'Selling' slaves... WTF?

[JMohegan]

Can your neighbour rent a backhoe and dig a 50' deep pit in his front yard? Hell, can he even rent a backhoe and dig a shallow trench in his front yard?

Can your neighbour take a sledgehammer to his Audi and bash the shit out of it in his front yard?

You cannot indulge in a fantasy of no ownership because you do not have the right to. You are as mired in the consensual construct as he is. I am not claiming that you, as an individual, can intercede in anyone else's affairs. But the government can, and does quite frequently.

If the government can claim Eminent Domain, you do not own your property. If some organisation has a lien on your property, it is not your property. This is not a fantasy. This is just an argument against the fallacy of private ownership of anything in a country in which private property rights are not protected, and the unrelated fallacy far too many people operate under that their car/house/boat is theirs while they're still making payments.

Even a homeowner with a mortgage is still a homeowner with ownership rights. The banker, for example, doesn't get to throw parties in my neighbor's house whenever the whim strikes.

And my police chief, mayor, county commissioner, governor, or president can't just show up and demand sleepover rights. Like everyone else, they have to follow the law.

The concept of eminent domain exists precisely because we DO have property rights. ED allows the government to take those rights away, as long as the taking is done for a legal purpose. (ED can be, and occasionally has been, successfully contested, by the way.)

 

[eastern sun]

And my police chief, mayor, county commissioner, governor, or president can't just show up and demand sleepover rights. Like everyone else, they have to follow the law.

I just have to laugh, because my daughter had a school assignment a couple of days ago where she had to pick one of the Amendments to the Constitution to do away with. After much debate with her older brother, she chose the one where it's illegal to house the military in private homes during peace time. As soon as it was "gone," I was horrified by the implications. It gave me (if not her) a deeper appreciation for our Constitution, its amendments, and the whole concept of private ownership.

 

[Etoile]

Can your neighbour take a sledgehammer to his Audi and bash the shit out of it in his front yard?

Um...can't he? I mean if it's his car and all? I'm asking legitimately.

I'm about to leave for the airport to go to Disney World for the weekend, but I will try to keep up with this thread.

 

[JMohegan]

I just have to laugh, because my daughter had a school assignment a couple of days ago where she had to pick one of the Amendments to the Constitution to do away with. After much debate with her older brother, she chose the one where it's illegal to house the military in private homes during peace time. As soon as it was "gone," I was horrified by the implications. It gave me (if not her) a deeper appreciation for our Constitution, its amendments, and the whole concept of private ownership.

Ha! That's a tough assignment!

But what a great way to get kids to actually read, and focus on, the Amendments.

 

[Homburg]

Even a homeowner with a mortgage is still a homeowner with ownership rights. The banker, for example, doesn't get to throw parties in my neighbor's house whenever the whim strikes.

And my police chief, mayor, county commissioner, governor, or president can't just show up and demand sleepover rights. Like everyone else, they have to follow the law.

The concept of eminent domain exists precisely because we DO have property rights. ED allows the government to take those rights away, as long as the taking is done for a legal purpose. (ED can be, and occasionally has been, successfully contested, by the way.)

Just because the police, and others are limited as to what they can, and cannot, do, does not mean property rights are golden.

From your own link: "Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land/real estate or intellectual property"

I ask again, can your neighbour dig a 50' pit in his front yard? Exclusive rights and control would imply that he can. What about squatters being able to simply take over land because a remote landowner was unaware of their presence?

The fact that you had to add the word "occasionally" helps to prove my point. You know bloody well how often ED gets successfully disputed. It's not a large number when looked at by percentage.

The only people that have exclusive right and control over their property in this country are those who live in areas so remote that nobody notices what they're doing. And they have those rights only because no one cares enough to look.

And as to the sleepover thing, if the police get a warrant, yeah, they can enter your property, even if you've done nothing wrong. And do bad things to it. Watch what happens to neighbouring apartments when the SWAT or DEA or what have you comes in for hostile entry. They have to follow the law, sure, but the law is on their side and thus their powers are much more broad. They cannot do it for the hell of it, but your property rights mean nothing once a proper warrant is issued.

--

Um...can't he? I mean if it's his car and all? I'm asking legitimately.

Try it and find out

Odds are good that there would be an assortment of tickets, if not an actual arrest. There are all sorts of loose statutes that would criminalise such activity. No, nothing in particular states that you can't do bad things to your own vehicle specifically, but there are those that prevent demolition, destruction, violence with hammers by insane car-owners, etc.

 

[JMohegan]

There is no actual rights of ownership.

Just because the police, and others are limited as to what they can, and cannot, do, does not mean property rights are golden.

From your own link: "Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land/real estate or intellectual property"

I ask again, can your neighbour dig a 50' pit in his front yard? Exclusive rights and control would imply that he can. What about squatters being able to simply take over land because a remote landowner was unaware of their presence?

The fact that you had to add the word "occasionally" helps to prove my point. You know bloody well how often ED gets successfully disputed. It's not a large number when looked at by percentage.

The only people that have exclusive right and control over their property in this country are those who live in areas so remote that nobody notices what they're doing. And they have those rights only because no one cares enough to look.

And as to the sleepover thing, if the police get a warrant, yeah, they can enter your property, even if you've done nothing wrong. And do bad things to it. Watch what happens to neighbouring apartments when the SWAT or DEA or what have you comes in for hostile entry. They have to follow the law, sure, but the law is on their side and thus their powers are much more broad. They cannot do it for the hell of it, but your property rights mean nothing once a proper warrant is issued.

Homburg, I've got no idea what you're trying to argue here, much less why you're trying to argue it. Your original point (quoted above) is just nonsense. Your subsequent points about the various ways in which ownership rights can be taken away have never been disputed, so what exactly is your issue here?

For the record, in context, that quote from the wiki link is as follows:

"Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land/real estate or intellectual property. An ownership right is also referred to as title. The concept of ownership has existed for thousands of years and in all cultures. Over the millennia, however, and across cultures what is considered eligible to be property and how that property is regarded culturally is very different.

Ownership is the basis for many other concepts that form the foundations of ancient and modern societies such as money, trade, debt, bankruptcy, the criminality of theft and private vs. public property. Ownership is the key building block in the development of the capitalist socio-economic system.

The process and mechanics of ownership are fairly complex since one can gain, transfer and lose ownership of property in a number of ways. To acquire property one can purchase it with money, trade it for other property, receive it as a gift, steal it, find it, make it or homestead it. One can transfer or lose ownership of property by selling it for money, exchanging it for other property, giving it as a gift, being robbed of it, misplacing it, or having it stripped from one's ownership through legal means such as eviction, foreclosure and seizure.

Ownership is self-propagating in that the owner of any property will also own the economic benefits of that property."




ETA: With regard to the 50' pit question, my answer is: I don't know. I've never known anyone who wanted to do such a thing, but assume that if the county felt the pit violated any safety or environmental laws, then they would enforce those laws and demand that the hole be filled in.

 

[Homburg]

ETA: With regard to the 50' pit question, my answer is: I don't know. I've never known anyone who wanted to do such a thing, but assume that if the county felt the pit violated any safety or environmental laws, then they would enforce those laws and demand that the hole be filled in.

Try it some time. You will see how far your ownership rights extend.

As to the rest, there's no way to argue with as well formed and supported a statement as "Your original point is just nonsense."

 

[JMohegan]

Try it some time. You will see how far your ownership rights extend.

As to the rest, there's no way to argue with as well formed and supported a statement as "Your original point is just nonsense."

That wording was rude, and for that, I apologize.

I'll pass on the digging. If your point about the pit was: my property ownership rights don't give me the right to violate safety or environmental laws - that's a point with which I've already agreed.

 

[yourmissl]

Maybe I'm questioning the whole issue from a completely different angle, and that's why I'm a bit confused. To provide some clarity to my understanding, I have a question for those slaves who have posted on this thread that should their Master sell them, they would be bound by that sale: Would you feel that way if your Master decided to sell you to a Russian/Romanian/etc. slave trader?

 

[Homburg]

That wording was rude, and for that, I apologize.

Understood, apology accepted. Thank you.

I'll pass on the digging. If your point about the pit was: my property ownership rights don't give me the right to violate safety or environmental laws - that's a point with which I've already agreed.

Even if it does not violate safety and environmental concerns (as my purposefully extreme example of a 50' pit would), it still represents a substantive modification tot he property outside what codes compliance would allow in most municipalities.

Case in point, a friend of mine bought an old house in an old neighbourhood in an old section of the town I live in. He was told nothing of any historical significance tot he house or any issues vis a vis appearance etc, and did not have an HOA. After a few years, he tired of the drafty old windows in this house, and had them torn out and replaced. His property, thus his right to do it, right? Nope.

City came in about three months later and wrote him a citation. The house was considered to be a historical property, and changing the windows away fromt he historically proper windows was not allowed. He was told to remove all of the windows he'd had installed and replace not with period appropriate windows, but with the original windows that had been torn out.

The realtor did not inform him that the property was considered historically important. The city did not inform him. He asked the realtor later, and the realtor had no idea, and had never heard of such a thing in that area. Yet the city was coming after him with hammer and tongs because he'd done the same thing hundreds of thousands of homeowners do every year.

In this case, the city was telling him that he was going to have a drafty house with unsafe windows, period. As the windows had been disposed of three months prior, he explained that there was no way to put them back in. The city fought him, and began assessing fines, fees, and putting a lien on the property. He eventually sold the house for a stupendous loss due to the liens. No idea if the city continued to hassle the new owner or not.

So we have a situation where a homeowner makes a completely normal, non-environmentally destructive, no safety issue change. Hell, the new windows were a big, fat plus insofar as environmental issues were concerned as they lowered his energy cost significantly, and city had been pushing people to update windows, seal drafts off, etc.. He was also not informed that this was a problem when he got the permit for the contractors to work on the house either. Yes, he got a permit. So the city ostensibly okayed the work.

Yet when random city official sees the new windows on the old house, his rights as a homeowner cease to be valid in the face of some code that not even the realtor had an idea existed. Did this homeowner do wrong? Did he deserve to have a lien put on his property? Was the government respecting his rights as a homeowner?

The whole point to my involvement here was to illustrate that "ownership" is purely consensual, and lasts only as far as the "owner" has the power to protect said "ownership".

 

[JMohegan]

Understood, apology accepted. Thank you.



Even if it does not violate safety and environmental concerns (as my purposefully extreme example of a 50' pit would), it still represents a substantive modification tot he property outside what codes compliance would allow in most municipalities.

Case in point, a friend of mine bought an old house in an old neighbourhood in an old section of the town I live in. He was told nothing of any historical significance tot he house or any issues vis a vis appearance etc, and did not have an HOA. After a few years, he tired of the drafty old windows in this house, and had them torn out and replaced. His property, thus his right to do it, right? Nope.

City came in about three months later and wrote him a citation. The house was considered to be a historical property, and changing the windows away fromt he historically proper windows was not allowed. He was told to remove all of the windows he'd had installed and replace not with period appropriate windows, but with the original windows that had been torn out.

The realtor did not inform him that the property was considered historically important. The city did not inform him. He asked the realtor later, and the realtor had no idea, and had never heard of such a thing in that area. Yet the city was coming after him with hammer and tongs because he'd done the same thing hundreds of thousands of homeowners do every year.

In this case, the city was telling him that he was going to have a drafty house with unsafe windows, period. As the windows had been disposed of three months prior, he explained that there was no way to put them back in. The city fought him, and began assessing fines, fees, and putting a lien on the property. He eventually sold the house for a stupendous loss due to the liens. No idea if the city continued to hassle the new owner or not.

So we have a situation where a homeowner makes a completely normal, non-environmentally destructive, no safety issue change. Hell, the new windows were a big, fat plus insofar as environmental issues were concerned as they lowered his energy cost significantly, and city had been pushing people to update windows, seal drafts off, etc.. He was also not informed that this was a problem when he got the permit for the contractors to work on the house either. Yes, he got a permit. So the city ostensibly okayed the work.

Yet when random city official sees the new windows on the old house, his rights as a homeowner cease to be valid in the face of some code that not even the realtor had an idea existed. Did this homeowner do wrong? Did he deserve to have a lien put on his property? Was the government respecting his rights as a homeowner?

The whole point to my involvement here was to illustrate that "ownership" is purely consensual, and lasts only as far as the "owner" has the power to protect said "ownership".

Oh, Jesus. Someone dropped the ball when your friend bought that house, most definitely. I wonder if he could sue the realtor, former owner, title search company - surely one of those had the legal responsibility to notify the buyer that the property was designated an historic site.

With regard to the statement in bold, I suppose I would agree that ownership is a consensual construct, in the sense that laws are established, and legal rights thereby conferred, by social consensus.

But that doesn't mean that there are no rights of ownership. Everyone, even the government, has to follow the law. And that means respecting the legal rights of owners, and infringing on those rights only through legal measures.

 

[Homburg]

Oh, Jesus. Someone dropped the ball when your friend bought that house, most definitely. I wonder if he could sue the realtor, former owner, title search company - surely one of those had the legal responsibility to notify the buyer that the property was designated an historic site.

I don't think he ever did. The whole thing was so screwed up, and, honestly, the laws are not conducive to any sort of action against the city. No clue on the realtor or title search company. I do recall that he bought the place cash, so that might have expedited the process and taken some of the oversight out of the equation.

With regard to the statement in bold, I suppose I would agree that ownership is a consensual construct, in the sense that laws are established, and legal rights thereby conferred, by social consensus.

But that doesn't mean that there are no rights of ownership. Everyone, even the government, has to follow the law. And that means respecting the legal rights of owners, and infringing on those rights only through legal measures.

In the end, I am being both cynical and absolutist. It's actually a weird position for me, as I am not an absolutist about many things. I think it is just because I am so insulted by incidents such as these (and unfortunately many others) that have occurred in the lives of those around me.

It bothers me that things like this happen, and pisses me off badly that eminent domain happens as often as it does. I could tell all sorts of stories from around here about local businesses getting served notice that their property was being condemned. Why? Because they wouldn't take the below-market value that was being offered for the land they thought they owned. It was land that the local university wanted for expansion, and those businesses were in the way. If they'd been offered real money and were holding out because of emotional reasons, I might be less sympathetic, but one of them actually showed the offer to the newspaper, and it really was a pittance.

And remember the example in a prior post about the DEA finding pot plants on a remote part of unimproved land and thus seizing the place? That happened to my grandfather, and the DEA very nearly did seize the farm.

I know its' legal, but that does not make it ethical. And it destroys any faith I would have in the idea of ownership rights.

 

[YourCaptor]

The government has declared that I own my car (which I paid cash for, so it's ONLY mine).

Ok, say government disappeared, would you still own your car?

And if so, why would you own it?

 

[Taler2003]

Ok, say government disappeared, would you still own your car?

And if so, why would you own it?

Exactly, ownership is only the result of the power to enforce said ownership. If the Mexicans, or Russians, or Chinese (pick your local antagonist), invade your city, your ownership only goes as far as the conquering force recognizes it, and they're under no obligation to.

Power makes ownership possible, and most citizens pool and delegate their power to the government to enforce their ownership.

There are 2 types of people who do not use the government to enforce their ownership, and rather chooses to enforce it themselves:

Extra-governmental organizations such as terrorist groups or African warlords.

or

Criminals.

Slavery was made illegal in most countries (not sure if it's all), and so all slave owners are criminals.

However, slaver owners absolutely do have power to enforce their ownership, whether that power comes in the form of emotional control, economic control, or physical -lock you in the basement, chain you to the brothel bed- control.

Obviously slave owners' power is vastly inferior to that of governments, and slave traders/owners are arrested all the time.

For the BDSM community, the government simply chooses not to test their power because the government respects the consent. (And this is only true in certain countries. Go to China and you'll find the government a lot less receptive to ideas about TPE for fun and games.)

But that does not make the slavery any less real, or the ownership any less so. TPE(slavery) can be just as real as confederate style slavery; only the instrument of power differs, feelings and words, rather than guns and swords.

And the analogy is especially apt, since even in the confederate times (after emancipation), the 'real' government has made slavery illegal. But if you try to tell a plantation owner that he doesn't actually 'own' the slaves, simply because Abraham Lincoln said so, you would be laughed out.

 

[00Syd]

I don't think he ever did. The whole thing was so screwed up, and, honestly, the laws are not conducive to any sort of action against the city. No clue on the realtor or title search company. I do recall that he bought the place cash, so that might have expedited the process and taken some of the oversight out of the equation.



In the end, I am being both cynical and absolutist. It's actually a weird position for me, as I am not an absolutist about many things. I think it is just because I am so insulted by incidents such as these (and unfortunately many others) that have occurred in the lives of those around me.

It bothers me that things like this happen, and pisses me off badly that eminent domain happens as often as it does. I could tell all sorts of stories from around here about local businesses getting served notice that their property was being condemned. Why? Because they wouldn't take the below-market value that was being offered for the land they thought they owned. It was land that the local university wanted for expansion, and those businesses were in the way. If they'd been offered real money and were holding out because of emotional reasons, I might be less sympathetic, but one of them actually showed the offer to the newspaper, and it really was a pittance.

And remember the example in a prior post about the DEA finding pot plants on a remote part of unimproved land and thus seizing the place? That happened to my grandfather, and the DEA very nearly did seize the farm.

I know its' legal, but that does not make it ethical. And it destroys any faith I would have in the idea of ownership rights.

WORD. Take a look at what Columbia is doing to upper Manhattan. We know allllll about eminent domain. Its incredibly abused in NYC.

 

[eastern sun]

Maybe I'm questioning the whole issue from a completely different angle, and that's why I'm a bit confused. To provide some clarity to my understanding, I have a question for those slaves who have posted on this thread that should their Master sell them, they would be bound by that sale: Would you feel that way if your Master decided to sell you to a Russian/Romanian/etc. slave trader?

Yes. But . . . My relationship is not a hypothetical relationship. It exists. And, in existing, it has certain limitations. It doesn't morph and change as quickly and/or as completely as our thoughts and ideas do. It also doesn't come near to being as extreme as some of my fantasies.

I'll repeat again, that, given the fact of my children's existence, the effects of such an act would be so devastating that it is completely unthinkable on my husband's part. He would never choose to do it, in fact.

And given my understanding of my husband (who I've known for over 20 years), it would violate every value that he holds dear. I'm counting on my husband to maintain some sense of self-integrity in this relationship.

It doesn't mean that he hasn't challenged and/or surprised me. It also doesn't mean that he hasn't put me in situations where I felt threatened. But I haven't found myself in a circumstance yet that deeply violates the core values we both hold dear.

It's also why I believe you should not offer yourself in slavery to someone you don't know very, very, very well. I'd hate to wake up to a surprise like that.

(And after my initial "hot, hot" reaction - which I predict would last a remarkably short time - and some experience of the white slave trade, I predict that I would probably want and attempt to get away. I would appreciate the fact that law enforcement officials were on my side. And, if I did manage to get away, I question whether I'd return to my husband.)

 

[Netzach]

I'm still a bit confused here.

If we're arguing dictionary definitions, practically nobody here is a "slave." None of us are "pets" because I'm thinking that implies us being animals. While I do sometimes wonder if some of the posters here aren't monkeys who learned to type, I'll still give them the benefit of the doubt until I'm proven wrong. Hell, we've appropriated the adjectives "dominant" and "submissive" and turned them into nouns, and sometimes, we even make up words.

So why's "property" the only word that's sacred in "You are whatever you want to call yourself, no matter how much you have to twist words and definitions to make it fit" Lit land?

I'm getting a headache and agreeing with you again.

 

[JMohegan]

I don't think he ever did. The whole thing was so screwed up, and, honestly, the laws are not conducive to any sort of action against the city. No clue on the realtor or title search company. I do recall that he bought the place cash, so that might have expedited the process and taken some of the oversight out of the equation.



In the end, I am being both cynical and absolutist. It's actually a weird position for me, as I am not an absolutist about many things. I think it is just because I am so insulted by incidents such as these (and unfortunately many others) that have occurred in the lives of those around me.

It bothers me that things like this happen, and pisses me off badly that eminent domain happens as often as it does. I could tell all sorts of stories from around here about local businesses getting served notice that their property was being condemned. Why? Because they wouldn't take the below-market value that was being offered for the land they thought they owned. It was land that the local university wanted for expansion, and those businesses were in the way. If they'd been offered real money and were holding out because of emotional reasons, I might be less sympathetic, but one of them actually showed the offer to the newspaper, and it really was a pittance.

And remember the example in a prior post about the DEA finding pot plants on a remote part of unimproved land and thus seizing the place? That happened to my grandfather, and the DEA very nearly did seize the farm.

I know its' legal, but that does not make it ethical. And it destroys any faith I would have in the idea of ownership rights.

Cynical venting is understandable. No problem.

 

[JMohegan]

And the analogy is especially apt, since even in the confederate times (after emancipation), the 'real' government has made slavery illegal. But if you try to tell a plantation owner that he doesn't actually 'own' the slaves, simply because Abraham Lincoln said so, you would be laughed out.

And while that dickhead was laughing, what did the President do?

And what happened next?

Christ, man. If you're gonna tell that story, don't leave out the best part.

 

[JMohegan]

Yes. But . . . My relationship is not a hypothetical relationship. It exists. And, in existing, it has certain limitations. It doesn't morph and change as quickly and/or as completely as our thoughts and ideas do. It also doesn't come near to being as extreme as some of my fantasies.

I'll repeat again, that, given the fact of my children's existence, the effects of such an act would be so devastating that it is completely unthinkable on my husband's part. He would never choose to do it, in fact.

And given my understanding of my husband (who I've known for over 20 years), it would violate every value that he holds dear. I'm counting on my husband to maintain some sense of self-integrity in this relationship.

It doesn't mean that he hasn't challenged and/or surprised me. It also doesn't mean that he hasn't put me in situations where I felt threatened. But I haven't found myself in a circumstance yet that deeply violates the core values we both hold dear.

It's also why I believe you should not offer yourself in slavery to someone you don't know very, very, very well. I'd hate to wake up to a surprise like that.

(And after my initial "hot, hot" reaction - which I predict would last a remarkably short time - and some experience of the white slave trade, I predict that I would probably want and attempt to get away. I would appreciate the fact that law enforcement officials were on my side. And, if I did manage to get away, I question whether I'd return to my husband.)

The honesty and realism in this post is incredibly refreshing.

 

[Homburg]

And while that dickhead was laughing, what did the President do?

And what happened next?

Christ, man. If you're gonna tell that story, don't leave out the best part.

This is actually an excellent example of the government utterly destroying the property rights of thousands of people. Admittedly, it was done for the finest reason imaginable, but it does illustrate the transitory nature of property rights.

 

[Taler2003]

And while that dickhead was laughing, what did the President do?

And what happened next?

Christ, man. If you're gonna tell that story, don't leave out the best part.

Indeed, the union government proved that its powers are greater than that of the confederacy.

I mean, is there anything else you want me to say?

 

[Primalex]

Did we already determine whether selling a bdsm slave is actually illegal or not?

 

[StrayKat]

Did we already determine whether selling a bdsm slave is actually illegal or not?

No, enlighten us please

 

[Primalex]

No, enlighten us please

I don't know, as far as I can tell, it is not, as seen in:
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=32227109&postcount=115

so I'm waiting for someone to come up with the law that says it's illegal.