NationStates Jolt Archive

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

No. No human should be 'owned' by another. Except online, but that's a different matter.

If we're going to enslave people based on intellect I do fear MTAE would never see another free day in his life.

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

You've never read up on what happens in a slave economy, I take it. Secondly, you will essentially be living in fear of the slaves. Not that I think you're serious of course, but for the sake of argument....

Throwing in my two cents before this becomes a flame fest...

God damnit I'm agreeing with MTAE again!

I certainly have to agree that the mentally and physically disabled should be enslaved, as long as they are treated fairly while enslaved. If they are treated fairly, and by that I mean about as much as Roman slaves were, then it would be quite the improvement for them. They would have a place to sleep, food to eat, they'd survive! If they weren't enslaved, they wouldn't have any of that, and would end up dead. Enslaving those who are slaves to themselves is a great idea.

. If they are treated fairly, and by that I mean about as much as Roman slaves were, then it would be quite the improvement for them.

You are, I gather, taking the piss....

Throwing in my two cents before this becomes a flame fest...

God damnit I'm agreeing with MTAE again!

I certainly have to agree that the mentally and physically disabled should be enslaved, as long as they are treated fairly while enslaved. If they are treated fairly, and by that I mean about as much as Roman slaves were, then it would be quite the improvement for them. They would have a place to sleep, food to eat, they'd survive! If they weren't enslaved, they wouldn't have any of that, and would end up dead. Enslaving those who are slaves to themselves is a great idea.
In this country at least (the UK), the mentally and physically disabled are looked after perfectly well, and, for the most part, treated fairly. Sure, there'll be some cases where that doesn't happen, but there would be in any system. Enslaving these people is ridiculous, as it won't achieve anything, not to mention that slavery is, IMO, morally abhorrent.

So who makes the judgment on the qualifications of "stupid"?

Uggghhh, haven't you left yet? It's not even funny anymore. Just stop it.

In this country at least (the UK), the mentally and physically disabled are looked after perfectly well, and, for the most part, treated fairly. Sure, there'll be some cases where that doesn't happen, but there would be in any system. Enslaving these people is ridiculous, as it won't achieve anything, not to mention that slavery is, IMO, morally abhorrent.

Take a trip to America. We may say "Oh yes. Our mentally and physically disabled are treated PERFECTLY fine!", while there is a war vet laying next to us with both his legs amputated and holding out a can asking for money.

So who makes the judgment on the qualifications of "stupid"?

Paris Hilton. :)

Take a trip to America. We may say "Oh yes. Our mentally and physically disabled are treated PERFECTLY fine!", while there is a war vet laying next to us with both his legs amputated and holding out a can asking for money.
All that shows is that the UK is a more progressive country than the US when it comes to the less fortunate members of society. That in itself is not a reason to bring back slavery.

Throwing in my two cents before this becomes a flame fest...

God damnit I'm agreeing with MTAE again!

I certainly have to agree that the mentally and physically disabled should be enslaved, as long as they are treated fairly while enslaved. If they are treated fairly, and by that I mean about as much as Roman slaves were, then it would be quite the improvement for them. They would have a place to sleep, food to eat, they'd survive! If they weren't enslaved, they wouldn't have any of that, and would end up dead. Enslaving those who are slaves to themselves is a great idea.

Im not trying to be a jackass here but i disagree with that, no man or woman should be enslaved because of a certain disability that they have no matter what its completely unfair to the person, they have a right as a human being to have a say in what is done to their self, I understand you have good intentions yes, but slavery takes away every right that a human being has, slaves are less than human and nobody would actually buy into treating slaves with respect its just a reality of society nowadays, nowadays people take every advantage they can get and squeeze every ounce of worth out of it. Once again, not trying to be a jackass, sorry if i offended you. I just wanted to get my two-cents out also.

Paris Hilton. :)
Do you mean that anyone dumber than her becomes a slave, or that she gets to set the bar as to the required level of intelligence not to be a slave?

Slave labour, you get what you pay for.

<snip>Run out of traditional topics with which to piss off people, have we?

Paris Hilton. :)

I nominate myself to make the judgments. And I declare with this unilateral authority that the only person to be cast into slavery is MeansToAnEnd. MTAE, you better start practicing how to say "yes massah", because it's a phrase that you'll be awfully familiar with if your little idea here ever becomes reality.

Do you mean that anyone dumber than her becomes a slave, or that she gets to set the bar as to the required level of intelligence not to be a slave?

I think he considers her an expert on stupidity and therefore would be an excellent judge of it in other people.

Do you mean that anyone dumber than her becomes a slave, or that she gets to set the bar as to the required level of intelligence not to be a slave?

I was actually trying to cast an amusing light on just how far stupidity can take you in this world.

But I think that if Paris Hilton thinks you're too stupid to be allowed out without a leash, that's pretty much it, isn't it?

Oh right...deprive a huge number of people of their liberty...but sure...if it makes the economy improve for the minority at the top then thats a great idea.Totally in favour, I'll be a slave... Im very glad to here that a kind, merciful person like yourself could tell me what I REALLY want, as of course silly little me couldn't possibly know what i want to do with my life having been defined as unintelligent by some arbitary measure. Actually, why don't you just gas us and breed a super race from the superior stock which you obviously comprise a part of?

I'm on board with this. I can send my SLAVE to work for me and still get all the money! Never again will I have to drive out to the Chinese place to order food. Never again will I have to pump my own gas or walk through the cold to pay. Yep, those Romans had it figured out. ;)

*disclaimer: Miiros does not actually think slavery should be reinstated. Please do not flame the aforementioned Miiros.*

Oh right...deprive a huge number of people of their liberty...but sure...if it makes the economy improve for the minority at the top then thats a great idea.Totally in favour, I'll be a slave... Im very glad to here that a kind, merciful person like yourself could tell me what I REALLY want, as of course silly little me couldn't possibly know what i want to do with my life having been defined as unintelligent by some arbitary measure. Actually, why don't you just gas us and breed a super race from the superior stock which you obviously comprise a part of.
Don't be silly! If we gas you, who would do the dishes?

Oh right...deprive a huge number of people of their liberty...but sure...if it makes the economy improve for the minority at the top then thats a great idea.Totally in favour, I'll be a slave... Im very glad to here that a kind, merciful person like yourself could tell me what I REALLY want, as of course silly little me couldn't possibly know what i want to do with my life having been defined as unintelligent by some arbitary measure. Actually, why don't you just gas us and breed a super race from the superior stock which you obviously comprise a part of?

The world needs ditch diggers too. :)

Im not trying to be a jackass here but i disagree with that, no man or woman should be enslaved because of a certain disability that they have no matter what its completely unfair to the person, they have a right as a human being to have a say in what is done to their self, I understand you have good intentions yes, but slavery takes away every right that a human being has, slaves are less than human and nobody would actually buy into treating slaves with respect its just a reality of society nowadays, nowadays people take every advantage they can get and squeeze every ounce of worth out of it. Once again, not trying to be a jackass, sorry if i offended you. I just wanted to get my two-cents out also.

But if they become enslaved they will survive! They will have food and shelter! Without slavery they would have NONE of that!

Don't be silly! If we gas you, who would do the dishes?

The robots that you super-clever people will soon design that will make us slaves redundant to you godly peoples?:p

But if they become enslaved they will survive! They will have food and shelter! Without slavery they would have NONE of that!

They would still have their independence.

Tell you what. I think you're too stupid to survive on your own. You can now be my slave. I'll feed you, I'll clothe you, I'll provide you shelter. Heck, I probably won't make you do any real work. Probably just my laundry and dishes and things like that.

But if they become enslaved they will survive! They will have food and shelter! Without slavery they would have NONE of that!

that is partially true, but most, notice i say most because it is true that there are disabled that do not have food and shelter, mentally and physcially disabled persons are either have help, their conditions are not bad enough to make them unable to get help, or the disabled are productive members of society, you are right, if slavery was reinstated they would have those things, but at a loss to their rights as a human being.

The Original Poster makes a very pertinent point. Humanity is not, nor will ever be, born equal. Certain individuals are, by means of genetics, rendered, amongst other afflictions, stupid, moronic, lazy and incompetant, however in a "civilised" society they are obliged to fend for themselves, and thus transpire as a burden upon the welfare system. Slavery would lead to a cessation in both their plight, and the burden they constitute upon society.
Moreover, slavery does not necessarily constitute excruciatingly dolorous labour. State regulated, humane slavery would be no malign influence upon society.

If someone is willing to buy a slave to do work in their household, then they will be willing to pay that same slave to do that work.

The Original Poster makes a very pertinent point. Humanity is not, nor will ever be, born equal. Certain individuals are, by means of genetics, rendered, amongst other afflictions, stupid, moronic, lazy and incompetant, however in a "civilised" society they are obliged to fend for themselves, and thus transpire as a burden upon the welfare system. Slavery would lead to a cessation in both their plight, and the burden they constitute upon society.
Moreover, slavery does not necessarily constitute excruciatingly dolorous labour. State regulated, humane slavery would be no malign influence upon society.

Then, again, I feel that you are too stupid to fend for yourself, and should, for your best interests, become my slave. You and New Naliitr can share a room.

Then, again, I feel that you are too stupid to fend for yourself, and should, for your best interests, become my slave. You and New Naliitr can share a room.

He smells. Not a hope!

He smells. Not a hope!

You're a slave. You don't get to make such decisions.

State regulated, humane slavery would be no malign influence upon society.Yeah, well that worked real well in the colonies, didn't it?
Or does one need to take a look at how some legally employed people are being treated at their jobs show how cruel and dumb that idea is?

try not to feed the troll please

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

Edit: Liuzzo stole my thunder!

In this country at least (the UK), the mentally and physically disabled are looked after perfectly well, and, for the most part, treated fairly.

Admittedly, for the US, we tried the morally progressive route back in the '70s and decided it would be a good idea to allow the mentally disabled to choose for themselves if they wished to be held in an institution. This more or less boned our system perminantly, and has led to the situation of having an incredible increase in the mentally disturbed homeless population, especially in large cities. Thus, while the UK might do fairly well, a system that properly provided for the US' mentally lacking (especially the homeless and jobless) would probably be preferable to the current situation.
Slavery as a moral void is also problematic. Too often, people will take advantage of other people and have done so historically, thus the fear resulting from the idea of slavery. However, people enslave themselves constantly, to one degree or another, in various ways. Middle-class America has reached an all-time high for borrowing money to keep their bills paid. A debt that one cannot escape is a direct form of slavery: loan companies can, and will, take your wages and possessions if you fail to pay them. Any government can do the same if you fail to pay taxes. Enlisted military service, wherein you sign away years of your life, or (god forbid) the draft, where you do not even get to choose to sign away years of your life are also slavery. For people who have nothing, anything is a step up. And, as we're all slaves to something anyway, the moral issue is, at best, questionable.

I'm on board with this. I can send my SLAVE to work for me and still get all the money! Never again will I have to drive out to the Chinese place to order food. Never again will I have to pump my own gas or walk through the cold to pay. Yep, those Romans had it figured out. ;)

*disclaimer: Miiros does not actually think slavery should be reinstated. Please do not flame the aforementioned Miiros.*

this is why i want a clone.

and there's a good reason why it'd have to be my slave, because it would have no soul ;)

Yeah, well that worked real well in the colonies, didn't it?
Or does one need to take a look at how some legally employed people are being treated at their jobs show how cruel and dumb that idea is?

Did I cite contemporary employment? No.

I am well aware that precedent casts slavery in an immoral and exploitative light, however society now predicates itself upon compassion, and, wromgly in any case, equality. Thus, the above pre-suppositins, when alloyed to an independant regulatory body, would render modern slavery a compassionate, universally beneficial institution.

The Original Poster makes a very pertinent point. Humanity is not, nor will ever be, born equal. Certain individuals are, by means of genetics, rendered, amongst other afflictions, stupid, moronic, lazy and incompetant, however in a "civilised" society they are obliged to fend for themselves, and thus transpire as a burden upon the welfare system. Slavery would lead to a cessation in both their plight, and the burden they constitute upon society.
Moreover, slavery does not necessarily constitute excruciatingly dolorous labour. State regulated, humane slavery would be no malign influence upon society.

* getting out my copy of that old document from 1776, scanning the lines, crossing out * "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." Sorry, Tom, you're out of date.

If society were truly "civilized" it wouldn't consider the poor and disadvantaged a burden. They would simply be citizens fallen on hard times deserving, as citizens of their nation, a helping hand from their government. (Yeah, yeah, there are cheats everywhere, and society - the government - should deal with cheats and law-breakers everywhere.)

* getting out my copy of that old document from 1776, scanning the lines, crossing out * "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ..." Sorry, Tom, you're out of date.

If society were truly "civilized" it wouldn't consider the poor and disadvantaged a burden. They would simply be citizens fallen on hard times deserving, as citizens of their nation, a helping hand from their government. (Yeah, yeah, there are cheats everywhere, and society - the government - should deal with cheats and law-breakers everywhere.)

I post in here with sufficient regularity for you to be aware of the following; in any discussion, when citing historical trends, I do so in regards to Britian, and possibly Europe. The USA is too far removed from my sphere of knowledge to lend itself to such citations.

Hard times? The mentally and physically deficient are naturally incompetant, how on earth do you propose to support the above? The poor are not a burden upon society of they work to their utmost, whence any extant poverty is the fault of society. However, those amongst the poor who either fail to work, are unable to work, or perpetually have more children beyond their meansm are a burden. Their irresponsibility ought to be countermanded by compassionate slavery.

Did I cite contemporary employment? No.

I am well aware that precedent casts slavery in an immoral and exploitative light, however society now predicates itself upon compassion, and, wromgly in any case, equality. Thus, the above pre-suppositins, when alloyed to an independant regulatory body, would render modern slavery a compassionate, universally beneficial institution.Let me point out that non-slave workers are already being exploited and abused. Let's put a stop to the abuse of people that could willingly leave their job before we begin contemplating giving even more power to employers. Might I add that there were plenty of laws prohibiting abuse of slaves (in all but the English colonies)? This doesn't do any good if it isn't enforced.

I post in here with sufficient regularity for you to be aware of the following; in any discussion, when citing historical trends, I do so in regards to Britian, and possibly Europe. The USA is too far removed from my sphere of knowledge to lend itself to such citations.

Hard times? The mentally and physically deficient are naturally incompetant, how on earth do you propose to support the above? The poor are not a burden upon society of they work to their utmost, whence any extant poverty is the fault of society. However, those amongst the poor who either fail to work, are unable to work, or perpetually have more children beyond their meansm are a burden. Their irresponsibility ought to be countermanded by compassionate slavery.

You must frequent threads that I don't. For instance, I don't recall you posting to MTAE's eugenics thread, which seems to me to be right in line with your outlook on the world.

Why not simply euthanize the mentally and physically deficient then? That would make resources available for everyone else.

You must frequent threads that I don't. For instance, I don't recall you posting to MTAE's eugenics thread, which seems to me to be right in line with your outlook on the world.

Why not simply euthanize the mentally and physically deficient then? That would make resources available for everyone else.

Because I would have been flamed to fuck for doing so. In any case, compuslory euthanasia would negate the potentially considerable financial rewards of slavery.

Because I would have been flamed to fuck for doing so. In any case, compuslory euthanasia would negate the potentially considerable financial rewards of slavery.
And compulsory slavery would put untold thousands of social workers out of work, thus having a considerably negative effect on the economy.

http://rcz.saphiria.net/img/faq/DoNotFeedTroll.jpg

Whats so bad with eating beans? :confused:

Oh, this idea is long over-due, I just don't know why nobody's thought of it before. Why, just the other day I actually saw Paris Hilton scavenging for food! Obviously, as a reasonably intelligent person, I was able to help her out with some loose change, or she'd probably have died in poverty.

For the sake of this brilliant slavery idea it sure is a lucky thing for us that all poor and unemployed people are that way because of their own natural stupidity and incurable laziness, isn't it?

Of course, if this were to happen, it would just end with every bugger and his mother shouting, "I'm Spartacus!" and, "That's too smart, you're one of them!" [whack]

Ok, but how do you decide who is intelligent and who is not? IQ? Don't make me laugh. IQ is a psuedo-scientific joke. To date there is no scientific test which can measure something as obscure and complex as 'intelligence'.

Ok, but how do you decide who is intelligent and who is not? IQ? Don't make me laugh. IQ is a psuedo-scientific joke. To date there is no scientific test which can measure something as obscure and complex as 'intelligence'.
Let's use phrenology!

The simple concept of slavery defies treating them fairly. You can't palce someone in forced labor, and call it fair. If thier work is valued enough to be able to make it possible to treat them "fair" then why wouldnt they be doing it already? And if thier treatment is "fair" then what would the difference be between owning them, and simply employing them, and compensating them for thier labor?

The Original Poster makes a very pertinent point. Humanity is not, nor will ever be, born equal. Certain individuals are, by means of genetics, rendered, amongst other afflictions, stupid, moronic, lazy and incompetant, however in a "civilised" society they are obliged to fend for themselves, and thus transpire as a burden upon the welfare system. Slavery would lead to a cessation in both their plight, and the burden they constitute upon society.
Moreover, slavery does not necessarily constitute excruciatingly dolorous labour. State regulated, humane slavery would be no malign influence upon society.

And the difference with that and a govt with proper social programs and a reasonable minimum wage would be?

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence.

This is already the case. The fact that you don't recognize this AS the case simply means that you are one of the slaves.


My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost.

An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well.

Who would SELL them? In other words, who gets the money from the slaves sale?


In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds.

All slaves are "prisoners of their own minds", regardless of whether they are "owned" by another person (or institution) or not.

The definition of slave could bery well BE "prisoner of one's own mind".

The "jail" of the "stupid" (as you might put it) is the unwillingness to do that which is extremely uncomfortable in the short term to ensure their "free will" in the long term.

Even a slave in ancient times could "work" their way out of it, assuming they didn't die in the process, and if their "master" had the least bit of sense in recognizing that a "motivated" slave is worth MUCH more than an unmotivated one.


This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament.

What is their PRESENT predicament that they need to "escape" from?

One does not "escape" from the choices of free will. One "pays/benefits" from the choices of free will.


If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves.

OK. I'll take you definition of a "slave master" as always benevolent. Using that as a "starting point", does it make any sense at all to allow the actual "ownership of another human being" (please define this)?


What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

What you SEEM to be describing is the leftist utopian view, where even those who see no value in making "wise" choices (due to either lack of brainpower or sheer laziness) are "taken care of" like the children they are.

If the goal of your idea is to "take care of" those who are unwilling or unable to make necessary choices to their own benefit, then you've described a system that is the leftist utopian dream,.. which is also a sensible human nightmare.


Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

..Meanwhile,.. back in Stalinism-land...


The reason that your premise is a bad idea is that it would inevitably and invariably devolve into elite-group utter control of the entire populous.

The "enslavement" of ALL those who aren't "the DEAR leader".

This happens because elite groups are ALWAYS most interested in continually NARROWING their ranks to make the "remaining" in-group members MORE POWERFUL.

Thus,.. you've described a wonderful way to justify the eventual "enslavement" of all humanity (in principle).


My initial statement that "this is already the case" is my agreement with you that people ARE enslaved, or liberated, by their intelligence.

My conclusion that this idea of yours is truly evil is because of my belief that the only things that can truly "own" a person is their own mind and the consequences of that mind,.. their choices of action.

ANY other "owning" of a human being will degenerate into an attempt to force all people into the "mold" set forth by "one person".

That not only won't work, as history has shown, but delays all the good things that people could do while the machinery of "slavery" grinds itself into dust.

Thus, coersion is never preferable to persuasion, as a policy.

Persuasion is the way of life.

Coersion is the way of anti-life.


Let the "bum" live in the shadows and squaller, to die at the hands of his fellows perhaps, or to die from his self imposed exposure to "harshness", if he refuses to take the offered assistance of those who are "wise".

The "wise", if they are wise, will always assist those who are ignorant.

If they don't, then they are not wise, but simply slaves themselves to their own form of idiocy.

Ok, but how do you decide who is intelligent and who is not? IQ? Don't make me laugh. IQ is a psuedo-scientific joke. To date there is no scientific test which can measure something as obscure and complex as 'intelligence'.

I'm deciding. My qualification for "stupid" is anyone in support of this idea. They become the slaves.

I post in here with sufficient regularity for you to be aware of the following; in any discussion, when citing historical trends, I do so in regards to Britian, and possibly Europe. The USA is too far removed from my sphere of knowledge to lend itself to such citations.

Hard times? The mentally and physically deficient are naturally incompetant, how on earth do you propose to support the above? The poor are not a burden upon society of they work to their utmost, whence any extant poverty is the fault of society. However, those amongst the poor who either fail to work, are unable to work, or perpetually have more children beyond their meansm are a burden. Their irresponsibility ought to be countermanded by compassionate slavery.

And what would the point of enslaving those who refuse to work, or are incapable? And how would that be economically benificial, particuarly if you need to treat them humanely?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The blessed Chris
The Original Poster makes a very pertinent point. Humanity is not, nor will ever be, born equal. Certain individuals are, by means of genetics, rendered, amongst other afflictions, stupid, moronic, lazy and incompetant, however in a "civilised" society they are obliged to fend for themselves, and thus transpire as a burden upon the welfare system. Slavery would lead to a cessation in both their plight, and the burden they constitute upon society.
Moreover, slavery does not necessarily constitute excruciatingly dolorous labour. State regulated, humane slavery would be no malign influence upon society.


And the difference with that and a govt with proper social programs and a reasonable minimum wage would be?

"Moreover, slavery does not necessarily constitute excruciatingly dolorous labour. State regulated, humane slavery would be no malign influence upon society." -The blessed Chris

What does it actually MEAN to "own" a human being?

Since you cannot "remove" human free will, the ability to act other than like an automaton, what is the "master" allowed to do to his "slave" to control that slave's "free will"..?

How would this NOT be a malign influence upon society?


"And the difference with that and a govt with proper social programs and a reasonable minimum wage would be?" -Butlers Babies

What is "proper" in the way of "social programs"..?

To me, a "proper social program" would be one where people are taught how to "properly" act within society so as not to need "social programs".

"Teach them to fish..."


What is a "reasonable minimum wage"..? And how is it arrived at?

Should a "minimum wage" be one that provides for the BARE ESSENTIALS and encourages people to find ways to make more,.. or one that is QUITE COMFORTABLE and offers no need to improve one's lot?

Why on Earth would you want to set up a system of involuntary slavery with it's inherant instability and discord and upkeep of slaves? Especially when it would imbalance and put at risk our current stable system of voluntary slavery in which the slaves largely are in charge of their own upkeep?

We currently coerce people into doing the bidding of their bosses with money rather than whips and keep them near their tasks with money rather than chains. When one escapes a given master there is no need to hunt him down and bring him back to slavery, that is not needed, because he is soon voluntarily fabricating a resume and hunting in the want ads for a new master who will have him. Likewise his old master puts an ad in the newspaper for a new slave to do his bidding, and not just any slave either, a healthy eager slave which has trained itself to do those things the master wants it to do. All this and more for those little scraps of paper we call money.What in the confounded cathair are you thinking would be the benefit of introducing the older instable form of slavery to this far less problematic form of slavery?

REPEAT of #55.. Ooops..!

Well then MTAE, let's pick though this, shall we?

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.
The first problem with this is how one defines intelligence. Exams are not an accurate measure of intelligence because they vary in difficulty year on year, dur to the necessity of different questions, and only take into account academic ability. Furthermore, how would you deal with people like Einstean who had Dyslexia (a reading disorder) and people with Autism or Senile Dementia or Alzhiemers who can have diffuculties but still be deeply intelligent.

The second is that such a system would, because of these ambiguities arising from the fact that stupidity and intelligence are reliative and subjective terms, be much open to political abuse, especially if, as you advocated later, that slaves do not vote. Disenfranchisement is a slippery slope. What is to say that a government (or other agency) could say all those without private education or university education are not inelligent enough to vote?

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs.
Look at European football players. Not all the sharpest knives in the drawer, but earning millions.

They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost.
The best way to solve that problem is ensuring a liveable minimum wage. Sure you might not be earning billions, but not everybody can unless you live in '20s Germany.

An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well.
Which would be unenforceable.

In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment.

"On the contrary,' he said, 'you have not controlled it. That is what has brought you here. You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline. You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one. Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane."

This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.
One could argue that we are all slaves in that context.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.
If they are cheap labour, how are they going to have a good quality of life, as you claimed?

Wow... I remember making a thread very similar to this one when I was a n00b... *reminisces*

Although I argued that the only person who should have the right to sell someone into slavery would be that person themselves, and that there should be an accessible way to escape slavery.

Why on Earth would you want to set up a system of involuntary slavery with it's inherant instability and discord and upkeep of slaves? Especially when it would imbalance and put at risk our current stable system of voluntary slavery in which the slaves largely are in charge of their own upkeep?

We currently coerce people into doing the bidding of their bosses with money rather than whips and keep them near their tasks with money rather than chains. When one escapes a given master there is no need to hunt him down and bring him back to slavery, that is not needed, because he is soon voluntarily fabricating a resume and hunting in the want ads for a new master who will have him. Likewise his old master puts an ad in the newspaper for a new slave to do his bidding, and not just any slave either, a healthy eager slave which has trained itself to do those things the master wants it to do. All this and more for those little scraps of paper we call money.What in the confounded cathair are you thinking would be the benefit of introducing the older instable form of slavery to this far less problematic form of slavery?

>ding!<

We have a winner..!!


So,.. how's your enslavement going, NB..?

'Ya feelin' like one o' them old-timey slaves, or ain't it so bad, after all?

:)

Gosh, this certainly isn't trolling, not a bit.

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.



You have stooped to an all time low. You're ideas in the past have been sick and twisted, but this goes far beyong anything you've ever before stated. You should be ashamed of yourself. You truly do not deserve to call yourself an American. Go to hell.

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

I understand your frustration at not being able to find a good job, but are you really ready to be someone's slave?

I've long though voluntary slavery should be premitted. It would just be an extension of the commodification of labour.
And compulsory slavery would put untold thousands of social workers out of work, thus having a considerably negative effect on the economy.
Do social workers actually create wealth?
I don't recall you posting to MTAE's eugenics thread
Aw, man. I missed a eugenics thread? Bummer!

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.



You have stooped to an all time low. You're ideas in the past have been sick and twisted, but this goes far beyong anything you've ever before stated. You should be ashamed of yourself. You truly do not deserve to call yourself an American. Go to hell.

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.



You have stooped to an all time low. You're ideas in the past have been sick and twisted, but this goes far beyong anything you've ever before stated. You should be ashamed of yourself. You truly do not deserve to call yourself an American. Go to hell.

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

Throwing in my two cents before this becomes a flame fest...

God damnit I'm agreeing with MTAE again!

I certainly have to agree that the mentally and physically disabled should be enslaved, as long as they are treated fairly while enslaved. If they are treated fairly, and by that I mean about as much as Roman slaves were, then it would be quite the improvement for them. They would have a place to sleep, food to eat, they'd survive! If they weren't enslaved, they wouldn't have any of that, and would end up dead. Enslaving those who are slaves to themselves is a great idea.

The Original Poster makes a very pertinent point. Humanity is not, nor will ever be, born equal. Certain individuals are, by means of genetics, rendered, amongst other afflictions, stupid, moronic, lazy and incompetant, however in a "civilised" society they are obliged to fend for themselves, and thus transpire as a burden upon the welfare system. Slavery would lead to a cessation in both their plight, and the burden they constitute upon society.
Moreover, slavery does not necessarily constitute excruciatingly dolorous labour. State regulated, humane slavery would be no malign influence upon society.

I'm deciding. My qualification for "stupid" is anyone in support of this idea. They become the slaves.

I see three volunteers have posted their qualifications as idiots in the above three posts. I am sorely tempted to open a slave auction thread....

Let's use phrenology!

How about some retrophrenology?

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

I understand your frustration at not being able to find a good job, but are you really ready to be someone's slave?

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

Throwing in my two cents before this becomes a flame fest...

God damnit I'm agreeing with MTAE again!

I certainly have to agree that the mentally and physically disabled should be enslaved, as long as they are treated fairly while enslaved. If they are treated fairly, and by that I mean about as much as Roman slaves were, then it would be quite the improvement for them. They would have a place to sleep, food to eat, they'd survive! If they weren't enslaved, they wouldn't have any of that, and would end up dead. Enslaving those who are slaves to themselves is a great idea.

The Original Poster makes a very pertinent point. Humanity is not, nor will ever be, born equal. Certain individuals are, by means of genetics, rendered, amongst other afflictions, stupid, moronic, lazy and incompetant, however in a "civilised" society they are obliged to fend for themselves, and thus transpire as a burden upon the welfare system. Slavery would lead to a cessation in both their plight, and the burden they constitute upon society.
Moreover, slavery does not necessarily constitute excruciatingly dolorous labour. State regulated, humane slavery would be no malign influence upon society.

I'm deciding. My qualification for "stupid" is anyone in support of this idea. They become the slaves.

I see three volunteers have posted their qualifications as idiots in the above three posts. I am sorely tempted to open a slave auction thread....

Let's use phrenology!

How about some retrophrenology?

The first problem with this is how one defines intelligence. Exams are not an accurate measure of intelligence because they vary in difficulty year on year, dur to the necessity of different questions, and only take into account academic ability.

Actually, they take into account the ability of an individual to reason and rationalize. The tests could theoretically negated by a special skill set that will enable an individual to be successful although he/she is quite idiotic. For example, if one is a brilliant soccer or football player yet quite imbecilic, he/she may take a special soccer or football aptitude exam. If some sort of soccer or football team drafts them, they will, of course, not be relegated to slavery as a means of survival. However, if you accept slavery, it must be a permanent decision. So if, in your old age, you get kicked out of your soccer team, you would be sold into slavery upon failing the intelligence exam.

"On the contrary,' he said, 'you have not controlled it.

What are you talking about here?

If they are cheap labour, how are they going to have a good quality of life, as you claimed?

Because there will be stringent laws mandating that the slaves be given a decent quality of life. Any master who fails to abide by his laws will get his slaves confiscated and sold somewhere else.

I understand your frustration at not being able to find a good job, but are you really ready to be someone's slave?

There's no need to flame, Dan even if what you say is true. LMAO!


You don't want to get yourself banned.

Who would want someone who is mentally retarded doing their house work?

Who would want someone who is mentally retarded doing their house work?

You have to bear in mind that half the population is below average in terms of intelligence, yet at most 5% of them are unemployed. That means that most of them are employed. Of course, we'd set the standard a bit lower -- say the bottom 10%. In the Deep South in the 19th century, a much greater percentage of the total population was composed of slaves.

>ding!<

We have a winner..!!


So,.. how's your enslavement going, NB..?

'Ya feelin' like one o' them old-timey slaves, or ain't it so bad, after all?

:)

Currently lookin for a new master, I had to let the old one go.

How about some retrophrenology?

Typical Ankh-Morpork logic.:D

There's no need to flame, Dan even if what you say is true. LMAO!


You don't want to get yourself banned.

That's not a flame. That's just some good natured ribbing. Like the kind that wrap around a condom. :)

Currently lookin for a new master, I had to let the old one go.

I gotta agree with NB, we already have slavery, it's just called a "job." When your employer can dictate how you're supposed to behave outside the office, and quite a few do, you're not really free. That said, I am able to afford all sorts of lovely toys and amenities and things to eat and drink, so it's not as bad as all that, and I can always trade one master for another, too, or try, anyway.

Has anyone suggested that instead of enslaving the poor and indigent we eat them? Good source of protein, if processed properly. I suppose that would make them a non-renewable resource, though, especially if we went forward with MTAE's eugenics plan.

No, don't bring it back, please.

You have to bear in mind that half the population is below average in terms of intelligence, yet at most 5% of them are unemployed. That means that most of them are employed. Of course, we'd set the standard a bit lower -- say the bottom 10%. In the Deep South in the 19th century, a much greater percentage of the total population was composed of slaves.

O_o If half the population is below average intelligence, then wouldn't the average go down to where they wouldn't be below it? Or is the other half so incredibly intelligent that it throws off the average far too high?

I gotta agree with NB, we already have slavery, it's just called a "job." When your employer can dictate how you're supposed to behave outside the office, and quite a few do, you're not really free. That said, I am able to afford all sorts of lovely toys and amenities and things to eat and drink, so it's not as bad as all that, and I can always trade one master for another, too, or try, anyway.

Has anyone suggested that instead of enslaving the poor and indigent we eat them? Good source of protein, if processed properly. I suppose that would make them a non-renewable resource, though, especially if we went forward with MTAE's eugenics plan.

Soylent Green is poor people!

Soylent Green is poor people!

Hey, a little barbeque sauce ... mmm, mmm, good :D

Has anyone suggested that instead of enslaving the poor and indigent we eat them? Good source of protein, if processed properly.
Just for my own peace of mind I am going to just flat out believe that you know this some other way than by testing and tasting.

I suppose that would make them a non-renewable resource, though, especially if we went forward with MTAE's eugenics plan.

I dont know this by testing but I think that we might renew this resource by sneaking up behind "voluntary human resources" with boat oars or other blunt objects and effectively decrease their cognitive abilities. There's no such thing as a free lunch I hear.


You know there is something not quite right about one or both of us here;)

You are, I gather, taking the piss....
He's a 14 year old boy. Probably not.

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

You win the distinction of being the worst person I've come into contact with today.

Congratulations.

Slavery? Not unless I find a really gorgeous lady troll to take charge of me.

Slavery? Not unless I find a really gorgeous lady troll to take charge of me.

O.O

enslave teh prisoners, get 'em working at something incredibly lame + tedious while serving their sentence.....and no I'm not talking about serving burgers at Mc D's:p

Hard labour ftw!

Do social workers actually create wealth?

No. But they do earn money and spend it. And money being spent is, as I have been led to believe in the 21+ years of my life, the grease that allows the economy to actually work.

How about some retrophrenology?
I'll have self-confidence with a side order of narcissism, please. ;)

No response is required to the OP. It is a brilliant auto-critique [i.e. the mere existence of the post is its own criticism].

your theory only work if the slaves believe in it,but what if they don't?
MTAE a door is open

ps i believe the slaves believe in it

No response is required to the OP. It is a brilliant auto-critique [i.e. the mere existence of the post is its own criticism].

You kind of just stand there and watch Means to an End destroy himself. Does he really believe what he is saying? Is he a strange type of satirist? Does it matter?

Ah, quality trolling. Could MTAE be the new TUNA?

Could MTAE BE TUNA?

Would anyone REALLY care?

Do random caps add ANYTHING to this post?

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence.
I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone will be interested in buying you.

the rest of this post is just far too stupid to bother replying to.

Well, it COULD work...
but then again, so could fascism.
Besides, there are ways of solving your problem that don't involve enslaving people. Like communism. That works WAY better then what you have, and nobody is enslaved! Or maybe try total anarchy, nobody has to think there as long as they have a gun. Or even a meritocracy! It works similarly, but nobody's a slave.
And it's not just the stupid people who are unemployed. Einstein worked in the swiss patent office (boring clerical work) while he was thinking up his theory of relativity. Meanwhile, a house painter and his friends were taking control of Germany.
Nice contrast, isn't it?
Of course, Hitler was smarter then the average house painter, but it still is a good example.

Ah, quality trolling. Could MTAE be the new TUNA?

Could MTAE BE TUNA?

Would anyone REALLY care?

Do random caps add ANYTHING to this post?

The answer, of course, to each one these questions is a resounding, "Maybe."

Throwing in my two cents before this becomes a flame fest...

God damnit I'm agreeing with MTAE again!

I certainly have to agree that the mentally and physically disabled should be enslaved, as long as they are treated fairly while enslaved. If they are treated fairly, and by that I mean about as much as Roman slaves were, then it would be quite the improvement for them. They would have a place to sleep, food to eat, they'd survive! If they weren't enslaved, they wouldn't have any of that, and would end up dead. Enslaving those who are slaves to themselves is a great idea.
Inherent contradiction. You cannot be "treated fairly" while being owned as property.

And yes, the physically and mentally disabled CAN survive.

your theory only work if the slaves believe in it,but what if they don't?
MTAE a door is open

ps i believe the slaves believe in it

I wish more people would understand that a door has been opened. Can we close it? TUNA?

Inherent contradiction. You cannot be "treated fairly" while being owned as property.

And yes, the physically and mentally disabled CAN survive.

Sure you can. Of course, you would have to acquiesce to whatever your masters told you to do, but they'd treat you quite well, as they would be mandated to by law. You'd have to get 3 square meals a day, you'd get a roof over your head, you would only work for a maximum of 60 hours a week, you'd be given various items to play with, etc. Otherwise, they would break the law and lose their investment. Also, while the physically and mentally disabled can, in theory survive, most live wretched existences of squalor and extreme poverty. Many cannot find adequate employment and are on the verge of starving. Make no mistake: this proposal would not only help society, but also the idiots.

Inherent contradiction. You cannot be "treated fairly" while being owned as property.

And yes, the physically and mentally disabled CAN survive.

Sure you can. Of course, you would have to acquiesce to whatever your masters told you to do, but they'd treat you quite well, as they would be mandated to by law. You'd have to get 3 square meals a day, you'd get a roof over your head, you would only work for a maximum of 60 hours a week, you'd be given various items to play with, etc. Otherwise, they would break the law and lose their investment. Also, while the physically and mentally disabled can, in theory survive, most live wretched existences of squalor and extreme poverty. Many cannot find adequate employment and are on the verge of starving. Make no mistake: this proposal would not only help society, but also the idiots.

Sure you can. Of course, you would have to acquiesce to whatever your masters told you to do, but they'd treat you quite well, as they would be mandated to by law. You'd have to get 3 square meals a day, you'd get a roof over your head, you would only work for a maximum of 60 hours a week, you'd be given various items to play with, etc. Otherwise, they would break the law and lose their investment. Also, while the physically and mentally disabled can, in theory survive, most live wretched existences of squalor and extreme poverty. Many cannot find adequate employment and are on the verge of starving. Make no mistake: this proposal would not only help society, but also the idiots.

Would you acquiesce to whatever your masters told you to do?

This proposal is perhaps the most disgusting and vile proposal I have ever seen on NS, with the possible exception of the times genocide has been advocated.

Sure you can. Of course, you would have to acquiesce to whatever your masters told you to do, but they'd treat you quite well, as they would be mandated to by law.

So what? Treating a slave well doesn't change the degrading, oppressive character of slavery.

I would much rather be free and poor than a slave and rich.

Sure you can. Of course, you would have to acquiesce to whatever your masters told you to do, but they'd treat you quite well, as they would be mandated to by law. You'd have to get 3 square meals a day, you'd get a roof over your head, you would only work for a maximum of 60 hours a week, you'd be given various items to play with, etc. Otherwise, they would break the law and lose their investment. Also, while the physically and mentally disabled can, in theory survive, most live wretched existences of squalor and extreme poverty. Many cannot find adequate employment and are on the verge of starving. Make no mistake: this proposal would not only help society, but also the idiots.
Again by this,you have to make yourself understanded,you agree perople can be parasiting?
because they can not survive.
Don't you see a problem?

Sure you can. Of course, you would have to acquiesce to whatever your masters told you to do, but they'd treat you quite well, as they would be mandated to by law. You'd have to get 3 square meals a day, you'd get a roof over your head, you would only work for a maximum of 60 hours a week, you'd be given various items to play with, etc. Otherwise, they would break the law and lose their investment. Also, while the physically and mentally disabled can, in theory survive, most live wretched existences of squalor and extreme poverty. Many cannot find adequate employment and are on the verge of starving. Make no mistake: this proposal would not only help society, but also the idiots.

So this would be like Foster care parents only the Foster parents would be able to make their charges do whichever tasks the Foster parents saw fit and they might have as many charges as required to perform the desired tasks?
What could possibly go wrong?

What could possibly go wrong?

Exactly. Nothing could go wrong; there could not even be a slave revolt because they don't have access to weapons and they have a comfortable life.

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

Are you American?

Exactly. Nothing could go wrong; there could not even be a slave revolt because they don't have access to weapons and they have a comfortable life.

Would you submit yourself to being a slave?

I would much rather be free and poor than a slave and rich.

You would rather subsist on beans, perhaps in a cardboard box on the street, than have a comfortable bed and plenty of food? You would rather beg for money than have a simple job which only requires a maximum of 60 hours a week of work, with food and board included? I think that's a terrible choice.

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

WHAT THE FUCK!?

I knew it was a fluke when you said something intelligent. Why the hell do you do this?

*SNIP*

*pukes*

MTAE, no slavery for us.

Exactly. Nothing could go wrong; there could not even be a slave revolt because they don't have access to weapons and they have a comfortable life.

Anything can become a weapon in the hands of an oppressed man.

You would rather subsist on beans, perhaps in a cardboard box on the street, than have a comfortable bed and plenty of food? You would rather beg for money than have a simple job which only requires a maximum of 60 hours a week of work, with food and board included? I think that's a terrible choice.

Yet there are those who prefer the freedom associated with your beans and a box.

Would you submit yourself to being a slave?

No. I have taken two real IQ tests in my life, and I have scored around 140 on both. That puts me in the upper echelon of the population in terms of intelligence, and thus I would not become a slave under this system, nor would I want to be one. I would be able to do much better on my own.

No. I have taken two real IQ tests in my life, and I have scored around 140 on both. That puts me in the upper echelon of the population in terms of intelligence, and thus I would not become a slave under this system, nor would I want to be one. I would be able to do much better on my own.

It's not your choice. The powers that be say you're to be a slave. Do you submit to slavery?

Anything can become a weapon in the hands of an oppressed man.

I'd love to see someone attack me with a tissue. The thing is that they are not oppressed, however. They simply have a "job" which restricts their freedoms more than a typical job, but is constant and pays quite well in terms of fringe benefits (food and board, free time for socialization, lack of worry about financial future, etc.).

It's not your choice. The powers that be say you're to be a slave. Do you submit to slavery?

If I have no other options, I obviously will.

No. I have taken two real IQ tests in my life, and I have scored around 140 on both. That puts me in the upper echelon of the population in terms of intelligence, and thus I would not become a slave under this system, nor would I want to be one. I would be able to do much better on my own.

What about under a different system? If, for some reason, the people of your town were enslaved by the people of a nearby town with a better economy, the reason being that you'd be better off as a slave in this more successful town than free in the less successful town, would you accept your lot as a slave and submit to your master?

No. I have taken two real IQ tests in my life, and I have scored around 140 on both. That puts me in the upper echelon of the population in terms of intelligence, and thus I would not become a slave under this system, nor would I want to be one. I would be able to do much better on my own.

I think you're a troll. And I dont think you're a yank. You spelled labour correct in the op.

You would rather subsist on beans, perhaps in a cardboard box on the street, than have a comfortable bed and plenty of food? You would rather beg for money than have a simple job which only requires a maximum of 60 hours a week of work, with food and board included? I think that's a terrible choice.

Why do you believe our world is slavery?

If I have no other options, I obviously will.

Then you're a slave. Your job will be to orally pleasure a rhinocerous for my amusement. Don't worry. You'll get great fringe benefits.

You would rather subsist on beans, perhaps in a cardboard box on the street, than have a comfortable bed and plenty of food? You would rather beg for money than have a simple job which only requires a maximum of 60 hours a week of work, with food and board included? I think that's a terrible choice.

Yes, actually I would, like I said, be free and poor than be a slave (especially with twelve hour days), whatever the material comforts.

In fact, I'd rather be dead.

I think you're a troll. And I dont think you're a yank. You spelled labour correct in the op.

I was not born in the US, but I currently reside there. I was born in a formerly-Communist country in Eastern Europe, and I learned how to speak British English in school, so I usually undulate between the British and American spellings of certain words. And no, I am not a troll.

The robots that you super-clever people will soon design that will make us slaves redundant to you godly peoples?:p

Dude where the hell you going with this

Im disabled and i know for one thing....I have the brains to refuse to be a slave....frankly I would rather be on the street than someones bitch

I'd love to see someone attack me with a tissue. The thing is that they are not oppressed, however. They simply have a "job" which restricts their freedoms more than a typical job, but is constant and pays quite well in terms of fringe benefits (food and board, free time for socialization, lack of worry about financial future, etc.).

Your airways could be stuffed with tissue and blocked.

Forcing someone to work for and sumbit to the will of someone arbitrarily deemed to be superior to them sounds a hell of a lot like oppression to me.

You think that having no money what so ever, and no way of ever getting any, would eliminate a person's worry about their financial future?

In fact, I'd rather be dead.

Well, then there's something wrong with you, pure and simple. Do you take pills for depression?

I think you're a troll. And I dont think you're a yank. You spelled labour correct in the op.真的吗？！ You nailed him Soviestan! He is some euro-troll trashing on 美国人们。 Good work.

Well, then there's something wrong with you, pure and simple. Do you take pills for depression?

Prefering to die free over living in slavery is a perfectly natural thing.

You think that having no money what so ever, and no way of ever getting any, would eliminate a person's worry about their financial future?

Yes. Also, a slave could not be forced to orally "pleasure" a rhinocerous as such an act would violate slave protection laws. A slave could also not be beaten too harshly, etc., without that slave's consent. Slaves would basically be treated like children, only with more rights to resist punishment and unfair labour.

Prefering to die free over living in slavery is a perfectly natural thing.

Sure, if by "natural" you mean "suicidal."

I was not born in the US, but I currently reside there. I was born in a formerly-Communist country in Eastern Europe, and I learned how to speak British English in school, so I usually undulate between the British and American spellings of certain words. And no, I am not a troll.
BS, BS, and BS. Hahahaha you got nailed!

Yes. Also, a slave could not be forced to orally "pleasure" a rhinocerous as such an act would violate slave protection laws. A slave could also not be beaten too harshly, etc., without that slave's consent. Slaves would basically be treated like children, only with more rights to resist punishment and unfair labour.

Prove to the authorities that I made you orally pleasure a rhinocerous.

Well, then there's something wrong with you, pure and simple.

No. I think there's something wrong with you.

The notion that freedom should be sold for luxury - especially when the sale goes against the will of the person whose freedom is being sold - is one of the most depraved ideas I have ever heard.

BS, BS, and BS. Hahahaha you got nailed!

Please. If I was a troll, then I would not be idiotic enough to use the British spelling of words. However, I am not a troll and I do use the British spelling of words because it comes more naturally to me. Do you have a problem with that?

Sure you can. I'm a slave. I can't decide anything for myself if my owner says I can't. How is that being treated fairly? If he chooses, he can dictate that I have to never see my wife or children again, or that I have been a bad slave, and shouldn't eat for the night.
Of course, you would have to acquiesce to whatever your masters told you to do, but they'd treat you quite well, as they would be mandated to by law.And we know people neeeever break laws, right?
You'd have to get 3 square meals a day, you'd get a roof over your head, you would only work for a maximum of 60 hours a week,as opposed to getting 3 meals a week, a roof over my head, and working only 40 hours a week, and gaining better pay if I choose to work more?
you'd be given various items to play with, etc. h goody. Toys. Okay, slavery is fine, as long as I get some fucking toys.:rolleyes: Otherwise, they would break the law and lose their investment. Or, they'd break the law and not get caught.
Also, while the physically and mentally disabled can, in theory survive, most live wretched existences of squalor and extreme poverty. Many cannot find adequate employment and are on the verge of starving. Make no mistake: this proposal would not only help society, but also the idiots.
Uh huh...There are group homes, employment programs, assisted living facilities, educational opportunities, hospitals...all established to help the people you would turn into property.

Prove to the authorities that I made you orally pleasure a rhinocerous.

BINGO! Particularly since the slave is, by definition, mentally defective, and the master is, presumably, a respected member of the community.

Prove to the authorities that I made you orally pleasure a rhinocerous.

I could simply refuse to do so, and you could not punish me for such an act. However, if I refused to do work properly, you could report me to the authorities and I would be forced to work. However, ridiculous orders need not be obeyed.

Sure you can. Of course, you would have to acquiesce to whatever your masters told you to do, but they'd treat you quite well, as they would be mandated to by law. You'd have to get 3 square meals a day, you'd get a roof over your head, you would only work for a maximum of 60 hours a week, you'd be given various items to play with, etc. Otherwise, they would break the law and lose their investment. Also, while the physically and mentally disabled can, in theory survive, most live wretched existences of squalor and extreme poverty. Many cannot find adequate employment and are on the verge of starving. Make no mistake: this proposal would not only help society, but also the idiots.

You dont seem to have an idea for how things escalate. It may start out this way but it will never remain like this. The institution of slavery is corrrupt in nature, however it develops will always result in corruption

I could simply refuse to do so, and you could not punish me for such an act. However, if I refused to do work properly, you could report me to the authorities and I would be forced to work. However, ridiculous orders need not be obeyed.

I could punish you. How would you report me to the authorities if you're my slave? I think you take for granted the good intentions of most of humanity.

Please. If I was a troll, then I would not be idiotic enough to use the British spelling of words. However, I am not a troll and I do use the British spelling of words because it comes more naturally to me. Do you have a problem with that? Hahahaha! Squirm! Reach and squirm! Hahahaha. You've been busted my mythological friend. Go back under the bridge where you belong.

The notion that freedom should be sold for luxury - especially when the sale goes against the will of the person whose freedom is being sold - is one of the most depraved ideas I have ever heard.

Stupid people should be treated like children (minors) -- they do not have adequate capabilities to fully comprehend the ramifications of the choices they make. Thus, others who are better equipped to make such choices should do so on the behalf of the idiotic. In this case, the state should make such decisions.

Stupid people should be treated like children (minors) -- they do not have adequate capabilities to fully comprehend the ramifications of the choices they make. Thus, others who are better equipped to make such choices should do so on the behalf of the idiotic. In this case, the state should make such decisions.

Ah, so you support child slavery, too.

Nice to know.

When's this 10 year old gonna leave?

If smart people became slave owners, they would probably do the smart thing and release them so we wouldn't have to worry about uprisings. Not to mention it's not nice to own people.

Hahahaha! Squirm! Reach and squirm! Hahahaha. You've been busted my mythological friend. Go back under the bridge where you belong.

Are you stupid? Really. What kind of logic is there behind your statements? I use British spelling for some words and I live in America, therefore I am a troll, QED? That's a non sequitur. Go read a book on logic before you speak again, please.

Stupid people should be treated like children (minors) -- they do not have adequate capabilities to fully comprehend the ramifications of the choices they make. Thus, others who are better equipped to make such choices should do so on the behalf of the idiotic. In this case, the state should make such decisions.

This coming from the same person who tried to argue that a 10 year old should have the same rights as adults. You just pulled a major contradiction.

As in, you just contradicted two entire threads. Major.

Yes.

I don't know about you, but I'd worry about having no financial independance and quite possibly no way of getting any.

I
Has anyone suggested that instead of enslaving the poor and indigent we eat them? Good source of protein, if processed properly. I suppose that would make them a non-renewable resource, though, especially if we went forward with MTAE's eugenics plan.Jonathan Swift beat you to it.

Ah, so you support child slavery, too.

Nice to know.

No. People should only be sold as slaves when the reach the age of adulthood. However, children currently have a legal status similar to that of slaves -- they are not considered fully equipped to make certain decisions regarding their future, such as whether they should go to school or not. They are forced to go to school by the state, put they are not paid to do this.

No. People should only be sold as slaves when the reach the age of adulthood. However, children currently have a legal status similar to that of slaves -- they are not considered fully equipped to make certain decisions regarding their future, such as whether they should go to school or not. They are forced to go to school by the state, put they are not paid to do this.

Indeed. And compulsory education (whether the compulsion is economic or statist) is one of the most disgusting abominations of modern society.

Edit: Though it certainly brings about far more benefits than enslaving people classified as "stupid" would.

Are you stupid? Really. What kind of logic is there behind your statements? I use British spelling for some words and I live in America, therefore I am a troll, QED? That's a non sequitur. Go read a book on logic before you speak again, please.
Heheheee, this is great. You are fumbling bigtime MTAE. Keep projecting, I'll prepare the cosy spot under the bridge for you.
P.S. Do you really regenerate?

I could punish you. How would you report me to the authorities if you're my slave? I think you take for granted the good intentions of most of humanity.

You would not be able to physically punish me -- such actions are illegal. Unless you keep me under watch for 24 hours a day, I could report your transgressions to the authorities. That's like asking how a kidnapped victim can report the kidnapper to the authorities and prove that he/she was kidnapped.

No. People should only be sold as slaves when the reach the age of adulthood. However, children currently have a legal status similar to that of slaves -- they are not considered fully equipped to make certain decisions regarding their future, such as whether they should go to school or not. They are forced to go to school by the state, put they are not paid to do this.

Sold by who? If you only become a slave upon reaching adulthood then whose slave are you? If someone is to buy you, then someone else must own you so that they can sell you. Who do the first slave masters pay to get their brand new slaves?

Heheheee, this is great. You are fumbling bigtime MTAE. Keep projecting, I'll prepare the cosy spot under the bridge for you.
P.S. Do you really regenerate?

I'm not even going to dignify this with a response. Your logic has more holes in it than a poor man's shirt. Are you suggesting that there are no immigrants to the US exist who learned British English in school? I'm willing to bet that there's over a million people like me.

bring it back,let him/her work :p

You would not be able to physically punish me -- such actions are illegal. Unless you keep me under watch for 24 hours a day, I could report your transgressions to the authorities. That's like asking how a kidnapped victim can report the kidnapper to the authorities and prove that he/she was kidnapped.

If you work as a slave in a household, you would be able to be kept under 24-hour surveillence, its called a closet, with a lock. By allowing people to own other people you are opening the door for the owners to abuse the owned.

So who makes the judgment on the qualifications of "stupid"?


he probably meens anyone with a different lifestyle or views from himself (like jocks or emos for example... just because they beat you up and don't talk like there off fraser, doesn't make them stupid)

either that or he meens actual retards (or mentally handicapped people, whatever you want to call them)

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

Cheaper 'n China.

Why does MTAE wish such a thing as slavery on himself? :confused:

You would not be able to physically punish me -- such actions are illegal. Unless you keep me under watch for 24 hours a day, I could report your transgressions to the authorities. That's like asking how a kidnapped victim can report the kidnapper to the authorities and prove that he/she was kidnapped.

Do you really think the authorities would take the word of a stupid slave over that of a respected member of the community? And if they didn't, your master would be POd at you for trying to snitch on him.

I'm not even going to dignify this with a response. Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Good job! ;)

Sold by who? If you only become a slave upon reaching adulthood then whose slave are you? If someone is to buy you, then someone else must own you so that they can sell you. Who do the first slave masters pay to get their brand new slaves?

You will come under the possession of the state upon reaching adulthood.

You would not be able to physically punish me -- such actions are illegal. Unless you keep me under watch for 24 hours a day, I could report your transgressions to the authorities. That's like asking how a kidnapped victim can report the kidnapper to the authorities and prove that he/she was kidnapped.

Except, if you're my slave, you are now a piece of my property and I can now legally do such a thing. And make absolutely no mistake whatsoever, that very thing WILL happen if your retarded little delusion were ever to become reality.

I'm not even going to dignify this with a response. Your logic has more holes in it than a poor man's shirt. Are you suggesting that there are no immigrants to the US exist who learned British English in school? I'm willing to bet that there's over a million people like me.
You are aware that a rich man's shirt also has holes, yes? More holes in fact.
Why does MTAE wish such a thing as slavery on himself? :confused:

I think he'd just rather slavery than death.

By allowing people to own other people you are opening the door for the owners to abuse the owned.

Fine. All slaves will be given a camera to wear on their person that records everything their master says. Thus, it will be impossible for a slave to be treated improperly without the owner being apprehended.

Except, if you're my slave, you are now a piece of my property and I can now legally do such a thing.

No, of course you would not be able to do such a thing. I'm not heartless, you know -- there would be slave protection laws, just like there are child protection laws.

You will come under the possession of the state upon reaching adulthood.

After failing some kind of IQ test, surely?

Fine. All slaves will be given a camera to wear on their person that records everything their master says. Thus, it will be impossible for a slave to be treated improperly without the owner being apprehended.

Master smashes camera. Slave loses.

Fine. All slaves will be given a camera to wear on their person that records everything their master says. Thus, it will be impossible for a slave to be treated improperly without the owner being apprehended.

Unless its set to explode when its removed/detroyed, that won't work. Plus its a logistical nightmare.

No, of course you would not be able to do such a thing. I'm not heartless, you know -- there would be slave protection laws, just like there are child protection laws.

You are heartless for even suggesting that we force all mentally retarded people into slavery. Sick, heartless, inhuman, whatever you want. But your pipe dream is just a concept and does not consider the reality of the situation. Implicit in recreating slavery is the fact that some people are mean, spiteful, and cruel. Like yourself. Those people, like yourself, will beat, abuse, rape, torture, and kill their slaves. It will be a fact.

Unless its set to explode when its removed, that won't work. Plus its a logistical nightmare.

Indeed. Would it be worth it to the state to have to manufacture cameras for the (presumably) millions of slaves?

Hay Guys I Like Babies, 0-1 Year Old. I Am Nevertheless A Completely Healthy And Socially Responsible Human Being.

First Of All, I Would Never Fuck A Baby Unless They Would Ask Me To. Of Course, It Is Well Known That Babies Are Sexual Beings, And Never Hesitate To Have Sexual Relations, As Exemplified By Their Love For Female Breasts. And As Babies Are Known To Be Shy, It Is Natural That I Initiate The Encounter, After Making Sure The Baby Understands What Is About To Happen. If The Baby Is Not Ok With This, It Is Free To Say "no, I Am Not Ok With This" And I Will Respectfully Stop.

The Government, However, Is Repressing Me, So I Ask You All To Join Me In A Fight Against Opression For Baby Fuckers Everywhere. Write To Your Congressman! Now that is an inventive way to shut the thread! Hahahaha

Indeed. Would it be worth it to the state to have to manufacture cameras for the (presumably) millions of slaves?

And keep them in film.

Now that is an inventive way to shut the thread! Hahahaha

What the everloving fuck?

After failing some kind of IQ test, surely?

Of course. However, the IQ test could be administered prior to the child reaching the age of 18.

What the everloving fuck?

hay guyz wuts going on in dis thred?

Master smashes camera. Slave loses.

No, because that action will be recorded and the master would be punished accordingly. There will be back-ups of the cameras on governmental servers.

Of course. However, the IQ test could be administered prior to the child reaching the age of 18.

What would that achieve? Who's to say that the child's IQ wouldn't go up, or down?

And you do know that IQ tests only test your ability to take IQ tests right? So it would really be those adept at taking IQ tests and not the intelligent that would rule your strange world.

Well, the only good thing I can think of about this thread is that MTAE will never be credible in an argument again.

Too bad it comes at the expense of the little remaining faith in humanity that I had left.

No, because that action will be recorded and the master would be punished accordingly. There will be back-ups of the cameras on governmental servers.

So, he smashes the camera and then proceeds to savagely beat his slave and anally rape him with a baseball bat. He gets what, a $1000 fine for smashing the camera? And then everything after that is unrecorded and cannot be proven, and the master gets away.

Indeed. Would it be worth it to the state to have to manufacture cameras for the (presumably) millions of slaves?

Sure. The costs would be great, but the pay-offs would be even greater. Such cheap labour does not come easy, and it will more than cover the cost of the cameras.

No, because that action will be recorded and the master would be punished accordingly. There will be back-ups of the cameras on governmental servers.

Ah, not only does the gov have to spend billions making the cameras, it has to spend many billions more recording everything those millions of cameras see. Just so 'smart' people can get slaves. Soooo not worth it.

No, because that action will be recorded and the master would be punished accordingly. There will be back-ups of the cameras on governmental servers.

You realize that after paying the taxes required for all your surveilance, we'd ALL be forced into slavery. :eek:

What the everloving fuck?
Yeah, I know, but you have to admit it is so wrong it is funny. I'm sorry, this too much for me. Firdsst MTAE then this. *Rofl*

No, because that action will be recorded and the master would be punished accordingly. There will be back-ups of the cameras on governmental servers.

the camera will be wired to a computer all day?

Plus, master sneaks up on slave, destroys camera. Master=1 Slave=-92364

You still haven't adressed the overwhelming logistical problems

Sure. The costs would be great, but the pay-offs would be even greater. Such cheap labour does not come easy, and it will more than cover the cost of the cameras.

You do know it would be so much easier to employ people to do menial labour jobs rather than force the people who would be most likely to take those jobs into a life of slavery.

So, he smashes the camera and then proceeds to savagely beat his slave and anally rape him with a baseball bat. He gets what, a $1000 fine for smashing the camera?

You are aware that I am in favour of harsh punishments to deter crime, right? Or did you not read my crime thread? In it, I stated that theives should get their hands chopped off -- a similar thing should happen to a master who intentionally smashes state property.

Ah, not only does the gov have to spend billions making the cameras, it has to spend many billions more recording everything those millions of cameras see. Just so 'smart' people can get slaves. Soooo not worth it.

Heh. If we are going to do something with stupid people, better to just shoot them so they wouldn't be a drain on society. Easier then dealing with the hassle of enslaving them.

Hay Guys I Like Babies, 0-1 Year Old. I Am Nevertheless A Completely Healthy And Socially Responsible Human Being.

First Of All, I Would Never Fuck A Baby Unless They Would Ask Me To. Of Course, It Is Well Known That Babies Are Sexual Beings, And Never Hesitate To Have Sexual Relations, As Exemplified By Their Love For Female Breasts. And As Babies Are Known To Be Shy, It Is Natural That I Initiate The Encounter, After Making Sure The Baby Understands What Is About To Happen. If The Baby Is Not Ok With This, It Is Free To Say "no, I Am Not Ok With This" And I Will Respectfully Stop.

The Government, However, Is Repressing Me, So I Ask You All To Join Me In A Fight Against Opression For Baby Fuckers Everywhere. Write To Your Congressman!

Please don't defile the memory of Cracky-Chan.

You make Baby Jesus cry. :(

You are aware that I am in favour of harsh punishments to deter crime, right? Or did you not read my crime thread? In it, I stated that theives should get their hands chopped off -- a similar thing should happen to a master who intentionally smashes state property.

Master smashes camera from off camera. Claims it was the slave. Slave gets pwned.

Stupid people should be treated like children (minors) -- they do not have adequate capabilities to fully comprehend the ramifications of the choices they make. Thus, others who are better equipped to make such choices should do so on the behalf of the idiotic. In this case, the state should make such decisions.

Stupid people should be treated like children (minors) -- they do not have adequate capabilities to fully comprehend the ramifications of the choices they make. Thus, others who are better equipped to make such choices should do so on the behalf of the idiotic. In this case, the state should make such decisions.

Standardized tests would not work. At my school, the highest-scoring school in the county, about half of sophomores failed the state's standardized reading tests, which they are required to pass in order to graduate. Should half of the population be enslaved?

I am above average in intelligence (132 IQ when I was tested at the age of 6, although that's insignificant), and pretty much always in the top 1% of test scores. I would not want to be a slave, nor would I ever want to own one. I consider slavery morally and ethically objectionable. I also find constant video surveillance, even in private homes, objectionable and disturbing.

Besides, I don't believe that any human being should ever be considered the property of another, no matter how "stupid" a test deems them.

You realize that after paying the taxes required for all your surveilance, we'd ALL be forced into slavery. :eek:

No, it would not be that costly. After all, how much does a camera cost, if purchased in bulk? Let's say $50 dollars. If we distribute these to 1,000,000 slaves, that would be a total price of $50 million dollars. The war in Iraq, by comparison, has cost over 100 times that amount.

<allcaps snip>

Get your own thread.

Get your own thread.

nothx

Yeah, I know, but you have to admit it is so wrong it is funny. I'm sorry, this too much for me. Firdsst MTAE then this. *Rofl*

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you created that puppet. You, for example, are the only one who has conversed with him. Please stop spamming and trolling.

You are aware that I am in favour of harsh punishments to deter crime, right? Or did you not read my crime thread? In it, I stated that theives should get their hands chopped off -- a similar thing should happen to a master who intentionally smashes state property.
yes,i read it,and the hand being the mind we should concentrate ourself,at not beeing a property right.

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you created that puppet. You, for example, are the only one who has conversed with him. Please stop spamming and trolling.

FU

I am Anonymous, not that ***.

Master smashes camera from off camera. Claims it was the slave. Slave gets pwned.

As if we have dependable technology for the camera to always work correctly anyway. Never mind the high price, the camera would break down often. I'm sure that there will always be techs on call to keep fixing it. :rolleyes:

It's pretty obvious to everyone here that you created that puppet. You, for example, are the only one who has conversed with him. Please stop spamming and trolling.

FU

I am Anonymous, not that ***.

Both of you, knock it off.

You are aware that I am in favour of harsh punishments to deter crime, right? Or did you not read my crime thread? In it, I stated that theives should get their hands chopped off -- a similar thing should happen to a master who intentionally smashes state property.

Just when I thought you couldn't dig yourself any deeper, you pull out a shovel.

Master smashes camera from off camera. Claims it was the slave. Slave gets pwned.

Cameras are not as easy to smash as you seem to think they are. If the owner had a sledge-hammer, it may be possible. Otherwise, it would be quite difficult. As slaves wouldn't be physically able to smash their own cameras, there would be no potential for abuse.

Both of you, knock it off.

UH OH

Ok, I thinkI can handle a post now that my stitch has eased. MTAE, your slavery idea would sink the economy. Not because of the logistical costs, the government could foot that bill. No the reason is that the economy runs on stupid people working and buying things. Under capitalism, a consumer is a hundred times more valuable than a slave. By enslaving all stupid people, you would dramatically reduce the size of the economy in terms of actual participants. The move itself would destabilised the wholething leading to a crash, or if gradually realised, your economy would have more human deadweights then all of the economically active consumers could handle. Capitalism would break and we would be forced back into come kind of primitive command economy based direcly of scarcity, not unlike the fuedalism when slavery was at it's peak.Why do you think slavery ended in the first place? The civil rights movement? Ha! More like it just wasn't cost effective anymore. A slave is a liability.

Both of you, knock it off.

What have I done? I simply attempted to get someone to stop trolling -- I'm sure it's fairly obvious to you that Pacific is behind this.

Cameras are not as easy to smash as you seem to think they are. If the owner had a sledge-hammer, it may be possible. Otherwise, it would be quite difficult. As slaves wouldn't be physically able to smash their own cameras, there would be no potential for abuse.

So the cameras have to be very difficult to break too?

Wow, this might actually push the cost into trillions.

I am indeed GPN. Shitheads.

So the cameras have to be very difficult to break too?

Wow, this might actually push the cost into trillions.

How the hell do you figure? Would a camera cost $10,000 dollars? Please, "snap back to reality."

What have I done? I simply attempted to get someone to stop trolling -- I'm sure it's fairly obvious to you that Pacific is behind this.

I've seen things like this before. Without evidence, don't jump to conclusions.

I am indeed GPN. Shitheads.

What? aw shit, this is so getting pinned on me...

I am indeed GPN. Shitheads.
ha!
Where is east?
Gna gna.
Amen
Hasta la vista
no smily

What? aw shit, this is so getting pinned on me...

Yeah. This is getting pinned on me.

I've seen things like this before. Without evidence, don't jump to conclusions.

Well, it doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together. Of course, it is possible that I am mistaken, but he was the one who claimed that I was a troll because I used to British spellings of words in this thread. Shortly after his accusations, a parody character of me was created. Perhaps the conclusion was too hastily drawn, but come on.

How the hell do you figure? Would a camera cost $10,000 dollars? Please, "snap back to reality."

You are talking about having the cameras all routed to some main control room to make sure the master doesn't smash the camera and beat the slave. You think that will be cheap?

How the hell do you figure? Would a camera cost $10,000 dollars? Please, "snap back to reality."

Uh, how many slaves are we talking here? If its all the stupid people in the US I would guess around 15-20 million at the least. 20 mil. times 100=2000000000$

Ok, I thinkI can handle a post now that my stitch has eased. MTAE, your slavery idea would sink the economy.

Have you ever taken a course on economics in your life? If slaves do not consume anything, that means that economically speaking, the US population is smaller than the actual US population by the number of slaves. This simply means that we have regressed to our population level 10 years ago, only that we have a greatly increased capacity to produce, and at a lower cost. This would help, not hurt, the economy.

Well, it doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together. Of course, it is possible that I am mistaken, but he was the one who claimed that I was a troll because I used to British spellings of words in this thread. Shortly after his accusations, a parody character of me was created. Perhaps the conclusion was too hastily drawn, but come on.

I figured that this Cracky person is someone from that forum he/she linked* to earlier, and knows GPN from that forum.


*Page includes pornographic images, already reported to moderation.

You are talking about having the cameras all routed to some main control room to make sure the master doesn't smash the camera and beat the slave. You think that will be cheap?

First of all, the cost could be included in the cost of the slave. Second of all, only a wireless connection is necessary, and the technology is quite advanced at this stage.

enslaving the dumb is a good idea...... us smart people wouldn't have to worry about the idiots ruling through the democratic system and the brilliant get cheap labour......

You are talking about having the cameras all routed to some main control room to make sure the master doesn't smash the camera and beat the slave. You think that will be cheap?
To have the medias in your side,even if they only look for you,
it is not cheap,it is goebles' dream

Uh, how many slaves are we talking here? If its all the stupid people in the US I would guess around 15-20 million at the least. 20 mil. times 100=2000000000$

That is quite a liberal estimate of the cost. Nonetheless, it would only be 1/50 of the cost of the war in Iraq -- still small beans.

Well, it doesn't take much to put 2 and 2 together. Of course, it is possible that I am mistaken, but he was the one who claimed that I was a troll because I used to British spellings of words in this thread. Shortly after his accusations, a parody character of me was created. Perhaps the conclusion was too hastily drawn, but come on.

Yeah, but that's not always the case. Best report to the mods and don't feed the trolls.

I figured that this Cracky person is someone from that forum he/she linked* to earlier, and knows GPN from that forum.


*Page includes pornographic images, already reported to moderation.

Looks like the mods have already deleted some of his posts.

Yeah, but that's not always the case. Best report to the mods and don't feed the trolls.

Very well. I apologize for my rash accusations, but my suspicions still remain.

Very well. I apologize for my rash accusations, but my suspicions still remain.

As do mine. If it was GPN, the mods will sort him out.

First of all, the cost could be included in the cost of the slave. Second of all, only a wireless connection is necessary, and the technology is quite advanced at this stage.

Wow, even the wealthy people would have trouble buying enough slaves to make it profitable for them. Especially if being a slave is going to make dumb peoples lives better, the owner will have to properly house, entertain and feed them. Being a slaveholder doesn't sound really that great if you lose money.

That is quite a liberal estimate of the cost. Nonetheless, it would only be 1/50 of the cost of the war in Iraq -- still small beans.

Not really, Still doesn't factor in batteries, film, replacements, mantainence, and a bunch of other sheit....

How the hell do you figure? Would a camera cost $10,000 dollars? Please, "snap back to reality."
A camera that has a wireless connection to the government server and is so well built that a slave would be physically incapable of breaking it? Sounds damn expensive to me.
Have you ever taken a course on economics in your life? If slaves do not consume anything, that means that economically speaking, the US population is smaller than the actual US population by the number of slaves. This simply means that we have regressed to our population level 10 years ago, only that we have a greatly increased capacity to produce, and at a lower cost. This would help, not hurt, the economy.
But the slaves do consume things. You said yourself that the slaves will have to be fed and given accomodations.

First of all, the cost could be included in the cost of the slave. Second of all, only a wireless connection is necessary, and the technology is quite advanced at this stage.

As I said, a wireless connection and a somewhat indestructable camera.

First of all, the cost could be included in the cost of the slave. Second of all, only a wireless connection is necessary, and the technology is quite advanced at this stage.

You think WIRELESS is cheep? for the sort of bandwidth you are poposing consumed you got to be fuckin kidding me.

Have you ever taken a course on economics in your life? If slaves do not consume anything, that means that economically speaking, the US population is smaller than the actual US population by the number of slaves. This simply means that we have regressed to our population level 10 years ago, only that we have a greatly increased capacity to produce, and at a lower cost. This would help, not hurt, the economy. yeah, I am studying economics right now, at uni. You I can see are not. To put it more simply for you, when there is an transaction in the capitalist system, both parties make a profit. The seller gets money, and the buyer gets goods. Both walk away with more than they had prior to the deal. It's a win win, if you will. In certain situations, this transaction can be used to create capital, which magically increases the net worth off the economy. If you cut all stupid people out of the economy, but still have them leeching from it, I anticipate it will reverse all growth into an extended recession which would stop at the point it reaches an economy sustainable by the economically active population minus the number of people who were slaves, minus the extened impact they heve by not participating. It'd be something like trying to run the US on the economy of Jamaica. Things would stop working reasonably quickly.

if it was on that basis of intellenct, you would prolly be a slave.

Wow, even the wealthy people would have trouble buying enough slaves to make it profitable for them.

No, they wouldn't have any trouble. It would be cheaper than paying their workers minimum wage, and would thus be more profitable. Do you think slaves are going to cost more than $360 dollars per week?

If you cut all stupid people out of the economy, but still have them leeching from it, I anticipate it will reverse all growth into an extended recession which would stop at the point it reaches an economy sustainable by the economically active population minus the number of people who were slaves, minus the extened impact they heve by not participating.

Not at all. The slaves would participate in the economy via an intermediary (their owners). While they themselves would not be able to purchase any items, that transaction would be conducted via their masters. Their beds and food would be provided by their masters, yet it would be provided for the sole benefit of the slaves. Thus, it would be equivalent to the slaves purchasing the items. Also, the slaves would not just be extra mouths to feed -- they would greatly contribute to the economy. Let me put it to you in another way: if the US bought slaves from abroad, would the economy crash? Of course not -- it would be an added influx of very cheap labour, which is good for the economy. Anybody can see that much.

No, they wouldn't have any trouble. It would be cheaper than paying their workers minimum wage, and would thus be more profitable. Do you think slaves are going to cost more than $360 dollars per week?
This is true, but you have to look beyond the marginal benefits and costs to the individuals and glance at the impact it has on the economy. That $360 a week is actually going back into society in the form of exchange for goods and services, and the apreciation of capital. It doesn't just go into a blackhole. Thats another forseeable problem, hundreds of businesses would close down, not having the consumer base to sustain them. Then you'd have smart people who passed the test, out on the street!

No, they wouldn't have any trouble. It would be cheaper than paying their workers minimum wage, and would thus be more profitable. Do you think slaves are going to cost more than $360 dollars per week?

Damn right it will. You are saying being slaves will make life better for the dumb. If they aren't any better off in their free time then it really isn't much better to be slaves then minimum wage workers. The master will have to pay the costs of the dumb persons "better" life.

Not to mention that the slaves are no longer spending money, so their minimum wage checks, however small, are no longer going back into the economy.

Not at all. The slaves would participate in the economy via an intermediary (their owners). While they themselves would not be able to purchase any items, that transaction would be conducted via their masters. Their beds and food would be provided by their masters, yet it would be provided for the sole benefit of the slaves. Thus, it would be equivalent to the slaves purchasing the items. Also, the slaves would not just be extra mouths to feed -- they would greatly contribute to the economy. Let me put it to you in another way: if the US bought slaves from abroad, would the economy crash? Of course not -- it would be an added influx of very cheap labour, which is good for the economy. Anybody can see that much.

ok this is partly true, but not entirely. Their basic needs would be covered by their owners, but they would no longer be contributing to the luxuries market, which is where all of the non-tangible capital is. Stupid people would no longer be buying drugs, going out on friday night, taking holidays to Bali, buy mobile phones, getting insurance, buying a car, buying petrol, renting an apartment, buying a plasma TV, buying music. All of this would be lost.Our economy runs on luxuries like this.

I can't believe this crap is still being discussed.

*snip*
Not to mention that the slaves are no longer spending money, so their minimum wage checks, however small, are no longer going back into the economy.
This is the key reason why this wouldn't work. We need stupid people to buy shit to keep this baby afloat. Without them, we have nothing. Plus, the majority of the market share lies in stupid people, who don't mind throwing their money away. Expensive phones, Nice TVs, fast cars. All of this is maintained by stupid people.

This is the key reason why this wouldn't work. We need stupid people to buy shit to keep this baby afloat. Without them, we have nothing. Plus, the majority of the market share lies in stupid people, who don't mind throwing their money away. Expensive phones, Nice TVs, fast cars. All of this is maintained by stupid people.

I believe you win the thread good sir.

Look, MTAE if you wanna enslave stupid people, there is a system which will work. They call it capitalism. The method is called a contract. Get some poor bastard on the right contract, and you own him and everything to his name unless he makes you money. This is best done in any business which deals in credit, preferably in large volumes. Just get involved in a wholesaler of some kind, and sell your goods on credit to small businesses. Prior to selling stipulate that they sign the 5 page trading agreement. Include in the trading agreement provisions for a caveat. I used to debt collect for a place which did this. If business is good, they'll make you rich, if they screw you, take everything they own. Simple. Plus, the economy benefits.

they would no longer be contributing to the luxuries market, which is where all of the non-tangible capital is. Stupid people would no longer be buying drugs, going out on friday night, taking holidays to Bali, buy mobile phones, getting insurance, buying a car, buying petrol, renting an apartment, buying a plasma TV, buying music. All of this would be lost.Our economy runs on luxuries like this.

Typically, stupid people would not be able to afford such extravanges like these. However, you are fully correct, up to a point. Our economy would be slightly hurt in terms of consumer spending -- 3% of the population would no longer be spending as much money. However, the effect is negligible. They would not have had much money to spend anyway, since they would most likely have been poor. Also, they are spending money in terms of basic necessities, such as food. Let's say that a poor person would spend 1% of what a rich person spends (the real number, I believe, is lower). That means that the economy only suffers by 0.03% -- hardly a lot. Also, this would be offset by the cheaper price of labour, which would lower the price of many basic products such as food, and would in turn raise consumer spending in other areas now that their basic wants are being satisfied. It is quite hard to accurately calculate what effects this would have on the economy, but it would most likely be positive, except after an initial regression due to the decrease in total consumers.

Look, MTAE if you wanna enslave stupid people, there is a system which will work, etc.

Yes, but the poor people are being hurt by this exploitative system which you describe. I want to guard the poor and stupid against those who seek to prey upon them for profit while keeping the free market in place, as it is extremely beneficial to a country's economy. Compassionate slavery allows for the best of both worlds.

Typically, stupid people would not be able to afford such extravanges like these. However, you are fully correct, up to a point. Our economy would be slightly hurt in terms of consumer spending -- 3% of the population would no longer be spending as much money. However, the effect is negligible. They would not have had much money to spend anyway, since they would most likely have been poor. Also, they are spending money in terms of basic necessities, such as food. Let's say that a poor person would spend 1% of what a rich person spends (the real number, I believe, is lower). That means that the economy only suffers by 0.03% -- hardly a lot. Also, this would be offset by the cheaper price of labour, which would lower the price of many basic products such as food, and would in turn raise consumer spending in other areas now that their basic wants are being satisfied. It is quite hard to accurately calculate what effects this would have on the economy, but it would most likely be positive, except after an initial regression due to the decrease in total consumers.
Are you actually saying there are no rich stupid people? Or that money is an indicator of intelligence?

Most people instinctively decry slavery as a morally abhorrent evil. Yet this is not necessarily so. True, slavery based on race is a gross blemish upon the state of humanity. However, I do not advocate such measures. I simply suggest that we enslave people based on their intelligence. My reason for this is two-fold.

First of all, the stupid are condemned by a hard life due to their lack of potential for acquiring well-paying jobs. They may have to resort to virtually scavenging for food and money. Some must beg for money. Many will be unemployed. These are obviously not desireable circumstances, and must be avoided, almost at any cost. An easy solution would be to sell them as slaves -- their masters would be required, by law, to treat them well. In some ways, they would be freer than they were before being sold. Prior to this, they would be prisoners of their own mental capacities -- jailed by their inability to reason rationally. Now, they would be slaves only to those who own them and not to their own minds. This can be construed as an improvement. Their freedom is currently more like slavery than if they were owned by another human being because they could not use their own minds to escape their predicament. If slavery was re-adopted, they would be treated well (or, at least, better than before). Their own minds could be a harsher master than a gentle owner; the former could relegate them to an incredibly hard job, eating beans, and sleeping on the floor of a small apartment. This would not be so if they were treated like slaves. What I'm trying to say is that even in their current "freedom," they are still slaves -- in fact, they are slaves who are subjected to worse conditions than those if they would be owned by another human. This measure would improve the quality of life for many idiots.

Second of all, it would be an excellent measure for spurring economic growth and controlling the population of the idiots. If they are under the control of the intelligent, then the capacity for mob rule is greatly decreased, and our elections will reflect this reality. Obviously, the economy would also benefit from an influx of cheap labour.

Slavery, no. But placing convicted criminals on spectacle in the form of a Roman gladiatorial combat, heck yes. Think not only of the viewer ratings, but instead of wasting millions on endless appeals, prison amenities, and politically correct ways to kill a person (honestly, if the person feels pain in the last minute of their life, it's even better than if it were quick. They're dead anyway), one could instead sell seats to the most gruesome, realistic and entertaining sport ever conceived. The revenue would pay for the expenses; hell, we might even make money. Plus, fake "reality" shows would be abandoned as the real deal took over, and restore civility to our society. Yes, such violence would indeed restore civility to our passified and pathetically sheltered culture--if only to serve as a contrast and highlight our own peaceful lives with the glory of gladiatorial combat. Bring back the Coloseum!

Are you actually saying there are no rich stupid people? Or that money is an indicator of intelligence?

There is a strong correlation between intelligence and wealth, yes. However, this does not necessarily apply to inherited wealth, which will most likely be mis-managed.

Slavery, no. But placing convicted criminals on spectacle in the form of a Roman gladiatorial combat, heck yes. Think not only of the viewer ratings, but instead of wasting millions on endless appeals, prison amenities, and politically correct ways to kill a person (honestly, if the person feels pain in the last minute of their life, it's even better than if it were quick. They're dead anyway), one could instead sell seats to the most gruesome, realistic and entertaining sport ever conceived. The revenue would pay for the expenses; hell, we might even make money. Plus, fake "reality" shows would be abandoned as the real deal took over, and restore civility to our society. Yes, such violence would indeed restore civility to our passified and pathetically sheltered culture--if only to serve as a contrast and highlight our own peaceful lives with the glory of gladiatorial combat. Bring back the Coloseum!

What about Crucifixion? How do we feel about that?

Compassionate slavery...

does not exist nor can it.

There is a strong correlation between intelligence and wealth, yes. However, this does not necessarily apply to inherited wealth, which will most likely be mis-managed.

Unless they can afford someone to manage their money. This is crap. This is crap, which I've shocked myself in thinking, is beneath even you.

Typically, stupid people would not be able to afford such extravanges like these. However, you are fully correct, up to a point. Our economy would be slightly hurt in terms of consumer spending -- 3% of the population would no longer be spending as much money. However, the effect is negligible. They would not have had much money to spend anyway, since they would most likely have been poor. Also, they are spending money in terms of basic necessities, such as food. Let's say that a poor person would spend 1% of what a rich person spends (the real number, I believe, is lower). That means that the economy only suffers by 0.03% -- hardly a lot. Also, this would be offset by the cheaper price of labour, which would lower the price of many basic products such as food, and would in turn raise consumer spending in other areas now that their basic wants are being satisfied. It is quite hard to accurately calculate what effects this would have on the economy, but it would most likely be positive, except after an initial regression due to the decrease in total consumers. You seem to have confused poor people with stupid people. You find stupid people sprinkled throughout all socioeconomic brackets. 3% is huge when it comes to economics, especially when you consider the economics of scale with a country like the USA. 3% of the USA is 9 million people. Also, something else you missed, all of the money in business is in poor people. Poor people pay more, buy more and are the easiest victims of their circumstances. Take a tour past the poor suburb in your city (if it is anything like Australia) and you will see Big TVs souped up cars, and branded clothing. All of it is bought on credit, but that doesn't matter. The most profitable resorts are budget resorts. When a business is making their marketing pitch they aim for middle-lower class consumers, you know, the majority. Foor stupid people the effect is magnified, because they are SO easy to sell shit to. TO easy, even. I feel guilty sometimes, they just take the shit.

Yes, but the poor people are being hurt by this exploitative system which you describe. I want to guard the poor and stupid against those who seek to prey upon them for profit while keeping the free market in place, as it is extremely beneficial to a country's economy. Compassionate slavery allows for the best of both worlds. No you would sink the economy and suddenly everyone would be poor.

Unless they can afford someone to manage their money. This is crap. This is crap, which I've shocked myself in thinking, is beneath even you.
Relax, he is just suffering from the socially inherited 'myth of the self made man'. This in turn leads to the concept of 'the virtuousity of weath' and then fianlly to 'blaming the poor'. In a nutshell, if any clever joe can save his money and make it big in the land off the free, then all people who have made it big, must be clever joes (furthermore, wealth is an indicator of virtuousity thanks to the work of the puritans which adopted this view early on in the take up of capitalism, supplanting the concept of piety with work as the quickest way to god. Work leadin to wealth it worked in tandem with the myth of the self-made man to venerate the wealthy). Then this lead to the thought that if rich people are virtuous and clever, poor people must be lacking in moral fiber and stupid. This then lead to the idea that the poor are entirely responsible for whatever misfortunes befell them simply for being poor in the first place.

Then, again, I feel that you are too stupid to fend for yourself, and should, for your best interests, become my slave. You and New Naliitr can share a room.
You are gathering up quite a collection of slaves. Are you trying to corner the market?

Perhaps there should be a limit to the number of idiots that one can own?

You are gathering up quite a collection of slaves. Are you trying to corner the market?

Perhaps there should be a limit to the number of idiots that one can own?

But then you'ld be discriminating against those smart enough to gather large collections.

Maybe allowance levels based on your determined IQ?

You are gathering up quite a collection of slaves. Are you trying to corner the market?

Perhaps there should be a limit to the number of idiots that one can own?

You mean I couldn't get millions of slaves to make me a pyramid?