NationStates Jolt Archive

RIGHT TO BEAR SLAVES
(Libertarian Slavery)


DEFINITION
---
Right to bear - The right for one individual to own another as property.

Slavery - Slavery is a social-economic system under which certain persons known as slaves are used as capital for the general benefit of society (and for the good of the slaves themselves).

'THE PROPOSAL'
---
REPEALING all anti-slavery legislation in WA member nations to therefore allow the RIGHT for one individual to own another under contractual agreement.

'THE ARGUMENT'
--
The word slavery has a certain social stigma attached to it, and this is completely fallacious and inappropriate. Indeed, when we look back at history, we think of names such as "Egypt", "Rome", "Byzantine Empire", even the British Empire to a certain extent...but what binds these names together? Slavery. And the argument stands thus:

- Slaves as property are treated better than those suffering from wage slavery. Take this analogy. Two people, two cars. One owns the car, the other rents it. After 2 years, which car would be in the better condition? The one who owns it of course because he takes better care of it. This applies for slavery.

- The slave classes often experience living conditions and general prosperity than the working classes. Under British feudalism this was clearly seen. This is due to slaves sharing their master's living conditions and wealth. Therefore while they have no "income", the rich-poor divide is greatly reduced as is social resentment.

- Slave socities are economically efficient, much more than capitalism in fact. Capitalism suffers from worker syndicalism and widespread disobedience/disillusionment. Allowing slavery would allow the rise of a 'greater capitalism' where the free-market would prevail while embracing social welfare for the many not the few.

- The establishment of slavery is up to the individual nation, as every different society has their own unique social demographic. Likewise, the enforcement is the responsiblity of the state but assisted by a multi-lateral force suitably named the Slavery Enforcement Agency (SEA) which will mantain the individual rights of slaves and slaveowners.

First, don't repost Moderated threads. One is plenty.

Second, your use of real world examples is forbidden in NationStates WA proposals. Your proposal will be removed from queue accordingly.

Third, I totally fail to see how this is "A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights."

Quod dammit, did Ayn Rand prophesy the fall of the UN or something? What's with the sudden infestation of hardcore libertarians all of a sudden? Anyway, this might be the catalyst we needed to resubmit our old slavery resolution, so thanks.

-- Samantha Benson

Ambassador Windcharmer stares intently at his lighter. He never smoked, but the lighter had become quite useful in burning proposals he didn't like. (And it helped keep the trash down.

However, being the freedom loving citizen from a nation which the WA considered a 'civil rights lovefest', it seemed that his lighter was much too small for the task. After all, it wasn't everyday that a proposal caused protests in his home country.

Giving up, he steps up to he podium.

The Skybound Republic of Havensky not only vehemently opposes such legislation, we protest the very fact that it was proposed. We are appalled at such a suggestion was even made.

And to claim it increases civil rights is an insult to our intelligence! An insult!

Right now, our citizens are protesting this resolution and calling on a boycott of all nations which supported this resolution. If proposed again we will fight it.

Good day sir!



And with that, Windcharmer burns the resolution, then spits in the ashes

Quod dammit, did Ayn Rand prophesy the fall of the UN or something? What's with the sudden infestation of hardcore libertarians all of a sudden? Anyway, this might be the catalyst we needed to resubmit our old slavery resolution, so thanks.

-- Samantha Benson

You submit it, and I'll approve it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I second ("third?") the motion for resurrecting the anti-slavery resolution. As for the proposal submitted by Social Modernism, I will not even deign to dignify it with a response.

Erskine Chauncey
WA Representative, Cartographic Boxes

But what if I don't want to have a bear for a slave?

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA (who has nothing better to do)

Bears? Ewwww.... *winces*

If I wrote a resolution, it'd have to be, umm, mandatory manscaping...just thought I'd, umm, throw that out there.

Candi Melrose
Mr. Chauncey's Personal Secretary

Right to bear slaves

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: Social Modernism

Description: RIGHT TO BEAR SLAVES
(Libertarian Slavery)
____________________

DEFINITION
Right to bear - The right for one individual to own another as property.

Slavery - Slavery is a social-economic system under which certain persons known as slaves are used as capital for the general benefit of society (and for the good of the slaves themselves).

THE PROPOSAL
REPEALING all anti-slavery legislation in WA member nations to therefore allow the RIGHT for one individual to own another under contractual agreement.

THE ARGUMENT
The word slavery has a certain social stigma attached to it, and this is completely fallacious and inappropriate. The argument stands thus:

- Slaves as property are treated better than those suffering from wage slavery. Take this analogy. Two people, two cars. One owns the car, the other rents it. After 2 years, which car would be in the better condition? The one who owns it of course because he takes better care of it. This applies for slavery.

- The slave classes often experience living conditions and general prosperity than the working classes. Under feudalism this was clearly seen. This is due to slaves sharing their master's living conditions and wealth. Therefore while they have no "income", the rich-poor divide is greatly reduced as is social resentment.

- Slave socities are economically efficient, much more than capitalism in fact. Capitalism suffers from worker syndicalism and widespread disobedience/disillusionment. Allowing slavery would allow the rise of a 'greater capitalism' where the free-market would prevail while embracing social welfare for the many not the few.

- The establishment of slavery is up to the individual nation, as every different society has their own unique social demographic. Likewise, the enforcement is the responsiblity of the state but assisted by a multi-lateral force suitably named the Slavery Enforcement Agency (SEA) which will mantain the individual rights of slaves and slaveowners.

Approvals: 5 (Social Modernism, Extremation, WZ Forums, Central Vetteland, Southern Realm)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 100 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Apr 15 2008

As we can see here, the ... ironically named "nation" of Social Modernism has resubmitted their resolution, now sans the section referring to non-existent nations.

Altierra believes that slavery is by definition antithetical and inimical to liberty, and that this resolution, and the concept of "libertarian slavery" itself, is a massive oxymoron. We urge all right-thinking delegates not to approve it, and all good representatives to vote against it, in the unlikely event that such an abomination should reach quorum.

Also, we're not seeing how this proposal would "reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare." It's quite evident that it would do precisely the opposite.

~ Altierra

The Popotan does not believe in capitalism that much, therefore the inequality argument is moot which is the main thrust.

If you are concerned about inequality, or more appropriate, wage slavery, The Popotan suggests making a proposal to address this. You are likely to get more support.

----

Also, on a further note, The Popotan does not really believe in making bears into slaves.

Roth Gar would like to say
this proposal is outrageous
slavery cannot be tolerated

1. it does not promote more freedom
2. it reduces the slaves to mere things, not people
3. slaves are often treated worse than paid workers
this is because it is usually illegal to mistreat workers. also, paid workers can quit their jobs and find new ones if they don't like the one they have.
slaves cannot do this

I entered into this discussion on the premise that we would be speaking of the merits of keeping bear servants, or at the very least the ability to give piggy back rides to slaves from other nations. I come to find a PRO-SLAVERY resolution in these halls.

I am appalled.

But what if I don't want to have a bear for a slave?

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA (who has nothing better to do)NO No No we do not read this as feed slaves bears but other way..... Feed bears slaves...


As far as this comment by one of the other members:
3. slaves are often treated worse than paid workersDo you beat and abuse a fine hunting dog or plow mule you paid a good price for and it serves you well..? Thus why would one treat a slave any worse than they would their hunting dog or plow mule? Abuse them they become worthless and you loose anything gained by having them.

certain persons known as slavesAre these anywhere near females spouses contracted to serve one man and keep house and raise children by for him alone.?

Let's let Social Modernism demonstrate his nation's commitment to the concept by having his population serve as unpaid servants to the WA ... with his leadership pointing the way as the towel boys or gardeners.

Put your <absence of money> where your mouth is, boy.

As far as this comment by one of the other members:
Do you beat and abuse a fine hunting dog or plow mule you paid a good price for and it serves you well..? Thus why would one treat a slave any worse than they would their hunting dog or plow mule? Abuse them they become worthless and you loose anything gained by having them.For small owners what you say does have some basis in history, but for large more industrialized type work environments, this was often not the case. The sheer scale and number often led these slaves to be put to a death sentence.

Thus someone who paid basically a year's worth of money for a slave would treat them quite well, but someone who paid the same exact amount but for their income it was a few day's worth would not.

OOC: The myth that all slaves were treated badly is simply that, a myth. The only time a slave recieved beatings was when the slave disobeyed or otherwise did something bad, just like until the 1960's-70's parents were allowed to beat their children for misbehaving. In fact, most slaves, especially those owned by the wealthy, lived very good lives. They had basically everything they needed provided for them in exchange for manual labor. In most cases, the slave owner wanted to keep the slaves in peak condition and provide them with excellent care in order to protect the income and productivity of the slave owner's business escapades. Most slaves were also very expensive, and could be comparable to buying a new car by today's economic standards. Also, most slaves that were captured and brought from overseas were usually captured and sold to slave traders by rivalling ethnic groups, tribes, governments, etc., and such behavior had existed within their societies at home to begin with. I do not understand the arguments against slavery that are based solely upon the "poor treatment and immoral behavior" that slaves supposedly were subjected to.

IC: I, Jorn Cortez, would like to state that the Roshavian people do not wish for large animal slaves of the bear variety at this time. Also, we somehow find it hard to believe that a full-grown Grizzly bear would rather listen to orders than eat us.

This is just wrong. No one in the world has the right to own an other human being, no mater how they are treted.

Polish up the proposal with more detail and boundaries we will support this proposal. Why is our business so I strongly SUGGEST you don't ask.

The ambassador flips open his comunicator. "Don Maxaliquax, I humbly suggest you hold off the "disciplinary activities" for a weak or two. The swine may still have a use."

OOC: The myth that all slaves were treated badly is simply that, a myth. The only time a slave recieved beatings was when the slave disobeyed or otherwise did something bad, just like until the 1960's-70's parents were allowed to beat their children for misbehaving. In fact, most slaves, especially those owned by the wealthy, lived very good lives. They had basically everything they needed provided for them in exchange for manual labor. In most cases, the slave owner wanted to keep the slaves in peak condition and provide them with excellent care in order to protect the income and productivity of the slave owner's business escapades. Most slaves were also very expensive, and could be comparable to buying a new car by today's economic standards. Also, most slaves that were captured and brought from overseas were usually captured and sold to slave traders by rivalling ethnic groups, tribes, governments, etc., and such behavior had existed within their societies at home to begin with. I do not understand the arguments against slavery that are based solely upon the "poor treatment and immoral behavior" that slaves supposedly were subjected to.This all depends on the size and scale. If slaves are plentiful they become cheap and easy to replace. However what may be cheap to one person, may be expensive to another and if it's something expensive they will tend to treat it better than if it's cheap.

Slavery as seen in more modern times with the exploitation of Africa, FE, where such slaves were not given educational oppurtunities, they did not work in the fields, or if they did, they worked along side their master who worked just as hard (this was also the case with small landowners for more modern types of slavery). Instead there tasks were just being servants and never really any harsh work. It was a cause of both the Renaissance which placed importance of individual (the "me" factor) over the group, plus the added commerical revolution. Combined it made it so that it didn't matter how one treated anyone who wasn't "me" as long as it gave me money. Thus caring how slaves were treated became important only when supply dried up. While the slave trade across the Atlantic was in full swing, supply was plentiful and thus treatment plummeted, unless you happened to be a poor landowner who managed to save up enough to buy 1 slave.

However when the Atlantic trade became illegal, but those who owned slaves could continue to have them and their children would be slaves this also raised the treatment up somewhat.

However it too lacks some important principles that previous slavery based nations had considered rights for slaves. First, that they could be educated in most respects, second they could serve in the military, thrid there slavery condition would generally not be passed upon to their children or if it was, there was a way for slaves to break free of slavery within legally and finally, that slavery was not enthically based (except where taking slaves after conquering an area).

It is more modern form of slavery based around the exploitation of Africa that gave rise to the notion and has given the general stigma to the usage.

NOTE: The Popotan does not condone this proposal. Mostly, because it lacks those things i mentioned above that were generally given as rights to slaves.

OOC: The myth that all slaves were treated badly is simply that, a myth. The only time a slave recieved beatings was when the slave disobeyed or otherwise did something bad,
Some people might suggest that is itself bad treatment. Being beaten for disobeying?

That said, your point is not without merit. If you're interested in the topic, I'd recommend Capitalism and Slavery by Eric Williams.

"I think, despite the fact that it's going unsaid, that everyone here knows what slaves would almost immediately be used for, especially females. And of course, children as well. Do we want to mandate that every nation make such things legal? That is one reason, among very many good reasons, that we oppose this proposal."

"I think, despite the fact that it's going unsaid, that everyone here knows what slaves would almost immediately be used for, especially females. And of course, children as well. Do we want to mandate that every nation make such things legal? That is one reason, among very many good reasons, that we oppose this proposal."

Surely that would be the Right to Bare Slaves?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

OOC: The myth that all slaves were treated badly is simply that, a myth.

OOC: Actually, the recorded volume of the Middle Passage during the African slave trade disproves that statement. The sheer number of African slaves transported to Brazil and the Caribbean implies that they had a very short lifespan once they were put to work in the cane fields and other areas of forced labor. The grim truth is that they were being worked to death--it was cheaper at the time for the slaveholders to import fresh slaves from Africa than to spend money on keeping the ones they had healthy.

Slaves imported into the United States may have had a better life. But they were a very small percentage of the total of the Middle Passage. The vast majority were going to a living hell.

Easy on the OOC discussion, folks.