responses is the logical inconsistency. In my reply, I said if they were being forced to work (aka - slaves) it was not okay but if they went out and choose to work it was another story. In your response you cited a "we must keep the slaves so they don't starve" argument...which is not at all what I said. That's the logical disconnect that happens in many political discussions of these types. You're arguing with something I didn't say unless I'm misreading you, because it partially looks like you're agreeing with me as well regarding people choosing to better their circumstances.
- beat 11y ago
  They're slaves because they are prohibited from bettering their circumstances. Now, if you abolish the slavery and then say "You're free now! Go better yourself!" without giving them any resources with which to do so - if they lack the tools to feed themselves - they'll starve, yes. To better themselves, they need to be able to make something where they're at, or be able to go somewhere else. If they're sitting on ruined land, unable to leave, that's a problem that can't be solved with mere hard work. But that's a problem that would not have happened without the slavery in the first place.

by beat 11y ago

eropple 11y ago

I poked at a different part of this post, but I'm glad you replied with tihs. You've isolated a big problem with the rhetoric in this thread. Kipling would be nodding at a whole bunch of it.

brightball 11y ago

The problem in the responses is the logical inconsistency. In my reply, I said if they were being forced to work (aka - slaves) it was not okay but if they went out and choose to work it was another story. In your response you cited a "we must keep the slaves so they don't starve" argument...which is not at all what I said. That's the logical disconnect that happens in many political discussions of these types. You're arguing with something I didn't say unless I'm misreading you, because it partially looks like you're agreeing with me as well regarding people choosing to better their circumstances.

beat 11y ago
They're slaves because they are prohibited from bettering their circumstances. Now, if you abolish the slavery and then say "You're free now! Go better yourself!" without giving them any resources with which to do so - if they lack the tools to feed themselves - they'll starve, yes. To better themselves, they need to be able to make something where they're at, or be able to go somewhere else. If they're sitting on ruined land, unable to leave, that's a problem that can't be solved with mere hard work. But that's a problem that would not have happened without the slavery in the first place.