What are your thoughts on these statements?

[JBeukema]

'Men are not mere commodities and assets to be purchases, traded, used, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.'


No man should go hungry who is willing to work
​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

'Men are not mere commodities and assets to be purchases, traded, used, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.'
.
​

Written by either a High School sophomore or a Socialist or both

 

[Charles_Main]

sounds like something out of Marx's book to me.

 

[Palin Rider]

There was a time when men were commodities and assets to be purchased, traded, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.

That practice was called "slavery."

 

[JBeukema]

'Men are not mere commodities and assets to be purchases, traded, used, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.'
.
​

Written by either a High School sophomore or a Socialist or both

Are you saying you disagree with the statement and that men are commodities and assets to be used as any other in the pursuit of capital?

Or do you agree with the statement?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

'Men are not mere commodities and assets to be purchases, traded, used, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.'
.
​

Written by either a High School sophomore or a Socialist or both

Are you saying you disagree with the statement and that men are commodities and assets to be used as any other in the pursuit of capital?

Or do you agree with the statement?

I'm saying its a naive statement written by a Socialist with a zero sum mentality

 

[JBeukema]

There was a time when men were commodities and assets to be purchased, traded, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.

That practice was called "slavery."

Define 'slavery'.

Is it slavery to be forced to work for another's gain and have the majority of what you produce taken in order to be able to sustain your existence?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There was a time when men were commodities and assets to be purchased, traded, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.

That practice was called "slavery."

Define 'slavery'.

Is it slavery to be forced to work for another's gain and have the majority of what you produce taken in order to be able to sustain your existence?

That's called "taxes" and you're right

 

[JBeukema]

Written by either a High School sophomore or a Socialist or both

Are you saying you disagree with the statement and that men are commodities and assets to be used as any other in the pursuit of capital?

Or do you agree with the statement?

I'm saying its a naive statement written by a Socialist with a zero sum mentality

Clarify. Does not thew capitalist, who labours little or not at all not keep the majority of the wealth created by the labourer, using the labourer's dependence upon the capitalist (which is more immediate than the capitalist's dependence upon the labourers) to ensure the man has little choice but to labour for the capitalist?

Does the ability to choose one's master change the fundamental nature of the arrangement?

 

[JBeukema]

There was a time when men were commodities and assets to be purchased, traded, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.

That practice was called "slavery."

Define 'slavery'.

Is it slavery to be forced to work for another's gain and have the majority of what you produce taken in order to be able to sustain your existence?

That's called "taxes" and you're right

So taxation is slavery, as it meets the above definition?

What then of 'wage slavery'?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Define 'slavery'.

Is it slavery to be forced to work for another's gain and have the majority of what you produce taken in order to be able to sustain your existence?

That's called "taxes" and you're right

So taxation is slavery, as it meets the above definition?

What then of 'wage slavery'?

What do you call it when the government has a 90% tax rate on income?

 

[Palin Rider]

There was a time when men were commodities and assets to be purchased, traded, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.

That practice was called "slavery."

Define 'slavery'.

Is it slavery to be forced to work for another's gain and have the majority of what you produce taken in order to be able to sustain your existence?

Last time I checked, slavery meant being forced to work for another's gain in exchange for sustenance but no other compensation.

As to your other question, if you're "forced" (as in forbidden to quit), I'd be willing to say that the scenario you describe qualifies as slavery.

 

[JBeukema]

That's called "taxes" and you're right

So taxation is slavery, as it meets the above definition?

What then of 'wage slavery'?

What do you call it when the government has a 90% tax rate on income?

You're avoiding the question. You already implied that the above constitutes slavery. Surely you realize it is a paraphrase of the definition used by those who assert that the common man is in a state of 'wage slavery'.

You seem to apply the definition when it suits you, yet you seem hesitant to apply it equally when it does not suit you.

 

[JBeukema]

There was a time when men were commodities and assets to be purchased, traded, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.

That practice was called "slavery."

Define 'slavery'.

Is it slavery to be forced to work for another's gain and have the majority of what you produce taken in order to be able to sustain your existence?

Last time I checked, slavery meant being forced to work for another's gain in exchange for sustenance but no other compensation.

So if a slave was allowed even the slightest bit of cash to spend according to his own discretion, he is not a slave?

A slave who was a gladiator, for instance, if his owner allowed him some of the awards from the matches he won to spend on whores or to send to his family, ceased to be a slave, despite the fact that he was not free? What, then, did he become?

Also, what is the fundamental difference between being given sustenance directly and being given the means of acquiring sustenance, if what one is given still leaves one dependent upon the ruler or ruling class for one's survival?

As to your other question, if you're "forced" (as in forbidden to quit),

If one is free to leave the system, yet the alternative to the system is starvation, is there really a difference?

 

[Palin Rider]

Define 'slavery'.

Is it slavery to be forced to work for another's gain and have the majority of what you produce taken in order to be able to sustain your existence?

Last time I checked, slavery meant being forced to work for another's gain in exchange for sustenance but no other compensation.

So if a slave was allowed even the slightest bit of cash to spend according to his own discretion, he is not a slave?

A slave who was a gladiator, for instance, if his owner allowed him some of the awards from the matches he won to spend on whores or to send to his family, ceased to be a slave, despite the fact that he was not free? What, then, did he become?

That's a question I can't definitively answer, as I'm not an expert on ancient Roman law. However, I'm sure that there's a PhD somewhere in the world who could tell you.

Also, what is the fundamental difference between being given sustenance directly and being given the means of acquiring sustenance, if what one is given still leaves one dependent upon the ruler or ruling class for one's survival?

Depending on the (somewhat abstract) "ruling class" for survival is no longer slavery. A slave by definition has only one master.

As to your other question, if you're "forced" (as in forbidden to quit),

If one is free to leave the system, yet the alternative to the system is starvation, is there really a difference?

That question assumes that employment is the only alternative to starvation. In modern society, it need not come down to those two options in most situations. A great many people can pursue entrepreneurship, for instance.

 

[JBeukema]

Last time I checked, slavery meant being forced to work for another's gain in exchange for sustenance but no other compensation.

So if a slave was allowed even the slightest bit of cash to spend according to his own discretion, he is not a slave?

A slave who was a gladiator, for instance, if his owner allowed him some of the awards from the matches he won to spend on whores or to send to his family, ceased to be a slave, despite the fact that he was not free? What, then, did he become?

That's a question I can't definitively answer, as I'm not an expert on ancient Roman law. However, I'm sure that there's a PhD somewhere in the world who could tell you.

Why evade? Is he still a slave? Or is a man only a slave if the law uses the word 'slave' to refer to him? If all the states had been rephrased to say 'chattel person', would that have constituted an abolishing of slavery?

Depending on the (somewhat abstract) "ruling class" for survival is no longer slavery. A slave by definition has only one master.

Really? So a slave did not have to obey every member of the family and could never be told to obey another as they were to obey their owner?

Can not one's master change?

As to your other question, if you're "forced" (as in forbidden to quit),

If one is free to leave the system, yet the alternative to the system is starvation, is there really a difference?

That question assumes that employment is the only alternative to starvation. In modern society, it need not come down to those two options in most situations. A great many people can pursue entrepreneurship, for instance.[/quote][/quote]

Only if they possess capital. If they do not possess capital, they can take as masters the bankers and take a loan.

 

[Palin Rider]

Why evade? Is he still a slave? Or is a man only a slave if the law uses the word 'slave' to refer to him? If all the states had been rephrased to say 'chattel person', would that have constituted an abolishing of slavery?

Not evading at all; I honestly don't know.

It appears to me that we're getting stuck in a semantics quagmire, so if I may, I'd like to suggest a definition for slave and establish whether we can agree on it.

slave (n): a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another person.

If you disagree, please propose an alternate definition and we'll see if we can find one that's mutually acceptable.

Really? So a slave did not have to obey every member of the family and could never be told to obey another as they were to obey their owner?

In the absence of an explicit order, I suppose that the slave could obey only his or her master.

Can not one's master change?

Of course; slaves were sold all the time.

As to your other question, if you're "forced" (as in forbidden to quit),

If one is free to leave the system, yet the alternative to the system is starvation, is there really a difference?

That question assumes that employment is the only alternative to starvation. In modern society, it need not come down to those two options in most situations. A great many people can pursue entrepreneurship, for instance.

Only if they possess capital. If they do not possess capital, they can take as masters the bankers and take a loan.

Not really: the banker does not wholly own the borrower.

 

[JBeukema]

It appears to me that we're getting stuck in a semantics quagmire

Now you're catching on...

Ever wonder why people insist on particular lexicon and why you can generally identify a person's beliefs by the terminology they use?

Like a Gestapo agent picking up a communist because she says 'concrete' a bit too often

so if I may, I'd like to suggest a definition for slave and establish whether we can agree on it.

slave (n): a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another person.

Now that raises the question of how one can be wholly subject to another person? What, for instance, if they are subject to God? Can they then be wholly subject to a man?

Also, we must define 'property' and the recognition thereof. If a man does not consider himself property yet another man considers the first man his property, is the first man property? Does it depend on whom a third or a fourth man agrees? Upon who has the greater number of supporters? On who happens to control the machinations of the State in which they reside? What if two or more parties claim to be the proper government of that State? Does it depend upon who has more international recognition?

 

[Palin Rider]

I don't mind answering any of this, but before I do...

...is there a particular point you're building up to, or are you just trying to deconstruct everything you can identify for the fun of it?

 

[JBeukema]

I just asked your thoughts on the original statements. I didn't expect you to bring the thread into the definition and recognition of property and all that.

I was expecting something more along the lines of a libertarian capitalist perspective of the Man in relation to his labour, property, his employer, and the market- but you're taking this... somewhere, I'm not sure where.

Of course, the second original statement has yet to be addressed at all.