3 ms·

> be thinking of racial slavery, which was inspired by a belief that other races were subhumans. No, I'm not thinking of racial slavery. I'm thinking of slaver

> be thinking of racial slavery, which was inspired by a belief that other races were subhumans. No, I'm not thinking of racial slavery. I'm thinking of slavery defined by Aristotle, whose view is representative of the classical world: " "anyone who, while being human, is by nature not his own but of someone else…he is of someone else when, while being human, he is a piece of property; and a piece of property is a tool for action separate from its owner." If this doesn't sound dehumanizing, I don't know what qualifies. As stated before, a citizen of a state can renounce said citizen and emigrate to Bir Tawil or some other unclaimed territory. Unlike Aristotle's definition, you, by nature, are not of someone else and has the free will to choose to leave. That states have laws limiting absolute freedom does not equal slavery

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago
well if we are not following the same definition, then there is no use in arguing. The wikipedia article on Slavery refers to Aristotle's definition as a specific type of slavery called "chattel slavery", but suggests a more generalized definition: "Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalised, de jure slavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against his or her will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour, to refer to such situations. However – and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word – slaves may have some rights and/or protections, according to laws and/or customs." Being forced to work extra to keep the money from your labor you already worked and being partially owned by the state is de facto slavery, even if it doesn't meet Aristotle's definition. > "That states have laws limiting absolute freedom does not equal slavery" The argument I made was not that the lack of absolute freedom equals slavery. Even in the absence of a state, people will rationally form voluntary contracts that would limit their freedoms for mutual benefits. Provided that these contracts are entered into consensually is key to whether or not it is slavery or not.

em3rgent0rdr 10y ago

well if we are not following the same definition, then there is no use in arguing. The wikipedia article on Slavery refers to Aristotle's definition as a specific type of slavery called "chattel slavery", but suggests a more generalized definition: "Many scholars now use the term chattel slavery to refer to this specific sense of legalised, de jure slavery. In a broader sense, however, the word slavery may also refer to any situation in which an individual is de facto forced to work against his or her will. Scholars also use the more generic terms such as unfree labour or forced labour, to refer to such situations. However – and especially under slavery in broader senses of the word – slaves may have some rights and/or protections, according to laws and/or customs." Being forced to work extra to keep the money from your labor you already worked and being partially owned by the state is de facto slavery, even if it doesn't meet Aristotle's definition. > "That states have laws limiting absolute freedom does not equal slavery" The argument I made was not that the lack of absolute freedom equals slavery. Even in the absence of a state, people will rationally form voluntary contracts that would limit their freedoms for mutual benefits. Provided that these contracts are entered into consensually is key to whether or not it is slavery or not.