7 ms·

While I understand what you are aiming at, I don't think it is that simple. Should someone pay me for not having slaves and not being able to profit from exploi

While I understand what you are aiming at, I don't think it is that simple. Should someone pay me for not having slaves and not being able to profit from exploiting them because I am a century or two late and missed the good old time when it was not yet an unacceptable practice?

nordsieck 9y ago
If you legally acquired them, then yes. The British experience ending slavery was far more humane than the US one.
- danbruc 9y ago
  I don't think I would agree with that, it actually seems somewhat more reasonable to me that one would have to pay compensations to the slaves. But that was not my point anyway. In the past having slaves was acceptable, now it no longer is. Nobody owes me any compensation just because exploiting slaves is no longer an option available to me. In the past it was acceptable to exploit forest without many considerations, but when we now decide that this is no longer the case, then it is at least not obvious that anyone owes you any compensation.
- lkrubner 9y ago
  You can't own human beings, because it violates their fundamental rights. This was true back when slavery was "legal". The Nazis could pass a law saying that the Holocaust was legal, but the rest of the world felt free to disregard that law, and put the Nazis on trial. Some laws are not legal, that is the whole entire point of the West's 2,400 year old liberal tradition. Likewise, some claims of ownership are not legal, and not binding. You can pay good money for a slave, but you still don't own the slave, because no law can make it legal to own another human being. And this was true for all of the thousands of years that slavery was legal: none of those laws were ever legitimate, and none of those ownership claims were ever legitimate.
  - Swizec 9y ago
    > You can't own human beings, because it violates their fundamental rights. This was true back when slavery was "legal". There's no such thing as fundamental rights. Those were won by sweat and blood. Up until the enlightenment and humanist eras there was not even the idea that such a thing as rights even exists. Some inkling of rights existed for royalty in the codes of conduct and such things, but they were freedoms given by right of birth and power of ancestor's sword. For peasants, no such luck. They were property even though they weren't slaves per se.
    - ashark 9y ago
      The understanding that rights aren't somehow magical or special, and are just liberties we've decided we like especially well, is surprisingly uncommon, at least among Americans. I blame founder/constitution-veneration and all the just-so fables produced by enlightenment political philosophers (I'm looking at you John Locke).
      - lkrubner 9y ago
        > are just liberties we've decided we like especially well Why do we like them? Why wouldn't we prefer to be slaves? Where do our modern intuitions about rights come from? Whatever the origin of the "like especially well" that you mention, that origin seems fundamental. If you study all the peasant revolts, going back thousands of years, you'll note how naturally people invent the language of rights -- it seems to arise spontaneously during each revolt. And why do people revolt? You can't simply assume that they don't like being raped and enslaved -- you have to explain why they don't like being raped and enslaved. And whatever your explanation is of their feelings, that is the origin of rights.
        ashark 9y ago
        > And why do people revolt? Relative deprivation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_deprivation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_deprivation
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  That's because there were no large slave holding stakeholders in England when they outlawed it. Britain certainly had no problem importing and millions of pounds of cotton and sugar picked by slaves, even after the ban.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Morally speaking, yes. The people who benefited from past exploitation and locked in that economic advantage were morally bad people, and there's no particular reason they should be able to hang on to their wealth if there's an opportunity to take it away from them. They've just got used to having it.

nordsieck 9y ago

If you legally acquired them, then yes. The British experience ending slavery was far more humane than the US one.

danbruc 9y ago
I don't think I would agree with that, it actually seems somewhat more reasonable to me that one would have to pay compensations to the slaves. But that was not my point anyway. In the past having slaves was acceptable, now it no longer is. Nobody owes me any compensation just because exploiting slaves is no longer an option available to me. In the past it was acceptable to exploit forest without many considerations, but when we now decide that this is no longer the case, then it is at least not obvious that anyone owes you any compensation.
lkrubner 9y ago
You can't own human beings, because it violates their fundamental rights. This was true back when slavery was "legal". The Nazis could pass a law saying that the Holocaust was legal, but the rest of the world felt free to disregard that law, and put the Nazis on trial. Some laws are not legal, that is the whole entire point of the West's 2,400 year old liberal tradition. Likewise, some claims of ownership are not legal, and not binding. You can pay good money for a slave, but you still don't own the slave, because no law can make it legal to own another human being. And this was true for all of the thousands of years that slavery was legal: none of those laws were ever legitimate, and none of those ownership claims were ever legitimate.
- Swizec 9y ago
  > You can't own human beings, because it violates their fundamental rights. This was true back when slavery was "legal". There's no such thing as fundamental rights. Those were won by sweat and blood. Up until the enlightenment and humanist eras there was not even the idea that such a thing as rights even exists. Some inkling of rights existed for royalty in the codes of conduct and such things, but they were freedoms given by right of birth and power of ancestor's sword. For peasants, no such luck. They were property even though they weren't slaves per se.
  - ashark 9y ago
    The understanding that rights aren't somehow magical or special, and are just liberties we've decided we like especially well, is surprisingly uncommon, at least among Americans. I blame founder/constitution-veneration and all the just-so fables produced by enlightenment political philosophers (I'm looking at you John Locke).
    - lkrubner 9y ago
      > are just liberties we've decided we like especially well Why do we like them? Why wouldn't we prefer to be slaves? Where do our modern intuitions about rights come from? Whatever the origin of the "like especially well" that you mention, that origin seems fundamental. If you study all the peasant revolts, going back thousands of years, you'll note how naturally people invent the language of rights -- it seems to arise spontaneously during each revolt. And why do people revolt? You can't simply assume that they don't like being raped and enslaved -- you have to explain why they don't like being raped and enslaved. And whatever your explanation is of their feelings, that is the origin of rights.
      - ashark 9y ago
        > And why do people revolt? Relative deprivation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_deprivation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_deprivation
oh_sigh 9y ago
That's because there were no large slave holding stakeholders in England when they outlawed it. Britain certainly had no problem importing and millions of pounds of cotton and sugar picked by slaves, even after the ban.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Morally speaking, yes. The people who benefited from past exploitation and locked in that economic advantage were morally bad people, and there's no particular reason they should be able to hang on to their wealth if there's an opportunity to take it away from them. They've just got used to having it.