If slavery were legal, would you own slaves?

[shewantsmore]

No would never want a slave ,its not right owning someone against there will

 

[DVS]

I could never "own" someone that didn't want to be where they were. I'm all for someone being allowed to live the life they choose. People are better at whatever they're doing, when they're happy. They tend to stay with it longer and get better with time. So, if someone is going to "serve" me like a slave, I want them to be as good at it as they can be. It's a win/win solution.

I could NEVER force someone to be something or somewhere they don't want to be. I'm a dom, but I'm not someone who would enjoy forcing someone into some situation against their will. That's rule one of BDSM. Consensual situations. True slavery isn't consensual.

 

[Cumference]

True slavery isn't consensual.

And that is exactly the point!


Apart from that, my reasons for not being a slave owner are:

- basic human freedom. Any attempts made to disband private property, has been a disaster leading to societal collapse (and oppression and corruption on a massive scale). But humans should never be property.

- I want employes that I can trust, and who trust me! They should not just work "for me", but with me.


- and just like information acquired through torture, the quality and productivity of slavery is rubbish...... But quite efficient if the main subject is not productivity, but to spread terror and oppression.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

First of all; history and dictionaries contradict your statement. Consensuality or non- is not part of the strict definition. What makes it slavery is ownership, including an absence of the right to leave. That's easy to confuse with non-consensuality, but to call them the same is ignorance of the realities of contractual obligations, something that any legal system is based on.

The subject of people imprisoned in correctional systems has been touched upon, but only in the context of justice being thwarted in favor of profits gained through the prison system.

*I've edited out a lengthy segue on wage slavery, sweat shops & prison labor because i lost track of my point.*

What distinguishes the worst slave cultures, in my opinion, has less to do with legality, technicality, even consent, and more to do with how brutally it is enforced.

As I have already mentioned, it's true that the most horrific slave cultures in history were based on non-consensual slavery. Just the same; roman and mesopotamian contractual slavery is still called slavery, and held harsh penalties for defrauding a buyer by walking out early, whether the slave agreed to the contract or was sold against their will. So no, TRUE slavery has nothing to do with consent or non-consent, it is about people as property irrespective of consent. Yes that's a fine hair to split, but that brings me to my second point;

It isn't often someone trots out the word "true" on this particular forum and goes for so long without mocking. Perhaps that time allowed can be blamed on the holidays, but why does vapid usage of "true" get spit on here while other "truths" can be banded about in contradiction of historical facts that have already been presented?

I think what agitates me the most right now is that there is a sociological term for these "truisms" and I just can't remember it.

. . .

Yes, non-consensual slavery is terrible. That doesn't make it "TRUE" or "THE ONLY FORM." It deserves some form of additional distinction by definition as well as by merit of it's own horrific nature, especially if you're in the mood to throw the big T word, not merely for the sake of the consensual slave enthusiasts that this thread has been so quick to dump on and alienate.

It's like taking a color spectrum and making arguments that red is the only true color. Fine, it's the one you're talking about, but it has a specific name and the broader name factually encompasses more regardless of how hated the specific subject may be. While i'm usually an advocate of vernacular language trumping etyimological study, the burning desire for a short neat label should never be allowed to truncate history so utterly.

The word you want is TENURE.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

And that is exactly the point!


Apart from that, my reasons for not being a slave owner are:

- basic human freedom. Any attempts made to disband private property, has been a disaster leading to societal collapse (and oppression and corruption on a massive scale). But humans should never be property.

- I want employes that I can trust, and who trust me! They should not just work "for me", but with me.


- and just like information acquired through torture, the quality and productivity of slavery is rubbish...... But quite efficient if the main subject is not productivity, but to spread terror and oppression.

The real reason is slavery is economically untenable in an age of mechanization. But it will come again when the cost of mechanization is more than the cost for feeding slaves.

 

[Halen]

This was just a thought experiment. I posted it to BDMS board, because it involved or at least could involve slaves and masters and bondage. The point was to step outside of your present world and imagine another and to look inside yourself. The easy answer is that you would never own a slave, but you can't really know for sure. Thomas Jefferson was against slavery, but he owned hundreds of slaves

If I had posted this to another board, someone on that board would have said that it should be on the BDMS board.

To bad not one got this and right away went back to Black`s being owned by Whites. I mean I agree, It`s not my thing and removing the will of one person to appease the other is just nothing id want to deal with. Being in a consensual relationship is hard enough a forced one would be even harder. so No I would not for any reason or need. im more into doing it muh self then forcing another.

 

[Stella_Omega]

venison, really? I am so jealous-- I've been headachey and haven't enjoyed wild red meat as an excuse.

I hope you much much better very very soon, my esteemed friend.