Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
'Men are not mere commodities and assets to be purchases, traded, used, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital.'
.
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?'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?'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
Or do you agree with the statement?
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."
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?
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?Written by either a High School sophomore or a Socialist or both
Or do you agree with the statement?
I'm saying its a naive statement written by a Socialist with a zero sum mentality
So taxation is slavery, as it meets the above definition?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?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
What then of 'wage slavery'?
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?
So taxation is slavery, as it meets the above definition?That's called "taxes" and you're right
What then of 'wage slavery'?
What do you call it when the government has a 90% tax rate on income?
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),
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.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?
Depending on the (somewhat abstract) "ruling class" for survival is no longer slavery. A slave by definition has only one master.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?
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.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'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.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?
Depending on the (somewhat abstract) "ruling class" for survival is no longer slavery. A slave by definition has only one master.
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]If one is free to leave the system, yet the alternative to the system is starvation, is there really a difference?As to your other question, if you're "forced" (as in forbidden to quit),
Not evading at all; I honestly don't know.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?
In the absence of an explicit order, I suppose that the slave could obey only his or her 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?
Of course; slaves were sold all the time.Can not one's master change?
Not really: the banker does not wholly own the borrower.If one is free to leave the system, yet the alternative to the system is starvation, is there really a difference?As to your other question, if you're "forced" (as in forbidden to quit),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.
It appears to me that we're getting stuck in a semantics quagmire
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?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.