When will slavery be financially viable again?

[Ed]

We, currently, breast beat and bemoan slavery. From an historical perspective this is trendy and quaint. The question is, as technologies evolve and the edge between those that are educated (and, presumably, affluent) grows sharper with respect to the others, when will niches develop that make slavery, once again, despite the current hiatus, a viable institution. I suspect that it would not be race based as in our recent history, but economically based, perhaps even religiously based.

[Shane Costello]

In the future android technology may be perfected, making enslavement of humans completely moot, perhaps?

[shanek]

Slavery is not a function of the free market. It's a big government program. It will only come around again when the tyranny grows enough to allow it.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by shanek
Slavery is not a function of the free market. It's a big government program. It will only come around again when the tyranny grows enough to allow it.

This is self-parody, right?

[Tricky]

One cannot beat the immortal Ambrose Bierce (http://www.online-literature.com/view.php/devilsdictionary/5?term=rivets)
EMANCIPATION, n. A bondman's change from the tyranny of another to the despotism of himself.

He was a slave: at word he went and came;
His iron collar cut him to the bone.
Then Liberty erased his owner's name,
Tightened the rivets and inscribed his own.

[Gem]

Mind enslavement, if ever possible, would replce current slavery system. It will be "profitable" and "marketable" in an economic way, since making intelligent people make things they would otherwise not do or would want to be highly paid is more "profitable."

But I wouldn't worry about it today.

Gem

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


This is self-parody, right?

why would it be a self parody when traditionally western slavery was government subsidized and only abolished when the inalienable rights of all people were recognized?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


why would it be a self parody when traditionally western slavery was government subsidized and only abolished when the inalienable rights of all people were recognized?

LOL, how was it government subsadized?

I suppose that the "big governemnt" of the early Americans forced people to be slave owners :rolleyes:

I suppose that throught history every instance of slavery, whcih occured in a very large number of civilizations, and also every "great" civilization was forced on people "by government". LOL, get a grip.

[Grammatron]

Not forced, but every country that had slaves or a form of slavery happend because the government allowed it to happen or made laws in such a way that slavery could exist.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
This is self-parody, right?

Only partly...Like all good parodies, there's a nugget of truth there. You can only have slavery when the government enforces it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
Mind enslavement, if ever possible, would replce current slavery system. It will be "profitable" and "marketable" in an economic way, since making intelligent people make things they would otherwise not do or would want to be highly paid is more "profitable."

How on Earth is it profitable to make people do what they don't want to do?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
LOL, how was it government subsadized?

Read the initial Constitution for your answer.

I suppose that the "big governemnt" of the early Americans forced people to be slave owners

Big government allowed them to be slaveowners and took away every means they had of freeing themselves.

I suppose that throught history every instance of slavery, whcih occured in a very large number of civilizations, and also every "great" civilization was forced on people "by government". LOL, get a grip.

Okay: Name one time it was the result of a free market.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by shanek
How on Earth is it profitable to make people do what they don't want to do?

Free labor? That has always been a huge motivator of evil men in history.

JK

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Malachi151


LOL, how was it government subsadized?

I suppose that the "big governemnt" of the early Americans forced people to be slave owners :rolleyes:

I suppose that throught history every instance of slavery, whcih occured in a very large number of civilizations, and also every "great" civilization was forced on people "by government". LOL, get a grip.

government subsidized by the fact that the British Crown and then later on the American government often taxed slavery, percentage wise, less than it did many other cross ocean trade products, thus giving merchants an incentive to deal in slaves, as opposed to say, coffee, since profit margins were higher. iirc, the Roman Government also gave monetary incentives to slave holders, but i can't remember the details right now.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Free labor? That has always been a huge motivator of evil men in history.

JK

are you trying to say that only evil men owned slaves? if you are, all i can say is that it is an irrational statement. also, slavery hardly provides free labor. one must first buy the slave, and then must pay for housing and upkeep for as long as that slave is owned. that is hardly free.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


are you trying to say that only evil men owned slaves? if you are, all i can say is that it is an irrational statement. also, slavery hardly provides free labor. one must first buy the slave, and then must pay for housing and upkeep for as long as that slave is owned. that is hardly free.

Housing and upkeep for slaves is cheap compared to what they produce in man-hours.

Slavery is evil. I can say that because I live in a time when the political sophistication of thinkers like me has reached such awesome potential that taking the collective lessons of history allows men like me to accurately judge perversions such as slavery. There is nothing irrational about it.

Wherever there is slavery there should be helicopter gunships freeing the slaves and starving German Shepard attack dogs finishing the job on slave-holders.

JK

[Grammatron]

It may be considered evil now, but it wasn't always evil. There was a time when almost everyone had slaves or you were a slave.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Housing and upkeep for slaves is cheap compared to what they produce in man-hours.

Slavery is evil. I can say that because I live in a time when the political sophistication of thinkers like me has reached such awesome potential that taking the collective lessons of history allows men like me to accurately judge perversions such as slavery. There is nothing irrational about it.


JK

housing and upkeep was actually quite expensive. if you ever actually study the economy of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century, you will find that enonomical non viability of slavery was a major player in its downfall. saying that you have great sophistication is laughable. if your posts are your actual beliefs, then sophistication is the opposite of who you are. the thought that all people who ever owned slaves are evil is irrational, because there was a time when slave ownership was a societal norm and considered moral. would you consider Thomas Jefferson evil because he owned slaves?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Not forced, but every country that had slaves or a form of slavery happend because the government allowed it to happen or made laws in such a way that slavery could exist.

Well, exactly. Everything that isn't outlawed is able to be done. I dont' see how allowing people to do something is the same thing as "causing" them to do it.

The people did it of their own free will, they choose to aquire and use slaves. People throughout history have done it with and without the conesnt of government. In fact we still have issues with human slavery today on the black market, which is done illigally, how is it that governments are "causing" or supporting this slavery when it is in fact illigal?

Any argument that it is the "governments fault" completely ignores that all of those that participated did so over their own free will. Let us assume that there was no clause in the constitution one way or the other about slavery. Do you claim then that no one would have engaged in slavery? My claim is that unless A GOVERNMENT explicitly makes a law saying that it is illegal and then enforces that law then slavery can and will exist, which is to say that government is required to prevent slavery.

We or course know this of even of tribes who had no formal government, but still had slavery.

Big government allowed them to be slave owners and took away every means they had of freeing themselves.

LOL, so now you call even the initial "bare bones" government of the US "big". As I stated, without the government explicitly preventing slavery then everyone is subject to its possibility. The only thing that makes slavery work is might, might makes right. People in power using those that are not in power, just like animals.

What exactly is the difference between using a human to do labor or using a horse or ox? It is all just power and ability. If a person has the ability to control another living thing for his own benefit, be it a fellow human or another animal, and that person has the desire to do so, then they will.

Okay: Name one time it was the result of a free market.

The free market, you go and on about it, but of course the very definition of "free market" is even up for debate. What exactly is a" free market"? It is a market that is not controlled by any outside means. Well, WTF does that mean? Some economists, and I agree with them, state that a free market cannot exist in a capitalist system, because capital itself is a controlling force on the market, and this is correct. The truth is that a there is no such thing as a free market, it is a theoretical concept that is not and cannot be real.

By free-market I assume that you mean a market with no legal controls effecting it, in which case that means that all actions would be legal, including slavery. A free-market is just a market where the price of goods determined only by the supply and demand of goods. In reality discussing slavery and free markets is meaningless, even if free markets did exist, which they do not and cannot.

Slavery in a free-market just means a market for salves where the cost of slaves is determined by the supply of slaves compared to the demand for them. I would say that this generally applies to slavery in the Americas when slaves were indeed bought and sold, as in some cases they were simply acquired outright by capture and never bought or sold.

Now, let's go more into "free-markets".

I'll look at a definition:

http://economics.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-free-market-economy.htm

A free market economy is an economy in which the allocation for resources is determined only by their supply and the demand for them. This is mainly a theoretical concept as every country, even capitalist ones, places some restrictions on the ownership and exchange of commodities.

This is a little misleading because in fact capitalism itself is by definition a force on the market that creates restrictions. Capitalism is a system where individuals use capital to control resources, so capital itself then becomes a controlling factor on the market, thus immediately eliminating the free market.

In truth a free market can only exist where there is ZERO accumulation of capital, which is to say a non-capitalist system where no one can acquire wealth. The existence of wealth is by its very nature a disruption to the free market. This is why a free market is only a theoretical concept that cannot ever actually exist.

A market without "government" pressures on the market is still a market with private pressures other than supply and demand of goods on the market.

There are other reason why a free market cannot exist as well, and that is because human being are not rational. A free market can only exist when the price of goods is determines only by their supply and demand, yet we know that many things go into percieved value other then supply and demand, such as labor value, that is the cost of the labor to produce the goods, which again can be affected by many things other then the supply and demand of labor, perception of supply and perception of demand, which may or may not be accurate (hurry now while supplies last!), the size of the market, the ability to afford the goods, i.e. food may be in higher demand by a mass of starving poor then it is by a few wealthy businessmen, but put the same food in the two markets and you will get differnet prices. Put a candy bar in a store in Beverly Hills and you can charge $2.00 for it, even though the demand may not be great, put it in Etheopia in the middle of 1,000 starving people and you may still only be able to get $0.50 for it. Gasoline is an obvious example here too as it costs more in wealthy areas and less in poor areas, but the demand is surely the same, the price is determined by abiliy to pay.

You see, all of these things break the theoretical "free market".

There is no free market, never has been, never will be.

You may also want to read:

http://www.cesc.net/cescweb/freemoney.html

http://www.cesc.net/cescweb/marketeconomy.html

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


housing and upkeep was actually quite expensive. if you ever actually study the economy of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century, you will find that enonomical non viability of slavery was a major player in its downfall. saying that you have great sophistication is laughable. if your posts are your actual beliefs, then sophistication is the opposite of who you are. the thought that all people who ever owned slaves are evil is irrational, because there was a time when slave ownership was a societal norm and considered moral. would you consider Thomas Jefferson evil because he owned slaves?

It was certianly not a norm in America, it was rare, and deplored by many even when it was legal. Many people opposed slavery in America from the very first days of it. These people were however, not wealthy enough to make an impact, because as always money ruled the world and the slavers were rich, because of course, of the use of slavery.

Now, I also ask you, if slavery were not economically benefical, then why were people essentially fighting to preserve it? That's just a fools lie. It may have been on its way out economcially, but if so only because wage labor was being poorly regulated in the price of paid labor was depressed because people were allowed to work 9 and 10 year olds 12 hours a day. Any economic advantage of paid labor would have been quickly changed when the price of paid labor rose due to regulations reducing exploitation of paid laborers.

It would certianly be cheaper now to use slaves then it is to use paid American labor, which is why in fact so many goods sold in America are made in China, where many workers there are essentially in slavery. We STILL use slave labor today, China is our huge slave labor camp.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


housing and upkeep was actually quite expensive. if you ever actually study the economy of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century, you will find that enonomical non viability of slavery was a major player in its downfall. saying that you have great sophistication is laughable. if your posts are your actual beliefs, then sophistication is the opposite of who you are. the thought that all people who ever owned slaves are evil is irrational, because there was a time when slave ownership was a societal norm and considered moral. would you consider Thomas Jefferson evil because he owned slaves?

You need to get a clue about American history. The slave holders in the south derived all their wealth from the institution of slavery. It was cheap to house and feed slaves and the labor produced by slaves made many southern land owners fabulously wealthy.

Southern wealth began to decline when northern bankers became the forced middle-men of the cotton and tobacco industries. These bankers, allied with northern textile plants, ports and railway systems which the south never invested in historically, was the beginning of the end of the institution of slavery.

The American Civil War was a total war on the fiscal south at the institutional level. The American Civil War attacked slavery directly since southern wealth was directly attached to slavery and the land.

The south did not have the infrastructure necessary to fight a protracted war against the north and they predictably lost. All the wealth of the southern landowners evaporated overnight when slavery was finally eliminated from the United States.

Slavery = free labor. In history, slavery has existed on every continent. Slavery is still prevalent in the Sudan, Egypt and other countries. It is all about free labor and the cost to 'upkeep' slaves is pennies compared to the profits made through slave labor.

JK

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You need to get a clue about American history. The slave holders in the south derived all their wealth from the institution of slavery. It was cheap to house and feed slaves and the labor produced by slaves made many southern land owners fabulously wealthy.

Southern wealth began to decline when northern bankers became the forced middle-men of the cotton and tobacco industries. These bankers, allied with northern textile plants, ports and railway systems which the south never invested in historically, was the beginning of the end of the institution of slavery.

The American Civil War was a total war on the fiscal south at the institutional level. The American Civil War attacked slavery directly since southern wealth was directly attached to slavery and the land.

The south did not have the infrastructure necessary to fight a protracted war against the north and they predictably lost. All the wealth of the southern landowners evaporated overnight when slavery was finally eliminated from the United States.

Slavery = free labor. In history, slavery has existed on every continent. Slavery is still prevalent in the Sudan, Egypt and other countries. It is all about free labor and the cost to 'upkeep' slaves is pennies compared to the profits made through slave labor.

JK

Holly smokes! When JK stops talking about the communist matriarchial consipracy to destroy America he makes sense!

Good post JK :D

[Malachi151]

BTW, to anwser the origional question, slavery will only become a large issue again for the "civalized world" if and when our infrastructure collapses. Machines and computers are chaper to sue then slaves, so the push will also be for mechanization, not slavery. Mehcanization is what makes high society without slavery possible. Machines essentially take the place of slaves. If the machines go, then slavery will come back.

However, you can argue that slavery is an issue for the west today, because forced labor and virtual slavery in sweat shops around the world is what makes products for western markets as we speak. So we are still using and supporting virtually slave like conditions as a society.

[Blue Monk]

If one wants proof of the viability of slave labor, one does not have to turn to the 19th century but merely study the movement led by Ceasar Chevez on behalf of migrant workers in the 60s.

These workers were kept in conditions so closely akin to legal bondage that I find it difficult to understand how anyone could feel that slavery could not be profitable in modern times.

They were kept in sub-standard housing far from any urban areas and not provided adequate health care or educational opportunities. They were paid sub-standard wages while at the same time forced to buy all of their essentials from the growers themselves, keeping them forever in debt to their employer with no hope of breaking the cycle, not unlike the situation in many mining communities in Appalachia that also continued well into the mid-20th century.

Ultimately the out of pocket cost for the grower was no different than if he had owned them outright

The entire situation was fueled by one motivation alone, lower labor cost equals lower prices and higher profits. Always has and always will.

Slave labor will always be cheaper than paid labor.

The only thing that broke the back of this system was a well-organized boycott on the growers. Simple economics. Public outrage and boycotts eventually made this practice more expensive.

Never underestimate the power of the Almighty Dollar.

Now the practice continues with large companies turning to third world labor where they can get away with paying wages that can only barely sustain life yet still maintain a captive work force with no where else to turn.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by shanek
You can only have slavery when the government enforces it.
You can only have any kind of private property when the government enforces it.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Grammatron
It may be considered evil now, but it wasn't always evil. There was a time when almost everyone had slaves or you were a slave.

As I said, our current "universal" aversion is quaint.

[ahirst]

Can conscription be considered a form of slavery ?

[Malachi151]

As I said, our current "universal" aversion is quaint.

Not really. There have always been people opposed to slavery, even back to the Greek and Roman days, and obviously even back to the days of Egypt, because afterall the Biblical story of the Jews is one of emancipation from slavery!

To say that slavery was not wrong before because many people were able to get away with it is the stupidest thing I ever heard, yet I know that many people say it, mostly as a way of legitamizing our own past.

Slavery was never right, it was never acceptable, it was just that teh majority of the people did not have the power to prevent the powerful minorities from having their way.

This IS what the history of humanity IS all about, the on going struggle for equality of power among individuals, it is a struggle that has gone on since the dawn of civilization.

Was Jefferson "evil" for having slaves? No, he was a hypocrite that was able to justify doing to something to himself that he knew was wrong becuase he derived wealth from it.

The man who wrote teh Declaration of Independance, and who later worked to make the slave trade illigal in Virginia knew good and well that it was wrong to hold people against their will as animals, to use them as forced labor. However he was not concerned with the plight of blacks, he was more concerned with the advancement of his own culture and slavery was a tool that was useful in advancing the interests of Anglo culture, as well as his own wealth, so he accepted it.

The Bahamas formed its own constituion well before the US did, back in the 1500s I believe, and they explicitly outlawed slavery, and the Bahamian settlers in fact worked against the slave trade and freed andy blacks that ended up in the Bahamas, sometimes when slave ships wrecked there they would help save the slaves and not the captians of the ships, and they were often hostile to the slave traders.

All of these people were British Puritans, who specifially went to the Bahamas because they didn't like slavery in the Americas.

There was opposition to slavery in America even before 1776, there was opposition to it from the very beginning.

I do agree with Marx, all of history is class struggle and can be seen as the fight of the less privilaged majority to gain equality with the minority wealthy elite. I do agree with the Communist Revolutionaries that modern democracy is "bourgouise democracy", that is democracy of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy. I do agree that we do not have "true democracy" and agree with the goal of striving for true democracy where money does not influence politics.

Our current president is the prefect example of the pathetic state of western democracy. A third generation multi-millionair who has had his entire way though life bought and paid for by his family, who is engaging in politics to support his wealthy cronies and the status quo that supports the wealthy elite, who cannot and does not understand the plight of the average American, nor I doubt would care even if he could, who gained his position because he raised the most money for his campaign, had the most ties to wealthy Americans, and who obtained power in a corrupt and fraudulent election scandal, which was made possible because of his wealthy connections.

This is a country of, by, and for the wealthy, just as it was when it was first formed, which was why slavery was legal then.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You need to get a clue about American history. The slave holders in the south derived all their wealth from the institution of slavery. It was cheap to house and feed slaves and the labor produced by slaves made many southern land owners fabulously wealthy.

if you read what i said, i was not talking just about the American Civil war and the economic situation there in. during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, slavery was not necessarily a recipe for success among plantation owners in America. while it is true that great wealth was built up with the use of slavery among a certain section of the population in the mid 19th century, they were not neccessarily able to amass this wealth only through the use of slaves. as in any other industry, the planation industry was subject to standard industrial phenomena. while slave labor did indeed give a certain labor acumen to those that were succesful, it was not necessarily the slavery itself that gave that success.

throughout the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, there were many plantation owners who, because of slavery, were not succesful. during times of draught and crop failure, which was quite common before the era of modern agriculture, slavery was not a benefit. when a profit is not being brought in, one still must pay for the upkeep of the slaves. while it is true that a plantation owner could sell their slaves to make a living during a particular season of hardship, this was not commonly done as it would be very difficult to rebuild the work force the next year since the profits from those slaves would be going towards the continued existance of the plantation. those that went on to have success owed that success not necessarily to the slaves, but to their own business acumen and luck when it comes to weather and soil conditions. while it is true that slavery would allow a somewhat higher profit margin, this only mattered to those that were able to make enough money to make a net profit every year. the average plantation owner did not make a significant profit over their expenses, so the increased profit margin with slavery did not make a real difference. if anything, slavery only allowed those lucky enough to make real profits, which were rare, or to be independantly wealthy outside of agriculture even more wealthy than they only would be. the very rich plantation owner in the 1850's in the South was the exception, not the rule.

Originally Posted by Blue Monk

If one wants proof of the viability of slave labor, one does not have to turn to the 19th century but merely study the movement led by Ceasar Chevez on behalf of migrant workers in the 60s.

outside of America proper, in tropical and sub tropical areas, slavery has a different prospect. since crop failures are much less common due to large amounts of rainfall and generally good conditions, slavery could indeed increase profits even for those that were of the lower wealth brackets among planation owners. due to these environmental conditions, and also due to the great difference in agricultural technique between the 1760's and 1960's, it is most likely not fair to compare the abilities of a slave economy in latin and south america in the 20th century to those of the colonial and early republic era in America.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by ahirst
Can conscription be considered a form of slavery ?

it depends. if it is forced conscription and the soldiers are not paid, then it could be considered a form of slavery. however, if you are talking about consciption such as that done by the US Military when it implements the draft, i would not consider it slavery.

[Ziggurat]

Slavery did not exist because government permitted it. Laws helped institutionalize slavery, but did not create it. Slavery can exist anywhere that government does not forbid it. In practice, it does exist today in places where it is illegal but enforcement is lacking. Even in first world countries, what amounts to slavery still happens in small numbers, in places such as the sex industry which force immigrants into prostitution.

Slavery on the massive scale of the 1700's and 1800's is unlikely to ever make a comeback, even if permitted, for economic reasons. But small-scale slavery, such as in the sex industry, will pop up anywhere it's permitted, either by law or by lack of enforcement. There are always some terrible people who are willing to do horrible things to other people, with or without government sanction, and government intervention is necessary to prevent this.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Free labor? That has always been a huge motivator of evil men in history.

I said what they don't want to do. If they're motivated to do something, then by definition they want to do it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Everything that isn't outlawed is able to be done.

Which is why we need laws preventing the initiation of force or fraud.

I dont' see how allowing people to do something is the same thing as "causing" them to do it.

Because it wasn't just a case of the government allowing it! They subsidized and enforced it! If you were a slave, and you escaped, the government would arrest you and take you back to the slaveowner! Even if you had managed to escape into another state!

The people did it of their own free will, they choose to aquire and use slaves.

But the slaves did not become slaves of their own free will. And as Gandhi showed quite clearly, you cannot enslave an unwilling people without the use of extensive government force.

Let us assume that there was no clause in the constitution one way or the other about slavery.

Then there would have been no recourse for a slaveowner whose slave had escaped. They needed the government to enforce that just like we need the government today to enforce our property rights.

We or course know this of even of tribes who had no formal government, but still had slavery.

No "formal" government...nice out. They still had an effective government in some form, usually that of the elders, and the slavery was very much enforced.

LOL, so now you call even the initial "bare bones" government of the US "big".

It was big in that respect. Big government is government that acts outside the principles of liberty, and slavery does exactly that.

The free market, you go and on about it, but of course the very definition of "free market" is even up for debate. What exactly is a" free market"? It is a market that is not controlled by any outside means. Well, WTF does that mean? Some economists, and I agree with them, state that a free market cannot exist in a capitalist system, because capital itself is a controlling force on the market, and this is correct. The truth is that a there is no such thing as a free market, it is a theoretical concept that is not and cannot be real.

If you can't answer the question, just say so...

By free-market I assume that you mean a market with no legal controls effecting it, in which case that means that all actions would be legal, including slavery.

No, because slavery is not a function of a FREE market, just like theft isn't. It's called a FREE market for a reason.

[many, many irrelevant paragraphs excised]

Wow...I have never in my life see a person take so much to avoid answering a simple, straightforward question...especially when that questionw as nothing more than a request to support his own contention! That's gotta be some kind of record...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Now, I also ask you, if slavery were not economically benefical, then why were people essentially fighting to preserve it?

Slavery was more of a status symbol of the elite than anything else. I come from four separate lines of North Carolina farmers, and there's no evidence that any of them owned slaves. None were reported in the censuses between 1810 and 1850. They were large families who worked the farms themselves. So, let me ask you this: If slavery is so economical, why didn't these farm families, who each had over 500 acres of farmland, not have any?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Holly smokes! When JK stops talking about the communist matriarchial consipracy to destroy America he makes sense!

Good post JK :D

Hmph...When JK and Malachi both agree on something, you know it can't be anything of worth...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Machines and computers are chaper to sue then slaves, so the push will also be for mechanization, not slavery. Mehcanization is what makes high society without slavery possible.

And mechanization is a product of the free market. Thank you for supporting my point.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
You can only have any kind of private property when the government enforces it.

True, and as I pointed out above, the government treated slaves as if they were the private property of the slaveowner.

[shanek]

Originally posted by ahirst
Can conscription be considered a form of slavery ?

I believe so.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Not really. There have always been people opposed to slavery, even back to the Greek and Roman days,

Any references? I'm unaware of any ancient Greeks opposing slavery.

and obviously even back to the days of Egypt, because afterall the Biblical story of the Jews is one of emancipation from slavery!

But if you keep reading the Bible, you'll see that it allowed those very same Jews to keep slaves!

Slavery was never right, it was never acceptable, it was just that teh majority of the people did not have the power to prevent the powerful minorities from having their way.

Demonstrate that the majority ever opposed it until recent centuries when it started being abolished.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Even in first world countries, what amounts to slavery still happens in small numbers, in places such as the sex industry which force immigrants into prostitution.

I think you mean illegal immigrants here, which just goes further towards proving my point.

[Grammatron]

Let us not forget Sudan, where slavery is anything but in small numbers.

[Dancing David]

Slavery requires a very high profit motive, there are a number of areas where it is practised.
Enticing women with false jobs and then holding them as sex slaves is the big one.

[Malachi151]

Because it wasn't just a case of the government allowing it! They subsidized and enforced it! If you were a slave, and you escaped, the government would arrest you and take you back to the slaveowner! Even if you had managed to escape into another state!

Actually from what I know only private bounty hunters did this. Show me evidence of state of federal employees that did such things.



And mechanization is a product of the free market. Thank you for supporting my point.

Mechanization has nothing to do with the free market one way or the other, every society uses machines, including Communist Russia and China, etc.

But the slaves did not become slaves of their own free will. And as Gandhi showed quite clearly, you cannot enslave an unwilling people without the use of extensive government force.

The slave trade was entirely privately run. In fact the US government waged war against slave traders even while slavery was still legal in America, but after they had outlawed the import of new slaves.

The Barbary Wars:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/barbary.htm

African Slave Trade Patrol

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/slave.htm

1820-1861 Long illegal, the infamous slave trade was declared by Congress in 1819 to be piracy, and as such, punishable by death. The Navy's African Slave Trade Patrol was established to search for and bring to justice the dealers in human misery. Never exceeding a few ships in number, the Patrol, which from time to time included the USS Constitution,USS Constellation, USS Saratoga and USS Yorktown, relentlessly plied the waters off West Africa, South America, and the Cuban coast, a principle area for slave disembarkation. By the start of the Civil War more than 100 suspected slavers had been captured.

Then there would have been no recourse for a slaveowner whose slave had escaped. They needed the government to enforce that just like we need the government today to enforce our property rights

No, if the govt had no position one way or the other then they would have been free to capture and hold slaves as long as they were capable of doing so. If slavery were not made illigal today, I could go nextdoor and kidnap someone and put them in chains, hold a gun to their head and tell them to start doing my dishes :p As long as the govt or anyone else does not stop me then I can do it.

No "formal" government...nice out. They still had an effective government in some form, usually that of the elders, and the slavery was very much enforced.

So essentially two people in a room together constitutes a government and as long as they agree then they can both do whatever they want. If they both agree to rape someone then they can, if one disagrees and is will and able to prevent the other then so be it. And you call that government I guess? I see no way to get around such conditions.

It was big in that respect. Big government is government that acts outside the principles of liberty, and slavery does exactly that.

Define liberty :p

If you can't answer the question, just say so...

I did anwser the question. Free markets do not and cannot exist.

No, because slavery is not a function of a FREE market, just like theft isn't. It's called a FREE market for a reason.

No, you simply don't understand what a free market is. You are using it totally out of context and in a way that the phrase is not even intended to be used.

Tell me, can an animal be bought and sold on the free market? If a horse is sold to a master that is does not like is that a violation of the free market? In reality the term free market does not even apply to that scenario or the salvery scenario either in the way that you use it.

A "free market" is a market where the price of goods, in this case slaves, is determined by supply and demand. The slave is in that instance a good, and object of property. A person can be property just like and animal can be. The property is defined by law and if the law says that a person is property then they are property and thus a commodity to be bought and sold.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

-snip-
The American Civil War was a total war on the fiscal south at the institutional level. The American Civil War attacked slavery directly since southern wealth was directly attached to slavery and the land.
-snip-

Slavery = free labor. In history, slavery has existed on every continent. Slavery is still prevalent in the Sudan, Egypt and other countries. It is all about free labor and the cost to 'upkeep' slaves is pennies compared to the profits made through slave labor.

JK

Very cogent post just a few tweaks,

Slavery is not free labor there is a high cost, and therefore the need for a high profit. Historicaly slavery only lasts where there is a labor shortage and/or a very high profit motive.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Slavery requires a very high profit motive

I don't see why.

You'd have an initial investment for housing but who cares if they have plumbing or electricity.

You can feed a person for a day with about what you'd pay a minimum-wage employee for a single hour only you can work them from sun up to sun down 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Say you work them an average of 12 hours a day every day and you spend a kingly $10 a day to feed them (you could probably do it much cheaper) then I figure your getting a 84 hour work week for $70. Sounds pretty cost effective to me.

You'd probably carry some sort of insurance to protect your investment but it couldn't even come close to the cost of health benefits and workman's comp wouldn't even be a consideration.

[Dancing David]

Assuming that there is a profit that justifies the very low productivity of slaves. They don't work very fast, they ofetn break things, they often screw up instructions.
They are very expensive to purchase.
The economics of slavery is very well studied in sociology, thats why in the original; slavbery in the US, the slave got a certain amount of time to grow a garedn or work for wages, because then they had to feed and cloth themselves.
You also have to take reasonable care of your alsves, due to the cost.

capitalism is much cheaper.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Let us not forget Sudan, where slavery is anything but in small numbers.

Sudan is hardly a shining example of a Libertarian paradise...

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Assuming that there is a profit that justifies the very low productivity of slaves. They don't work very fast, they ofetn break things, they often screw up instructions.
They are very expensive to purchase.
The economics of slavery is very well studied in sociology, thats why in the original; slavbery in the US, the slave got a certain amount of time to grow a garedn or work for wages, because then they had to feed and cloth themselves.
You also have to take reasonable care of your alsves, due to the cost.

capitalism is much cheaper.

exactly the points i was trying to make.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Actually from what I know only private bounty hunters did this. Show me evidence of state of federal employees that did such things.

The Federal Marshals did it!!! That was the whole point of the Fugitive Slave Act!!! And they arrested anyone who helped a slave escape!

Mechanization has nothing to do with the free market one way or the other,

Bull$#!7. Technology comes about because of the wealth creation of the free market.

every society uses machines, including Communist Russia and China, etc.

It's not a matter of who uses it. It's a matter of who invents it! You can't use a technology if it hasn't been invented yet!

The slave trade was entirely privately run.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. And I've already shown why.

No, if the govt had no position one way or the other then they would have been free to capture and hold slaves as long as they were capable of doing so.

How would that not be kidnapping?

If slavery were not made illigal today, I could go nextdoor and kidnap someone and put them in chains, hold a gun to their head and tell them to start doing my dishes :p As long as the govt or anyone else does not stop me then I can do it.

Who on Earth is saying the governmetn shouldn't enforce laws against kidnapping? This is just another of your pathetic lies!

So essentially two people in a room together constitutes a government and as long as they agree then they can both do whatever they want.

I never said that and you know it. That isn't even close to the situation with these tribes. Your blatant dishonesty is really getting on my nerves...

Define liberty

:rolleyes:

Liberty means you are free from the initiation of force or fraud. You have the means to defend against it, you have recourse if someone does it to you, and you can do anything you like except initiate force or fraud on others.

Now, ANSWER THE FARKING QUESTION!!!

I did anwser the question. Free markets do not and cannot exist.

:rolleyes:

Big surprise to economists everywhere, I'm sure...

No, you simply don't understand what a free market is.

I think it is you that does not understand it. Moreover, it's clear that you do not want to understand it.

Besides, I thought you just got through saying that free markets do not and cannot exist? How can slavery be the product of something that does not and cannot exist?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
You'd have an initial investment for housing but who cares if they have plumbing or electricity.

Plumbing or electricity? In the 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries????

[shanek]

Y'know, I really wish more people would take the time to learn economics before they go spouting off nonsense about it. Reading back through the last several posts, it seems that some people are completely clueless about how the free market works.

A lot has been said of supply and demand, but what is being ignored here is that the concept of supply and demand also applies to the job market. The workers provide the supply side. You will have more workers wanting your jobs if you offer higher wages for them, just like the supply side for products. Only instead of a product, the workers are offering their skills. The employer represents the demand side. The employer is better able to hire more workers at lower wages. There will be an equilibrium point, a wage level at which the number of workers wanting the jobs will equal the number of jobs the employer is willing to provide at that wage level. That is just as much an essential part of a free market as anything.

Slavery completely abrogates this. By taking someone and forcing them to work, you are, in effect, stealing their labor. Would anyone here honestly consider looting a part of the free market? Then why is slavery considered by many here part of the free market?

[Malachi151]

Right, so the definitions of a free market, whcih I already posted from a economci glosarry that call it theoretical are just garbage I'm sure. Please enlighten us with some of your own references then....

Economics definately accept that a "free-market" is a theoretical concept.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Right, so the definitions of a free market, whcih I already posted from a economci glosarry that call it theoretical are just garbage I'm sure. Please enlighten us with some of your own references then....

I've already answered that. Your definition of free market only considered supply an demand for the marketing of goods, not for employment as well. But as I explained, the job market very much works on the basis of supply and demand.

Economics definately accept that a "free-market" is a theoretical concept.

You're sounding like a creationist here. Here's another theoretical concept: The Earth revolves around the sun. Gravity is another theoretical concept.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by shanek
Y'know, I really wish more people would take the time to learn economics before they go spouting off nonsense about it. Reading back through the last several posts, it seems that some people are completely clueless about how the free market works.

-snip

Slavery completely abrogates this. By taking someone and forcing them to work, you are, in effect, stealing their labor. Would anyone here honestly consider looting a part of the free market? Then why is slavery considered by many here part of the free market?

Exactly shaneK, there has to be a high profit or a low labor market for slavery to be profitable. Part of the eventual rise of the middle class was the fact that the Black Plauge destroyed a lot of the labor in Europe, allowing serfs to profitably run away, the city burghers had a reason to protect the serfs, labor!

Ithink that those who wish to critique capitalism just find slavery to be a major sitting duck.

[Gem]

A lot has been said of supply and demand, but what is being ignored here is that the concept of supply and demand also applies to the job market. The workers provide the supply side. You will have more workers wanting your jobs if you offer higher wages for them, just like the supply side for products. Only instead of a product, the workers are offering their skills. The employer represents the demand side. The employer is better able to hire more workers at lower wages. There will be an equilibrium point, a wage level at which the number of workers wanting the jobs will equal the number of jobs the employer is willing to provide at that wage level. That is just as much an essential part of a free market as anything.

Slavery completely abrogates this. By taking someone and forcing them to work, you are, in effect, stealing their labor. Would anyone here honestly consider looting a part of the free market? Then why is slavery considered by many here part of the free market?


It is "free market" in the sense that the supply side is not provided by slaves, but by slavers. In the American South there was a demand for labor. Now I don't know all the details but slavery was the cost effective choice. So slavers then began selling slaves to the South. The government was probably involved in delivery.

There is such a thing as a free market of slaves, but it has a bunch of problems:

-High costs, we've detailed this. Moving people from Africa to America is not cheap.
-Labor that runs away, which forces owners to spend money to pursue them.
-Upkeep, you have to hire people to "keep them in line."

After the civil war, slavery was abolished, but the new slavery, share-cropping, worked just as well, but was "legal." And I doubt share-cropping was instituted by the government.

Today's slavery is even MORE expensive because now the government tries to capture slavers, which rises costs. Though it is still profitable in some industries (prostitution in Europe, for example).

It is also hard to get slave programers or slave engineers these days:p

Gem

[Gem]

Ithink that those who wish to critique capitalism just find slavery to be a major sitting duck.

Capitalist is an ever changing institution. As long as it is profitable, it will remain unless government steps in to stop it or makes it unprofitable.

One of the reasons I think capitalist did so well is because it actually uses the scientific method to derive theories and laws, unlike Marx who used ideology to make communist (which is why it is flawed).

Though that doesn't mean we should revert back to the laissez faire of the 19th century.

Gem

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
Now I don't know all the details but slavery was the cost effective choice. So slavers then began selling slaves to the South.

Well, at least do something to back up this claim. And respond to my question above: If it were so cost-effective, why weren't more farmers using them?

Answer: Far from being cost-effective, they were luxury items used by the rich to show off their status. If you had slaves, you were Somebody. Kind of like having a Rolls Royce.

The government was probably involved in delivery.

They were involved in a lot more than that, as I have shown.

After the civil war, slavery was abolished, but the new slavery, share-cropping, worked just as well, but was "legal."

Share-cropping was also a big government program.

And I doubt share-cropping was instituted by the government.

It most certainly was! It was part of "Reconstruction." The landlords, who owned the farms, were considered to have a lien on them by the government. The share-croppers themselves lived on the farm, and got paid half of what the farm made, but the problem is that usually the farm didn't make anything at all. The whole thing was basically one big government subsidy.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
Slavery was more of a status symbol of the elite than anything else. I come from four separate lines of North Carolina farmers, and there's no evidence that any of them owned slaves. None were reported in the censuses between 1810 and 1850. They were large families who worked the farms themselves. So, let me ask you this: If slavery is so economical, why didn't these farm families, who each had over 500 acres of farmland, not have any?

I will sum up the information below: there were 3.9 million slaves in the South in 1860, 75% of which were field hands. When I've pointed this out before, all you offered then (as now) was your own personal incredulity. Bully for your ancestors on not owning slaves; however, 31% of their neighbors did. Deal with it.

P. S. Next time I see this "status symbol" b**llsh*t, I will just post the information below without comment: it speaks for itself.

******************

According to the 1860 Census, 39% of the population in the Confederate states were slaves, and 31% of families owned slaves (1860 Census from Civil-War.net (http://www.civil-war.net/docs/1860_census.htm))

Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States (http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/stat.html)
For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.
The Economics of the Civil War (http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/ransom.civil.war.us.php)
Gerald Gunderson (1974) estimated what fraction of the income of a white person living in the South of 1860 was derived from the earnings of slaves ... for all 11 Confederate States, slaves represented 38 percent of the population and contributed 23 percent of whites' income. Small wonder that Southerners -- even those who did not own slaves -- viewed any attempt by the federal government to limit the rights of slaveowners over their property as a potentially catastrophic threat to their entire economic system.
From: http://www.peddie.org/faculty/pkraft/revolution/Review%20Notes/class2w.htm
Slave Holdings were Small: Unlike sugar, rice, or (to some extent) tobacco, one did not need a large number of slaves to harvest cotton profitably. The result was that most masters owned fewer than five slaves, and only ¼ of all slaves lived on holdings of more than 50 workers. The majority of slaves worked tracts that had between 20 and 30 slaves, which was large enough for a community but were far less than the massive plantations of myth.

3/4s of Slaves were Field Hands and ¼ were "Other": Though this changed considerably, the general proportion of field hands to other slaves was approximately 3:1. This ratio was higher in the Deep South and lower in the Upper South. [edited to add: "other" includes factory workers, tradesmen, and hirelings in addition to house servants]
Slavery in the United States (http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/wahl.slavery.us.php)

Consensus That Slavery Was Profitable
This battle has largely been won by those who claim that New World slavery was profitable. Much like other businessmen, New World slaveowners responded to market signals -- adjusting crop mixes, reallocating slaves to more profitable tasks, hiring out idle slaves, and selling slaves for profit. One well-known instance shows that contemporaneous free labor thought that urban slavery may even have worked too well: employees of the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, Virginia, went out on their first strike in 1847 to protest the use of slave labor at the Works.

Slavery in the United States (http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/wahl.slavery.us.php)

Gang System
The value of slaves arose in part from the value of labor generally in the antebellum U.S. Scarce factors of production command economic rent, and labor was by far the scarcest available input in America. Moreover, a large proportion of the reward to owning and working slaves resulted from innovative labor practices. Certainly, the use of the "gang" system in agriculture contributed to profits in the antebellum period. In the gang system, groups of slaves perfomed synchronized tasks under the watchful overseer's eye, much like parts of a single machine. Masters found that treating people like machinery paid off handsomely.

Antebellum slaveowners experimented with a variety of other methods to increase productivity. They developed an elaborate system of "hand ratings" in order to improve the match between the slave worker and the job. Hand ratings categorized slaves by age and sex and rated their productivity relative to that of a prime male field hand. Masters also capitalized on the native intelligence of slaves by using them as agents to receive goods, keep books, and the like.

Slavery in the United States (http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/wahl.slavery.us.php)

Masters profited from reproduction as well as production. Southern planters encouraged slaves to have large families because U.S. slaves lived long enough -- unlike those elsewhere in the New World -- to generate more revenue than cost over their lifetimes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
I will sum up the information below: there were 3.9 million slaves in the South in 1860, 75% of which were field hands. When I've pointed this out before, all you offered then (as now) was your own personal incredulity. Bully for your ancestors on not owning slaves; however, 31% of their neighbors did. Deal with it.

31% is a minority. A minority of southern landowners owned slaves. That's the fact. I don't know what you hope to accomplish by keeping bringing up this 31% figure. 31% is a minority.

Slaves were EXPENSIVE. This 31% represents not even the top 1/3rd, and the vast majority of those—ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SOURCE—owned less than five slaves. Most owned only one or two. These figures DO NOT in any way shape or form show that slaves were any more economically viable than owning a BMW.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek


31% is a minority. A minority of southern landowners owned slaves. That's the fact. I don't know what you hope to accomplish by keeping bringing up this 31% figure. 31% is a minority.

Slaves were EXPENSIVE. This 31% represents not even the top 1/3rd, and the vast majority of those—ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SOURCE—owned less than five slaves. Most owned only one or two. These figures DO NOT in any way shape or form show that slaves were any more economically viable than owning a BMW.

1. I never claimed a majority were slave owners. It's called context; try reading the other numbers as well. If you want to believe that 3.9 million slaves (that's 2,925,000 field hands) were only "status symbols," and not an economically vital work force, then you're entitled to your delusion.

2. I'm done discussing the topic with you.

3. I will continue to post this information for those capable of gaining a clue.

The Economics of the Civil War (http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/ransom.civil.war.us.php)
In 1805 there were just over one million slaves worth about $300 million; fifty-five years later there were four million slaves worth close to $3 billion. In the 11 states that eventually formed the Confederacy, four out of ten people were slaves in 1860, and these people accounted for more than half the agricultural labor in those states. In the cotton regions the importance of slave labor was even greater. The value of capital invested in slaves roughly equaled the total value of all farmland and farm buildings in the South. Though the value of slaves fluctuated from year to year, there was no prolonged period during which the value of the slaves owned in the United States did not increase markedly.

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek
Slavery completely abrogates this. By taking someone and forcing them to work, you are, in effect, stealing their labor. Would anyone here honestly consider looting a part of the free market? Then why is slavery considered by many here part of the free market?

Why is a slave any different from a self-replicating machine? Before they were, *ahem* obtained they were not part of the labor force, nor were they likely to be. Now they are here. There is a capitol expense associated with their purchase, certain fixed and variable costs associated with their maintainence. Hell, they can even be depreciated. Same thing, slave-machine.

Boy, I too wish people would take economics before posting.

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek


. These figures DO NOT in any way shape or form show that slaves were any more economically viable than owning a BMW.

A BMW can be very financially viable. It is a question of fitness to task.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
1. I never claimed a majority were slave owners.

You always bring this up whenever I mention they were a minority. That is the clear implication.

It's called context; try reading the other numbers as well. If you want to believe that 3.9 million slaves (that's 2,925,000 field hands) were only "status symbols," and not an economically vital work force, then you're entitled to your delusion.

How many BMWs are there? Lexuses? Lincolns? Acuras? There's no real difference between those cars and cars costing half the price, yet people by them because of the status it affords them. The numbers are absolutely irrelevant. You have NOT shown that they were a vital work force; you have NOT shown they were economically viable, and you have NOT responded to any of my critiques of this!!!

2. I'm done discussing the topic with you.

It would have been nice if you had actually discussed it at all...

3. I will continue to post this information for those capable of gaining a clue.

:rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
Boy, I too wish people would take economics before posting.

I just wish you would answer the question. Is looting a part of the free market?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
A BMW can be very financially viable. It is a question of fitness to task.

There is NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL between a Ford Taurus and a Mercury Sable other than the label and the price tag. Why, then, are people buying Mercury Sables instead of Ford Tauruses? It can't be any "fitness to task" crap because they're the same! It must be status.

Same thing with everything else, from wristwatches to houses. There is a big desire of the upper classes to show symbols of their status to others. I can't believe that people are even denying this!

[Mike B.]

I am not sure what people are arguing here.

If owning slaves was indeed a status symbol, which it was, what exactly does that prove?

That still does nothing to refute how important they were to the economy of the South.

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek


I just wish you would answer the question. Is looting a part of the free market?

Sorry, I missed this, I guess. What was the question?

[Ed]

Originally posted by shanek


There is NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL between a Ford Taurus and a Mercury Sable other than the label and the price tag. Why, then, are people buying Mercury Sables instead of Ford Tauruses? It can't be any "fitness to task" crap because they're the same! It must be status.

Same thing with everything else, from wristwatches to houses. There is a big desire of the upper classes to show symbols of their status to others. I can't believe that people are even denying this!

Sorry, there is a difference. Status counts in business. That is undeniable.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by shanek


Plumbing or electricity? In the 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries????

The topic I was addressing was the economic viability of slavery today.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
Sorry, I missed this, I guess. What was the question?

Here's the whole thing again:

A lot has been said of supply and demand, but what is being ignored here is that the concept of supply and demand also applies to the job market. The workers provide the supply side. You will have more workers wanting your jobs if you offer higher wages for them, just like the supply side for products. Only instead of a product, the workers are offering their skills. The employer represents the demand side. The employer is better able to hire more workers at lower wages. There will be an equilibrium point, a wage level at which the number of workers wanting the jobs will equal the number of jobs the employer is willing to provide at that wage level. That is just as much an essential part of a free market as anything.

Slavery completely abrogates this. By taking someone and forcing them to work, you are, in effect, stealing their labor. Would anyone here honestly consider looting a part of the free market? Then why is slavery considered by many here part of the free market?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ed
Sorry, there is a difference. Status counts in business. That is undeniable.

Not only in business, but in many segments of society as well. Denying that is just denying reality.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mike B.
If owning slaves was indeed a status symbol, which it was, what exactly does that prove?

That slavery offered something to people beyond the economic benefits of slavery. Slaves were always something espensive that a majority couldn't afford, and as the free market was making them obsolete by providing cheaper alternatives that just made them more of a status symbol.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek


Only partly...Like all good parodies, there's a nugget of truth there. You can only have slavery when the government enforces it.


But the government is elected by the people.

[a_unique_person]

Many people are referred to as the underclass, wage slaves or working poor. That is, they earn enough to live, but not much more. Their ability to get out of that situation is extremely limited.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Its free labor; what is not financially viable here?

[DialecticMaterialist]

That slavery offered something to people beyond the economic benefits of slavery. Slaves were always something espensive that a majority couldn't afford, and as the free market was making them obsolete by providing cheaper alternatives that just made them more of a status symbol.


That's why the south embraced Lincoln, he was getting them rich.

[JAR]

In the U.S., slavery was ended by Abraham Lincoln, who wasn't a slave. I wonder what he was supposed to gain from freeing the slaves.

[Edited to add: I guess he just thought slavery was immoral.]

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Its free labor; what is not financially viable here?

What I want to know it, why is it supposed to be financially unworkable to use slavery, yet using aniamls for labor is perfectly reasonable?

Let's see, will shanek argue that using oxen and horses for labor can't work becuase it costs money to maintien these animals?

How it is any different to put a human being in place of an ox when society treates those human being like animals?

Whether somethign is against the will of the individual doing the labor or not is irrelevent, be it in the case of people or other animals, in terms of economic viability.

Now though lets get into the real economics of proving WHY slavery will ALWAYS be more cost effective then wage labor.

Whenone pays wages they have to pay the worker enough for that worker to be able to provide at least food and shelter for himself, and in most cases also enough to help care for other family memebers who do not work in addition to other costs. The wage laborer has to pay for these things at market prices.

In the case of slavery the slave owner only has to provide food and shelter for the individual with no extra needs or wants being supplied and the cost of food and shelter is not paid for at market prices, the slave is typically forced to build his own shelter and provide his own food so the only cost if the labor value of the slaves time. The only other cost is for policing the salves and maintaining security.

The argument that slavery was naturally on its way out due to cost is just one o fhte more rediculous claims of free-marketers, who try to act like the "free-market" was naturally "solving the problem" (of course 100+ years too late) to show that government action to stop it was not "really needed".

Slavery was perhaps on its way out, but not due to economics, due to changing morals and views, which were expressed by the act of civil war of course.

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Many people are referred to as the underclass, wage slaves or working poor. That is, they earn enough to live, but not much more. Their ability to get out of that situation is extremely limited.

And their best hope is a free market which tends to make the best use out of their skills, whatever they may be, and increase wealth for everybody. These people are held back by government policies like welfare and the minimum wage.

[shanek]

Originally posted by JAR
In the U.S., slavery was ended by Abraham Lincoln,

Not true. Not true at all. It was the 13th Amendment that freed the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single one of them; it was a political ploy, nothing more.


[Edited to add: I guess he just thought slavery was immoral.]

Then why did he propose and even sign this proposed amendment to the Constitution:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

Explain that to me.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
What I want to know it, why is it supposed to be financially unworkable to use slavery, yet using aniamls for labor is perfectly reasonable?

Who said it was? How many places in America use animals as a work force anymore? It's all mechanized. You don't have oxen pulling plows anymore; we have these things called "tractors," and you can get one at your local hardware store starting at about $500.

Now though lets get into the real economics

:rolleyes:

of proving WHY slavery will ALWAYS be more cost effective then wage labor.

Whenone pays wages they have to pay the worker enough for that worker to be able to provide at least food and shelter for himself, and in most cases also enough to help care for other family memebers who do not work in addition to other costs. The wage laborer has to pay for these things at market prices.

In the case of slavery the slave owner only has to provide food and shelter for the individual with no extra needs or wants being supplied and the cost of food and shelter is not paid for at market prices, the slave is typically forced to build his own shelter and provide his own food so the only cost if the labor value of the slaves time. The only other cost is for policing the salves and maintaining security.

Once again, your total dearth of economic knowledge is more than evident.

In a job market, it's about a lot more than working and earning a wage. When workers have a choice of whom they're going to work for, which does NOT happen with slavery, then there is competition in the job market and the employer has every incentive to offer not only competitive wages but a competitive benefits package as well. It's the supply/demand thing I posted earlier which you ignored and apparently learned nothing from. The result of all of this is not only a benefit to the workers, but to the businesses as well, who now have a more motivated work force and the benefits of the increases in wealth they bring.

The argument that slavery was naturally on its way out due to cost is just one o fhte more rediculous claims of free-marketers, who try to act like the "free-market" was naturally "solving the problem" (of course 100+ years too late) to show that government action to stop it was not "really needed".

QUIT LYING!!!!!!

1) You know PERFECTLY WELL that slavery was CODIFIED AND ENFORCED BY GOVERNMENT!!!! IT WAS IN THE CONSTITUTION, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!

2) Show me one Libertarian—ONE SINGLE LIBERTARIAN—who says that slavery should not be outlawed!

You KNOW these are false, yet you keep spouting it out anyway!

Slavery was perhaps on its way out, but not due to economics, due to changing morals and views, which were expressed by the act of civil war of course.

Why are we the only country in the world who had to have a Civil War to end slavery? And is Haiti the only other country to end slavery with violence (a slave uprising)? Why, in every other case, was slavery freed by peaceful means?

[Malachi151]

Who said it was? How many places in America use animals as a work force anymore? It's all mechanized. You don't have oxen pulling plows anymore; we have these things called "tractors," and you can get one at your local hardware store starting at about $500.

Which is exactly what I origionally said, that mechanization is what makes slavery (and for that matter all human and animal labor) obsolete, not wage labor.

Why are we the only country in the world who had to have a Civil War to end slavery? And is Haiti the only other country to end slavery with violence (a slave uprising)? Why, in every other case, was slavery freed by peaceful means?

Well, first of all it is not the only out of all history, but in the more modern sense it is quite simply becuase slavery was split in America into two regions, whereas this was not the case in other countries. In addition to this people, the strong consolidated power of other governments, as opposed to the realtively weaker federation of states in America, allowed single governments to put and end to slavery without challenge.

For example when Britain outlawed slavery, earlier than in America, they had a consolidated country who's whole power was in one body, instead of split into individual states. This allowed unity, and the lack of the threat of something like civil war.

This is why the rest of the American civil war was the rebirth of the United States with a now much stronger federal government. The power of the states was greatly deminished by the end of the Civil War. It was the power of the states that led to civil war in the first place.

Once again, your total dearth of economic knowledge is more than evident.

It is obviously a benefit to workers and the job market not to have slavery, duh. No one said that it was not. The benefits of not having slavery in the economic sense are obvious on the MACRO economic level. However, on the MIRCO econmic level, which is where most libertarians like to keep their heads slavery is a direct advantage to the individual slave owners.

Macro econmics and mirno econmicsare often in contention, this is where we see the differences between society and individual, and its something that almost every libertain I have talked to fails to understand.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Which is exactly what I origionally said, that mechanization is what makes slavery (and for that matter all human and animal labor) obsolete,

Then why have you been railing on me for saying the exact same thing? And why do you not recognize that mechanization, along with any technology that increases production, is a product of the free market?

You might also explain why the Luddites blamed the free market for mechanization, saying that it would put people out of work.

Well, first of all it is not the only out of all history, but in the more modern sense it is quite simply becuase slavery was split in America into two regions,

But the only reason for that was that the nothern states were richer and could afford to mechanize first. Saying that gives them the right to invade the South just smacks of hypocrisy.

For example when Britain outlawed slavery, earlier than in America, they had a consolidated country who's whole power was in one body, instead of split into individual states. This allowed unity, and the lack of the threat of something like civil war.

But that same unity is exactly what allowed slavery to thrive in the first place! Are you aware of all the troubles the US had with Spain throughout the 19th Century (even before the Civil War) because the Spanish monarchy believed in the unfetterd slave trade?

It was the power of the states that led to civil war in the first place.

No, it was the gradual loss of that power to the Federal government that caused the Civil War. And it resulted the way it did because those who won the war happened to be on the side of a big Federal government.

It is obviously a benefit to workers and the job market not to have slavery, duh. No one said that it was not.

Yes, you have! That's exactly what you've been saying all along! By pretending that slavery is the product of a free market economy (I'm still waiting to hear which free market economy started slavery to begin with) this is exactly what you're saying!

The benefits of not having slavery in the economic sense are obvious on the MACRO economic level. However, on the MIRCO econmic level, which is where most libertarians like to keep their heads

:rolleyes:

Most of my arguments are based on macroeconomics.

slavery is a direct advantage to the individual slave owners.

No, I just showed how free market wage earners are more of an advantage to individual businesses than slave labor.

Macro econmics and mirno econmicsare often in contention,

No, they aren't. PLEASE take an economics course!!!

[DialecticMaterialist]

US History should be re-written. Slavery wasn't ended by abolitionists, the civil war or Lincoln.

"The Market ended slavery, as the Market does all good things. Even make crops grow and cause the sun to rise. Slavery was out the door in the South, the War of Northern Agression only pre-longed it. The system was so inefficient, only poor people owned slaves. People who did not have slaves benefited from the wealth produced by creative cotton pickers. "

Remember cross out Aberham Lincoln and abolitionists and insert "Free Market".

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek


2) Show me one Libertarian—ONE SINGLE LIBERTARIAN—who says that slavery should not be outlawed!

Robert Nozick

http://home.nvg.org/~rchg/anarchy/secF2.html

F.2.1 Do Libertarian-capitalists support slavery?
Yes. It may come as a surprise to many people, but right-Libertarianism is one of the few political theories that justifies slavery. For example, Robert Nozick asks whether "a free system would allow [the individual] to sell himself into slavery" and he answers "I believe that it would." [Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 371] While some right-Libertarians do not agree with Nozick, there is no logical basis in their ideology for such disagreement.

The logic is simple, you cannot really own something unless you can sell it. Self-ownership is one of the cornerstones of laissez-faire capitalist ideology. Therefore, since you own yourself you can sell yourself.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Slavery wasn't ended by abolitionists,

The abolitionists did a wonderful job ending slavery, but you'll notice they had the best success in the states that had already industrialized.

the civil war

The claim is the Civil War wasn't necessary to free the slaves, and that no one was saying it was a war to free the slaves until 1862. Both of these claims are easily confirmed by history.

or Lincoln.

Again, easily confirmed.

[pathetic strawman deleted]

Do you have anything useful to contribute to this discussion?

[DialecticMaterialist]

On August 26, 1863, he (Lincoln) lectured white antiwar Northerners that when peace came, ?there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation, while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it


http://www.thelincolnmuseum.org/new/research/controversies.html


One word: JAR.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Robert Nozick

Nozick was an anarchist. Libertarianism ≠ anarchism. Try again.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
http://www.thelincolnmuseum.org/new/research/controversies.html

One word: JAR.

How does quoting Lincoln from 1863 in any way rebut my claim that slavery wasn't used as a justification for the Civil War until 1862? :confused: :rolleyes:

[DialecticMaterialist]

Nozick was an anarchist. Libertarianism ? anarchism. Try again.


The logic of his argument has been unanswered. You try again.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


The logic of his argument has been unanswered. You try again.

Very true, but also see:

Libertarian Party Website (http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0202/nozick.html)
Libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick dies

[January 24] Harvard University professor Robert Nozick, who helped establish the intellectual legitimacy of the modern libertarian movement, has died.

Best known in libertarian circles as the author of the National Book Award-winning Anarchy, State & Utopia, Nozick died of stomach cancer on Wednesday, January 23. He was 63.

Nozick's contribution to libertarianism was hailed by Libertarian Party Executive Director Steve Dasbach.

"Robert Nozick made an important and lasting contribution to the libertarian movement," he said. "It is no exaggeration to say that Nozick's work -- especially Anarchy, State & Utopia -- helped create the philosophical and intellectual foundation that has allowed groups like the Libertarian Party, the Cato Institute, and the Advocates for Self-Government to thrive.

"Although Nozick is gone, his ideas, influence, and contributions will live forever."

"Intellectual legitimacy" :roll:

[DialecticMaterialist]

How does quoting Lincoln from 1863 in any way rebut my claim that slavery wasn't used as a justification for the Civil War until 1862?

It doesn't, I was talking about people who get the "well if it wasn't for us whites" attitude.

[DialecticMaterialist]

The abolitionists did a wonderful job ending slavery, but you'll notice they had the best success in the states that had already industrialized.

Reminds me of a similair argument I heard from Marxists:

Ideas cannot come about without food, water, production i.e. economics.

Hence ideas are determined by economics.


Likewise, since industrialization was needed to end slavery, industrialization and the free market ended slavery.


This ignores the fact that necessary is not sufficient.

For example, oxygen and food were needed to end slavery, hence oxygen and food ended slavery.

Just because an object is necessary for something does not means it ends it nor do we credit it as the primary causal factor.



The claim is the Civil War wasn't necessary to free the slaves, and that no one was saying it was a war to free the slaves until 1862. Both of these claims are easily confirmed by history.


My source says otherwise:





Which was more important to Lincoln, saving the Union or freeing the slaves?

Lincoln was committed to both; he wanted to save the Union, but not at the cost of yielding his anti-slavery principles. To Lincoln, the United States constituted a great experiment in the idea that people could govern themselves freely; indeed, it was the world?s ?last, best hope? of proving that such a government could ?long endure.? Slavery negated the experiment in freedom by ?allowing the enemies of free institutions... to taunt us as hypocrites.? Lincoln wanted dearly to save the Union, but not at the cost of compromising the principles it represented.

On several occasions, Lincoln might have ended the Civil War and restored the Union, by renouncing emancipation and agreeing to the principle of popular sovereignty by which slavery could spread into the western territories. He also could have acted more aggressively to free the slaves, for example by supporting General Fremont's 1861 emancipation of slaves in Missouri, but at the cost of driving Kentucky and Missouri from the Union and losing the war. He chose to do neither, because he sought both freedom and Union, as two indispensible elements of the American Experiment.


(Bold is mine)


http://www.thelincolnmuseum.org/new/research/controversies.html

Lincoln was a situationalist.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
The logic of his argument has been unanswered.

What logic? I asked for a Libertarian, he answered with an anarchist.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Very true, but also see:

Proving what? Yes, he did a lot for the Libertarian movement, but allowing slavery is hardly a Libertarian idea.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
It doesn't, I was talking about people who get the "well if it wasn't for us whites" attitude.

Who was getting that?

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Likewise, since industrialization was needed to end slavery,

I didn't say it was needed to end slavery. I said it made it easier to end slavery. I'm really getting sick of you putting words into my mouth.

My source says otherwise:

From Lincoln's 1861 inaugural address:

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.

I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.

And that's all I need to rebut you.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Who was getting that?

JAR, who is a racist. See what he said about Kobie Bryant.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
JAR, who is a racist. See what he said about Kobie Bryant.

I didn't get that from reading his post, but then I didn't see whatever thread he mentioned Bryant in, either.

[DialecticMaterialist]

From Lincoln's 1861 inaugural address:

[quote] Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that?



The rest they can read for themselves.

But when was this? Before the war? And how does this refute the claim that Lincoln could have ended the war earlier by allowing slavery into the West and that he was unconcered with it?

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
But when was this? Before the war?

The address was given on March 4, 1861. The Civil War started on April 12, 1861 when the South drove the Union forces out of Ft. Sumter. So it was a little over a month before the war. Hardly time for a radical change in philosophy.

And how does this refute the claim that Lincoln could have ended the war earlier by allowing slavery into the West and that he was unconcered with it?

It doesn't, nor was it intended to. Do try and keep up. My claim, as yet unrefuted by you or anyone else, is that slavery was not used as a major justification for the war by the Union or Lincoln until 1862.

[Mike B.]

It is the great Neo-Confederate strawman to say because the abolition of slavery was not policy right after Ft. Sumter that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. This ignores the preceeding 20 years of history. Nobody thought at the time that the Federal Government had the power to abolish slavery in the states where it existed. That is what that quote from Lincoln's speech is about. He was also trying to ease the fears of the Upper South at the time to try to get them to not leave the Union.

What the South hated about Lincoln and the Republican Party is that they were committed to stopping the spread of slavery into the territories. On this point Lincoln was firm:

Lincoln said this in 1860 to his firend Elihu Washburne about slavery extension:

"Private & confidential Hon. E. B. Washburne Springfield, Ills. Dec. 13. 1860

My dear Sir. Your long letter received. Prevent, as far as possible, any of our friends from demoralizing themselves, and our cause, by entertaining propositions for compromise of any sort, on ``slavery extention'' There is no possible compromise upon it, but which puts us under again, and leaves all our work to do over again. Whether it be a Mo. line, or Eli Thayer's Pop. Sov. it is all the same. Let either be done, & immediately filibustering and extending slavery recommences. On that point hold firm, as with a chain of steel. Yours as ever A. LINCOLN"

The fear at the time was that people would allow slavery to spread into the territories to appease the South.

As the war changed it did become a war of abolition as well. By 1863 any state wanting to enter the Union agian would have to abolish slavery according to his Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction. Lincoln ran in 1864 on a platform of Union and abolition. His Democratic opponent ran on a platform of just Union.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mike B.
It is the great Neo-Confederate strawman to say because the abolition of slavery was not policy right after Ft. Sumter that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

Since no one here is making that claim, it is you who is guilty of presenting a strawman.

[Cinorjer]

Slavery today, or in the future? An interesting thing to ponder. It can be argued that slavery in some form exists today in pockets, but it's not widespread and codified in the "This document says I own you" type that existed in the past.

The economics of widespread slavery demand a ready supply of bodies. Historically, those came from conquered neighboring tribes, cities, and states. Slavery is a tough life, and you can't really "grow your own supply" to keep up with demand. People aren't like horses, where a couple years investment in raising a newborn pays off in work. So where would we get the human cargo this time? Gotta be imported from somewhere.

Then there's the whole question of what slaves would be needed for, besides the luxury of having someone do your housework. Some farming is still labor intensive, like planting rice. But is slavery worth the bother today? Any society in the past with lots of slaves was always paranoid about slave uprisings, and it happened again and again, even if few were successful. People don't appreciate being slaves, after all.

[JAR]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


JAR, who is a racist. See what he said about Kobie Bryant.
You are correct. I am a racist, but I'm not a white supremacist. I know that you are not a racist.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by shanek
Y'know, I really wish more people would take the time to learn economics before they go spouting off nonsense about it. Reading back through the last several posts, it seems that some people are completely clueless about how the free market works.

A lot has been said of supply and demand, but what is being ignored here is that the concept of supply and demand also applies to the job market. The workers provide the supply side. You will have more workers wanting your jobs if you offer higher wages for them, just like the supply side for products. Only instead of a product, the workers are offering their skills. The employer represents the demand side. The employer is better able to hire more workers at lower wages. There will be an equilibrium point, a wage level at which the number of workers wanting the jobs will equal the number of jobs the employer is willing to provide at that wage level. That is just as much an essential part of a free market as anything.



That just about sums up the fantasy of the free market. Why should there be a point at which the number of jobs available balances out exactly the number of people seeking work?

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That just about sums up the fantasy of the free market.

:rolleyes:

Why should there be a point at which the number of jobs available balances out exactly the number of people seeking work?

If you would actually take the time to think about it for a fraction of a microsecond for once in your life, you'd see why.

If you don't have a balance, then there are only two possibilities: More jobs than workers, or more workers than jobs.

Now, if there are more jobs than workers, then that means that businesses aren't going to be able to hire the people that they need, and so they need to attract more workers; the way to do that is to raise the offered salaries. Likewise, those seeking the employment will notice the plethora of available jobs out there and select the one with the highest salary and benefits package. So businesses competing for these jobs will keep raising it, hoping to attract these workers and also encouraging more workers to seek out the jobs. Eventually, you'll hit an equilibrium and the whole thing ends up balanced out.

If there are more workers than jobs, you'll have a situation where so many workers are competing that many of them are willing to accept lower wages just to be ensured of even having a job. So it's the above situation, only in reverse, and the salaries go down until the equilibrium is found.

It's a perfectly natural thing. No one has to make it happen. And it works. Until the government comes in and starts messing around with it, that is...

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Shane Costello
In the future android technology may be perfected, making enslavement of humans completely moot, perhaps?
Perhaps capitalism isn't going to do it then?

[Dancing David]

For those interested I reccomend Many Thousands Gone it is a nice little study of the growth of slavery in the US, there are economic reason why the vast majority of slaves came to be owned by large plantations, as there was less of a frontier the economic viability of small slavery was less of an issue, cotton and indigo drove the slave trade, but then greed kept it going past it's viability.

[Crossbow]

Unless there is some drastic change in how the economy works, I doubt that slavery will ever be profitable again.

Slavery works best in situations where one has work a great deal of work to that does not require many job skills, is repetitive, very labor intensive, fast to learn, and easy to monitor.

While there was a vast need for that sort of work prior to the industrialization of the agrainian economy, it is really not needed any more. Decades ago, large farmers and ranchers needed dozens, or even hundreds of hands to do the work of preparing, plowing, weeding, harvesting, preserving, and distributing food. However, with modern technology, farms spanning hundreds of acres can often be productive with just a few people.

The real problem with slavery is that the slaves tend not to be motivated. Slaves quickly find out that if they do more work, then more work will always be expected of them, and that no matter how much work they do, there will be almost no chance of them ever getting a fair share of the profits. Therefore, slaves usually do just enough work to satiate their owner and any more.

However, in a modern society, one needs workers that are well trained, highly motivated, and can function reliably with little supervision. In this case, the workers know that, in most cases anyway, that the more they help their organization, the more the company will pay them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Crossbow
The real problem with slavery is that the slaves tend not to be motivated. Slaves quickly find out that if they do more work, then more work will always be expected of them, and that no matter how much work they do, there will be almost no chance of them ever getting a fair share of the profits. Therefore, slaves usually do just enough work to satiate their owner and any more.

That's true, and that's why many slaveowners started to pay their slaves based on the amount of work they performed. That way, a slave could be motivated to work more and gain the amount of money needed to buy his own freedom.

[Crossbow]

Just so shanek!

There were many cases of the more intelligent and loyal slaves being taught to read, write, and mathematics in order to make them more valued employees.

Of course, this sort of thing rarely occurred in areas where slaves were not expected to last too long (such as the Carribbean) so the owners just tried to get as much work out of them as possible before they died.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

In his book

Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy ISBN: 0520224639

Kevin Bales claims there may be more slaves than at any previous time in history -- around 25 million by his estimate.

two broad types of slavery:
The "old" slavery (exemplified for many of us by the pre-Civil War United States south) was based on legal ownership and division along ethnic and racial lines. Slaves were expensive and relationships between slaves and slaveowners were often long-term, sometimes multi-generational. The "new" slavery, in contrast, is based not on formal ownership but on other legal instruments such as contracts and debts. Slaves are cheap, even disposable, and drawn from the poor, vulnerable, and dispossessed rather than from particular racial or ethnic groups.

Bales warns
"slavery should not be confused with anything else: it is not prison labor, it is not all forms of child labor, it is not just being very poor and having few choices".

within his book are pictures of what appear to be indiginous gold miners in Brazil working under gun, anecdotes of estate slaves being hunted down and beaten or executed in Brazil when they run away. Also covered: sex workers, child prostitution.

Is applying the term slavery accurate in these cases?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Ed
We, currently, breast beat and bemoan slavery. From an historical perspective this is trendy and quaint. The question is, as technologies evolve and the edge between those that are educated (and, presumably, affluent) grows sharper with respect to the others, when will niches develop that make slavery, once again, despite the current hiatus, a viable institution. I suspect that it would not be race based as in our recent history, but economically based, perhaps even religiously based.

I doubt that slavery will ever become economically viable, unless somehow the population were to crash and almost all medical knowledge were lost.

Who would buy a human being when it's so easy to rent one and throw it away when you don't want it any more? When you buy a human being, then it's property, and you have to keep up your property. Employers don't even want to provide health insurance. How long is your slave, that you've paid good money for, going to last without regular maintenance?

Indentured servitude, on the other hand, is fairly likely. But then again, it's commonplace already.