Why slavery is OK. There are millions of slaves, worked, bought, and traded each day.

Why is slavery okay? Slavery was around in the Old Testament and was accepted. Slave owners today think the practice is fine and that slaves make the best workers. There are 27 million slaves in the world today. People forced to work without pay, under threat of violence and unable to walk away. Slavery is on the rise as gas and food price rise. It is acceptable to sell children in many countries for food or money. Is it wrong to do this or fair business practices. The US abolished slavery years ago due the moral dilemma of a human being considered property. In countries like Nepal this is not a concern and slave owners are looked upon as being the top citizens of their country. Is it wrong that Americans are trying to end the thousand year tradition of slavery? Or is it the right thing to do? Why should Americans push their moral beliefs on the citizens of Nepal?

 

Americans are still slaves.

If you don't pay your property tax, you lose your land.

If you try to save your money, the government taxes you with inflation.

If you do not pay your income tax, the IRS will imprison you.

When we have had a draft before, the Federal government, has decided that for the purpose of an unconstitutional police action, that you do not own yourself, the government owns you and can force you to fight for it.

Do I need to go on?

 

Guerilla I'll agree with.

The to OP, on a moral level you honestly can't be defending slavery. You go be a slave for a year and see if your mind doesn't change. On the other hand, "If it wasn't for injustice, man would not know justice".

 

Guerilla the slavery I'm speaking of is human trafficking.

 

Actually, the OP has a thread entitled "Why Slavery is OK," which in my English usage, anyway, is a statement, and not a question. He has also created an elegy to Jesse Helms, and together these things at least imply where the OP stands, to me. I can't believe that in this day and age anyone would be arguing slavery is anything other than what it is, but I will have to allow the OP to reply to your question, effektz.

I am flatly in disagreement with Guerilla's comparison of slavery to his disdain for government, in all its forms. In fact, I find it repugnant. At the most basic level of reply to such an invalid comparison, if he, or anyone else, doesn't like a system which includes a concept - "taxes" - he or they may leave. There are no manacles around the neck and ankles.

 

Why isn't more being done to eradicate slavery?

 

Homebiz, I have to say, I am puzzled by your thread. I cannot believe you would use any argument to justify slavery, but your thread does seem to imply, at least to me, that because it was or is done - with references to, among other things, the Bible - "who are we to condemn it?" Couple this with your lauding of Jesse Helms, and I remain unsure of your true intent, to be honest.

I believe you meant, "descendant" of slavery. Not sure if you meant the guys with chains, or the guys with whips. Many of us have both, to be sure.

 

I am mixed. I am asking "why more isn't being done to stop slavery?"
I also am asking "is it acceptable?"

offtopic. Why do you attack me each day? Whats[sic] up with that?

 

I think slavery is not acceptable period.

Maybe the slave owners like the idea of slaves, but I'd be positive the slaves would think differently. Just put yourself in their shoes.

 

Most of us are "mixed," anymore. Not sure what it has to do with today.

To your question, "is it acceptable?," I'd have to say, uh, no. I would have thought this was kind of a no-brainer.

Homebiz, I realize you have taken a lead from Jeremy (Mia), who attempted the same line in your thread, even while calling me a "poor excuse for a human being"; find it useful to ape him in saying that I am "attacking you." Please provide evidence as to how I am "attacking you every day," or, in the absence of any evidence, please try to make your points on substance, and not this kind of weak attempt.

I'm sorry if you don't like the corrections I make to your writing - but there is a world apart from decedent (person who has kicked the bucket) and descendant (a person born from a line of ancestors). It is difficult at times to know what you are actually saying.

 

I did not read the Mia thread until now. You can correct me, that'ss fine. I think its cute. You throw out a lot of insults. Thats what I am pointing out.

BTW.. I am not going through each thread looking for each insult either to list them either.

Mixed with different races.

 

It's a metaphor, or that's what i think it is. I love metaphors

Nothing is certain but death and taxes.

 

I see. A bit odd, of course, since there is no "Mia" thread, it is your thread, and on the page in question, you provided 1/3 of the 12 posts, but, uh, sure. You never read it.

Oh, of course, I understand. There are, I think, three threads where we've had an exchange. You accuse me of personally attacking you every day. Yet, surprisingly, can't seem to provide an instance. Ironclad.

I understand, as am I. Just do not see how this is relevant.

 

I understand, but if you'll look at my "location," to equate "paying taxes" with slavery, well, you get it.

I love metaphor as well - because it uses something to make concrete another notion ("the knife of lightning slashed the belly of the hanger, gravid and low."). When it clarifies or makes something more meaningful, I find it useful. When it improperly conflates, I find it unhelpful.

 

Taxes are slavery. If I confiscated wealth under threat of kidnapping and violence, it would be illegal. When the state does the same act, it is somehow legal.

It's a form of slavery. You cannot own 100% of what you produce. Tribute must be paid, or coercion and violence will ensue.

Not much different to me than whipping a slave for not working the field in the hot summer afternoon.

And someone making a smart ass comment about "if you don't like it, leave".

I read jokes about that on liberty oriented forums.

"Well, if you don't like it, you can leave".

Good things the Founders didn't leave when the loyalists and tories who were in the majority, told them to leave.

 

No, Guerilla once again misstates what I wrote.

I wrote:

It's a simple fact. "If you are unhappy with the idea of taxation, and find it sufficiently unbearable, you may leave;" Or stay - in fact, you can do either, at will. As to my general philosophy on the notion "like it or leave," well, Guerilla is familiar with it, though he would attempt to portray otherwise; a partial reprint (on religious viewpoints in America):

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=7135695&postcount=3

In my world, there's room for all of us, regardless of our disagreements. One of the many things I love about living here.

At any rate, "may," "are free to." Is it really this difficult?

Which distinguishes Guerilla, or any United States citizen, from a slave. The subject of this thread, and my point.

Precisely why I find the comparison repugnant, because, damn me if my life is more or less swell, and isn't one of putting poultices to back-welts nightly. My American citizenship is - surprising as it seems, apparently, to anarchists - a cakewalk compared to the life of a field slave from the 1800's, or a sex slave in the modern world, for instance.

And precisely, Lightless, why I posted - because I don't think the comparison was drawn as a metaphor at all, as the above posts evince.

 

The thread I created about Helms? Why do you keep bringing that up? The title to the thread was used on the evening news out of NC. I was amazed when they said that. I used the same headline. The news went on discuss Helm's view on the economy and how he hated large government and voted against wasteful spending. Big Government is something that comes up often. I thought a discussion on Helm's economic policy would be interesting. The thread turned out to be about race. Which he was a racist.

 

Homebiz, let me walk it through.

1. You wrote:

Which is quite a strong statement, warranting evidence, in my opinion. And it seemed to come out of left field, to be honest, unless one realizes:

2. In your Helms thread, which you were a big part of, Mia (Jeremy) attempted the same thing:

3. Beyond the fact Mia's attempt was equally baseless, and in my opinion a weak attempt to divert the discussion, I was surprised to hear you say:

Since it wasn't "Mia's thread," but yours. And as you contributed plentifully to the discussion, well, in all honesty it is difficult for me to embrace the notion you "didn't read the [Mia] thread until now."

Now - all else aside, you have said I am attacking you daily, and have yet to show where. I'd suggest you stick to points on substance, and let this attempted line go.

 

You are correct. It was my thread not mia. I should have stated Mia's comment or reply.

Why do you keep bringing up the Helm's thread. I just don't get it.

 

I have tried to show why, by my post above, but I guess it cannot be understood, or I have explained it poorly.

Let's just say, again, that if you are going to accuse me, or anyone, of "attacking you daily," it might be a good idea to be prepared to back it up.