Hypothetical Question: Slavery

[ccoa]

Here's a series of hypothetical questions:

Is it morally wrong for a person to sell themselves into slavery? Is it morally wrong for someone to own a person who has voluntarily become a slave? Would it also be morally wrong for a government to tax such a transaction?

Yeah, oddball questions. :P Have fun.

 

[Minkoff]

i see no problem with it.

but they'd have to be able to buy themselves back for the same price as they sold themselves.

good luck saving up the money i paid to own you though, since your job as a slave doesn't earn you any cash all you get is food and a bed to sleep in.

i'd probably treat my slaves good, though. not because i'd care about them or anything but because if they're treated better they'd work more productively and my proft would increase.

we actually talked about something similar to this in my African American Literature class the other day.

 

[ccoa]

Well, presumably if you sold yourself, you'd pocket the money from the transaction, minus the sales tax. :p

 

[Minkoff]

that's not necessarily true- the only reason someone would sell themselves for the money is because they need the money. like his daughter is dying and needed an operation and it was his onoly way of making the money quick enough.

i mean i don't see why anybody would sell themselves into slavery unless they NEEDED THE MONEY in which case they'd probably USE IT.

 

[BlueScope]

Both of you apparently never heard about the in-depths of the bdsm scene, where it's really a common to enslave yourself or keep yourself one or more slaves. The reasons are far away from needing money, it's simply a sexual preference to submit or dominate... and hell yeah, that better be moraly fine There are also a couple of other advantages than getting your fix, for example that with one leader in a relationship, the chances of two in-such-way-related people splitting up are reduced by a factor I can't really name, but yeah... I know a whole lot of people being into that for quite some time (and I have a blog I visit daily in which a slavegirl writes about her experiences, which I unfortunately can't link because it contains adult content and 35ers are watching Pretty interesting, though), which simply don't have any problems at all, simply because there's someone who decides and someone who executes...
Just in case you meant non-sexual-related slavery: Some people have the physical urge to serve someone without the actual need for a sexual fix. I don't hear about that very often, but it's out there, and since this is hypothetically, it should work ^^ Well, in most (advanced) cases, those two things are combined in so-called 24/7-bdsm-relationships, where the servant doesn't only comfort the dominant one sexually, but also does the household, goes shopping, and basically anything else that's requested.
Now for the government question, I think that's totally stupid... that'd require something like a must to publically out you as a slave or master, which goes against some people's mind (especially the submissive one's, as far as I've experienced it). Also, I don't see why you'd tax it anyway, as it isn't something like marriage that's officially kept record of and gives you certain benefits and duties, it's simply a different lifestyle... well, I guess you could argument with points like "it ties the participants' lives together, just as marriage does"... well, I dunno... I just think it's wrong.

 

[Minkoff]

Both of you apparently never heard about the in-depths of the bdsm scene, where it's really a common to enslave yourself or keep yourself one or more slaves.

i'm actually probably a lot more familiar with that than you might imagine

but that's not what this topic is about. I'm imagining a bunch of people in the fields picking cotton while i relax on my couch and sip root beer earning money off their labor

EDIT

where the servant doesn't only comfort the dominant one sexually, but also does the household, goes shopping, and basically anything else that's requested.

why that sounds like an ordinary marriage ohohohoho~~

 

[BlueScope]

i mean i don't see why anybody would sell themselves into slavery unless they NEEDED THE MONEY [...]

I just semi-replied to that sentence ^^

And well, ccoa didn't really specify what kind of slavery she's talking about, so yeah, I took one that's legal, socially semi-established and pretty wide-known...

 

[ccoa]

I can envision a case someone might do it if they didn't need money. If a person needed or wanted to leave the country of their birth, but couldn't go for one reason or another (restrictions on leaving, unable to immigrate elsewhere, war going on, etc), that person might choose to sell themselves as a chance to get away.

In general, I was referring to more traditional slavery, but that is interesting, BlueScope.

 

[Venetia]

Many countries have indentured servants ... I think that would be a much safer and more legislatable form of "slavery". It's basically slavery where you're not paid very much but there's a time limit on it so if you hate it you only have X months/years to do it.

I think it's wrong to "own" someone, but if someone wants to be owned ... Que sera, sera.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

If it makes someone happy go for it.
They want to go and sell themselves, or lease or rent whatever for so many years, what's wrong with it.

Their option, their life, their business. I don't agree with slavery on the historical sense, but as it's been brought up many in the BDSM culture have these agreements in one form or another. And if makes someone feel secure and whole, who am I to say it can't happen.

And leave the government out of it. We don't need them taxing the value of a life now. I'd rather not know what it's worth.

 

[Lene]

I am getting Uncle Tom's Cabin vibes here.

Depends what slavery we're talking about. Slavery like chattle, America pre-civil war slavery? Horribly ridiculously stupid. One: You wouldn't be entitled to shit. Two: You would be considered a subhuman at best, a non-human at worst.

Number two is why any arguments like "OMG! Slavery wasn't that bad, the Irish/Italians/whoever were treated worse back in the day, at least the slaves had homes to live in and regular meals," fail for me. Even the dying bum on the street is in a much higher and better place than the best fed slave.

My reaction to someone willing to submit themselves would be, what the fuck?

And in those cases I think it would be morally wrong to do things like buy yourself or someone else out of slavery. Doing so only justifies the institution. (Although, I guess one has to do what one has to do if the opportunity presents itself).

Slavery in the sweatshop for Walmart sense? Er, I guess it's not morally wrong to choose to give up your freedom. Keyword is "choose". But a lot of the fault goes to Walmart.

The idea of buying yourself back shouldn't even be considered because for the most part, once someone gets themselves into that situation they'll never get out. The people pulling the strings make it that way.

 

[Ceroscuro]

I think that it would be okay if the slave and owner could agree on what the slave would have to do (aka they wouldn't agree to getting raped etc).

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

If we're talking forced slavery, I'm against it. But if we're talking a contract, then I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Many sub cultures in fetish have such things. From domination and slavery straight out, to the subtle slavery where you are a servant, to blood contracts where you give someone blood and until they're done with it they're yours - or for longer.

Break the contract, and they're released. Some even go threw long talks about it and literally set it up as a legally binding contract - though I don't think it would be allowed, still the point is clear. Some reputations are handled, based solely on these kinds of relationships, and not how "mean" the master was or "evil", but rather how they and the other party decided to split. Someone's entire reputation in an area could be ruined. Some clubs will not allow them in anymore.
Not a big problem, it would seem, but when your entire fantasy revolves around a place/person/fetish that is so commonly associated with evil, you're going to be pretty damn upset when one of the not-so-common places decides to throw you out for good. Others catch on, and might follow suite. You're left alone.
But, unless you get the extreme - which is much more rare now-a-days and wasn't really as common as the media darlings would speak of, you're not going to get a case of "you're my slave, and you'll never get out!" and in a meant manner. Part of the domination is language, you may hear people say that - but it's for fantasy.

Gangs have it, thought it was more common a decade or two ago where if you shamed so bad but wanted to bargain for your life, you'd become a slave - which is completely different. This is slavery in our most common thought. Work with no pay, beatings, everything - and for most there was no way to run. It was this or death.
Some, a famous case where a guy nicked Purp was strung up and they'd come and shoot his veins up with drugs to check the quality of high. Disagree with that, I do, this is forced slavery - even though Purp decided to, he still had no choice: do or die. But anything between two willing people - key word willingly, that is adults who are fine with doing so - is there business.

 

[Grandor]

Yeah, I agree with sixty. If it's not forced, I see no problem with it. As long as the person is allowed to settle terms of what the slave is supposed to do and agree on what can't be done to the slave then I see no problem. And of course give the person the chance to leave at any time.

Indentured servants would work to pay off a debt and they were treated fairly better then slaves, so I believe that yeah, this would also be acceptable as long as the treatment was considered humane and acceptable.

 

[BlueScope]

I don't see why you have a problem with those hypothetical slaves not having the option to choose what they should do/what's being done to them or whatever, if they want it like that... I mean, if someone chooses to let someone else decide everything in their further life, well, let he or she do that... I don't see any moral conflict with that at all.

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

I mean, if someone chooses to let someone else decide everything in their further life, well, let he or she do that... I don't see any moral conflict with that at all.

I was just watching a talk show with this in it... it was about traditional marriages.

 

[Venetia]

Actually Sixty before I read your post there I was thinking the same damn thing! Not about watching a talk show, but about wives all throughout history. Up until recently a wife was basically a slave without pay but with better perks.

They'd clean and take care of the kiddies all day, be expected to perform sexually on the husband by evening, and cook three squares a day. Why? All they could do for work was be a secretary or a schoolteacher, or, in some towns, a nurse. And if the husband decided he didn't feel like holding in his frustration and he let loose with the back of his hand, everyone around would turn a blind eye.

After all, a husband can't rape his wife, right? After all, a wife is the man's possession--why shouldn't he be able to knock the sh!t out of her when he feels upset?

Anyway that mini-rant didn't really serve any purpose in furthering the discussion on slavery positively or negatively, just getting it out there that slavery has come in a lot of forms over the years.

It's nice to live in a time and place without slavery. I think that this country atleast is too conservative to ever even think about allowing people to get themselves into indenturement, though. If we can't get off our high horses long enough to see that Billy and Joseph should be allowed to marry each other, we certainly'll never appreciate a man's choice to indenture himself to some BDSM freak ;').

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

Up until recently a wife was basically a slave without pay but with better perks.

Sadly not all. Some wives are still slaves with "better perks".

I was just watching - well not just watching but it does sound better than "the other day while I was trying to nap" doesn't it? - some guy talk about what he does to his wife. It's slavery. She can't leave the house unless one of his friends is with her - and if he finds out he'll beat her. He'll even lock her in the attic which has nothing, no air conditioning no insulation, no radiator - just wooden planks. He'd go as far as to "give her" to people when he can't pay his gambling charges. She even has burn scars because he took away the ovenmits because her cooking was taking too slow.

Poor woman was a wreck, could barely speak so emotionally traumatized and utterly frightened to no end of the guy sitting next to her in his cocky little manner. I felt fucking sick.

That's slavery in it's truest form. I think what most people are talking about is nothing like this. This other "slavery" really should've been called something else. The negotiable kind I've brought up and such, that is.

 

[PeteD2S]

When you say "If the slave chooses to be a slave, then I see no problem with it" I get thinking that you guys/girls are blind. You know what labor slavery is? The worst thing on life, if you were a labor slave you would want to kill yourself. I would see something wrong with someone that chooses be a slave, I would call the mental hospital gorilas to come pick him/her up.
See it like this, sleep about 5 hours through the night and get up really early to eat something and go to work ALL DAY 'till it's night and if you still have some energy you will eat something before sleep, rain, snow, sun, storm, you will work no matter what and will get nothing in return except for a dog house like place to sleep and miserable rations.
It's not right to choose to be a labor slave, it just isn't.
Now sexual slave...humm...well I wouldn't, but it's a matter of choice and likings, if you have that power.

Sadly not all. Some wives are still slaves with "better perks".

I was just watching - well not just watching but it does sound better than "the other day while I was trying to nap" doesn't it? - some guy talk about what he does to his wife. It's slavery. She can't leave the house unless one of his friends is with her - and if he finds out he'll beat her. He'll even lock her in the attic which has nothing, no air conditioning no insulation, no radiator - just wooden planks. He'd go as far as to "give her" to people when he can't pay his gambling charges. She even has burn scars because he took away the ovenmits because her cooking was taking too slow.

Poor woman was a wreck, could barely speak so emotionally traumatized and utterly frightened to no end of the guy sitting next to her in his cocky little manner. I felt fucking sick.

That's slavery in it's truest form. I think what most people are talking about is nothing like this. This other "slavery" really should've been called something else. The negotiable kind I've brought up and such, that is.

That's fucked up, he must be crazy and if he isn't, well, he is a coward son of a bitch that deserves a nutcracking. Is he in jail now? If so, I hope he gets raped, alot!

 

[sixtyandaquarter]

No he's in marriage counseling

But when you mention labor slave and sexual slave - you do know that there is a chunk of people out there that would consider the two the same thing right?
For some, the sexual excitement is being bossed around like a slave to do all sorts of things - this includes scrubbing toilets and digging ditches etc.. etc... while there are those who enjoy to the same limits the demand of these actions against others.