Slavery

What do you think of slavery?
Was it justified?
Should we be able to own people?

Other urls found in this thread:

americanthinker.com/articles/2013/03/that_dirty_rotten_racistabraham_lincoln.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Emory_Davis
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I like the idea of someone owning my little boi bussy

yea why not

no. it's a disgrace and should be punishable by death.

jewish books say it's okay.

Jesus frees humanity from sin through His sacrifice on The Cross

Gotta build them pyramids somehow.

The Arabs got it right: castrate the males and don't fuck the females. Use em then lose em. Don't keep them around afterwards and try to 'apologize' to them.

Do we even really know what we mean by "slavery"?

>Nozick's "stages of slavery"

Stage one is that you are indeed a slave, subject to a brutal master who forces you to work for him and who beats you arbitrarily.
In the second stage the master lightens up a bit and he beats you only for breaking the rules. And he even grants you some free time.
In the third stage we add the additional dimension that you are one of a group of slaves subject to this master. And this master, based on principles that are acceptable to all of you, decides how goods will be allocated among you.
In the fourth stage you even get some time off. You have to work for the master for only 3 days per week. The other 4 days are your own.
In stage five you even get to work wherever you want, but you have to remit to the master three sevenths of your wages to correspond to the 3 day out of seven that you once worked for him. He also retains the right to recall you into service in emergencies, and to increase at any time the fraction of your wages to which he lays claim.
Then, in stage six, everyone, all – let's say ten thousand slaves - except you – are granted the right to vote, so they get to decide what is allowed and what is not allowed. They get to decide what fraction of your wages will be taken away and what outlets the money will be spent on.
In stage seven you still don't have the right to vote, but you are allowed to try to persuade those who can vote to exercise their powers in a particular way.
In stage eight, you are granted the right to vote, but only to break a tie. You write down your vote, and if a tie should occur, your vote is opened up and recorded. No tie has ever occurred.
Finally in stage nine you are fully granted the right to vote. But this simply means functionally that, as in stage eight, in case of a tie your vote carries the issue. But there has never been a tie.

I see no problem with it

I wouldn't mind having a qt slave with no hope but to serve me for the rest of her miserable life. It would function great as an ego boost desu.

Both chattel slavery and wage slavery are repulsive.

americanthinker.com/articles/2013/03/that_dirty_rotten_racistabraham_lincoln.html

>Moreover, if, according to the progressive version of history, abolition of slavery was the cause of the Civil War, why didn't Lincoln free the slaves right off the bat? Why did he wait for many months -- and do it only when the war took a bad turn for the Union, and, more important, when the superpowers of the day, Great Britain and France, were about to recognize the Confederacy and come to its aid? Viewed realistically, abolition of slavery was by any measure a stratagem in pursuit of a purely pragmatic goal: to win over British and French public opinion and scare away the Confederacy's potential allies, whose assistance might have had a crucial effect on the outcome of the war. It was a brilliant and highly successful tactical move.

>As a matter of fact, the president never tried to hide his real objective. He wrote: "I view the matter [Emancipation Proclamation] as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." And here is another confession of the Great Emancipator: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." Lincoln had every reason to fret over the Europeans' suspicions of his intentions. The Old World largely (ironically, with the exception of that bastion of reaction, Russia) sided with the Confederacy, which was viewed as a victim of a predatory North driven by greed.

war was about slavery, all you're doing is proving lincoln had ulterior motives. south still succeeded primarily to continue being slavers.

OP i think slavery is great since it ensures the possibility of minimum quality of treatment, but odds are most of these niggers wont use it that way. the idea of enslaving someone and treating them well is pretty much non existant in society. just look at the way we treat animals. in theory it is a perfect system like communism or white washed fascism. but in reality both are ruined by the constituant people involved in creating and perpetuating the ideals.

lol I'm not denying it was about slavery and that it was only abolished for reasons than sympathizing with niggers. Niggers were designed for slavery, that's why the slave trade was centered on Africa.

What do you mean "was?"

There are more slaves in the world today than any other time in history
The largest slave raids of the 20th century took place in the 90s
Racial, chattel slavery still exists

The most successful slave owners treated their slaves well, just like award winning pet owners do.
>Joseph Davis provided much better living conditions for slaves than usual, granted them considerable self-government, and provided skills training and health care. In 1867 Davis Bend was cut off from the mainland by flooding in which the Mississippi River cut a new channel across the peninsula. Davis sold the plantation to Benjamin Montgomery, who had been an outstanding manager, and encouraged him in making a community of freedmen.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Emory_Davis


This guy was the brother of Jefferson Davis. He owned many slaves and plantations.

slavery is just semantics

Slavery can never be justified, even for niggers.

To deny someone autonomy in this one life, even if they are an 80 iq jungle bunny who would do nothing with freedom, is repulsive.

>was it
You know slavery still exists right?

isn't every great human civilization based on slavery? is it a stretch to say that humans would never have advanced without enslaving other humans?

This is why people make fun of Sup Forums.

You mean being forced to work for no money

>isn't every great human civilization based on slavery?

its more like a great pyramid scheme but yeah kind of.

>just like award winning pet owners do
you don't really know anything about thuroubred degeneration and the slaved sugar industry do you?

Maybe the globalists are actually good guys in that they want to import shitskinsand make the western world aware of how shit they are, eventually we'll dislike them enough to justify enslave them, fixing so many issues

Slave labor is a silly, nonsense economic model. If we deprive laborers of capital, and thus, purchasing power, we are in effect ensuring that only business owners may purchase anything. Of course slavery may be mixed with traditional employment on an economy of scale, where it may reduce costs on the business, only then it imposes even more costs on the business owner since the owner has to pay for the well-being of his slaves. And then once again, what sense does it make not to pay your workers? That only invites revolt. Furthermore, how will they pay for your products if you do not pay them? How will slaves outside of your business buy your products if they are not paid? And so forth. Like welfare, it is fundamentally unsustainable.

Why do you use the past tense? Slavery still exists today in Africa.

>What do you think of slavery?
>Was it justified?
>Should we be able to own people?

it's okay if the slaves are criminals/people that got in debts/sold themselves/were sold by their parents

generally speaking it wasn't justified as the slaves were victims of war in most cases

and yes slavery is ok

in terms of this slavery is more like a kind of welfare than a real economic model intended to optimize economic growth and prosperity.

>practice that has been around since prehistory and is still widespread today
>unsustainable
choose one

>It's okay because I'm not one and it hasn't affected me personally in anyway!

>>It's okay because I'm not one and it hasn't affected me personally in anyway!
nothing wrong with this preference.

>Slavery
>Over with

Fuck off shill. If slavery is so bad go find you some human trafficers and take them out instead of bitching on Sup Forums

Sage

>What do you think of slavery?
Economically sensible. Morally repugnant. Tends to destroy societies when the slave cast gets too large. In the long run it's a net negative for any society that employs it.

>Was it justified?
Economically yes. Free labor is very tempting. But it has an effect on the lower cast citizens over time, as well as the owners of slaves. Everyone in society should be kept busy enough that they cannot rest on their laurels and free enough to improve their immediate surroundings. Slavery leads to the mindset of socialists as more free men become indolent and demand benefit without work.

>Should we be able to own people?
no.

Slavery didn't end for moral reasons, it just evolved into wage slavery because not having to worry about your slave's housing and food is superior from the exploiter's perspective.

Being a slave was relatively good compared to being an early industrial era wage slave. Your boss had more incentive to care about your wellbeing since you weren't as easily interchangeable.

at the very least it makes you a piece of shit. but you probably enjoy being one.

That's not really slavery unless you're working for the person you're paying your living expenses to.

FUCK YOU GOY RESPECT MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT

Slavery exists on every continent except Antarctica

It was re-branded as trafficking by the UN because slavery is a human rights offense and trafficking is not and the UN didn't want to piss off members with loads of slaves in their countries

Slavery of women and niggers is based. Anything else is a waste. Unless you're enslaving jews.

shut the fuck up leaf

Yes. If you can exert enough power to "own" someone, and that person refuses to fight or rebel they deserve to be a slave

This

Yes there is actually. Kill yourself.

>was
It's still happens today.

Yeah it's called the American prison system.

This

At the very least your views make you a faggot, but probably you're enjoying being one

>Harming men and not women

Fuck off you femdom cuck piece of shit

>What do you think of slavery?
retarded
>Was it justified?
no
>Should we be able to own people?
only if they consent

> retarded
Explain. It's a decent economic model.

If I make you and raise you, I own you.

if you're going to bant at least try to prepare a statement that doesn't read like a rockslide. you fucking retard.

You cannot own your superiors
You would not own your equal
And owning something inferior to yourself reflects poorly
So no. Slavery is bad

an argument for slavery is an argument that rights don't exist

Non-whites should only be allowed to exist for the benefit of the white race, ie the only human beings in existence. The rest is nothing but cattle, and should be treated as such.
If you want to own a nigger so that he can pick cotton for you, that's your right.

> Not bad if my whatevergroup is the slaveholder.

>Not good if my whatevergroup is the enslaved.

Slavery was brought down to us by the gods.

They made us as we are to be the workers to appease the revolt of the Igigi.

Read your history from the Atrahasis.

Rights are a social construct, so yeah, they don't objectively exist.

You own a mug. A mug is inferior to you. By your logic, you can't own a mug. Do you own a mug?

It was your statement with one word changed, trying to make you realize that you made a non-argument, thinking it was an argument.

>thing is social construct therefore it doesn't exist
???

It is a very poor economic model because of alongside removing agency from a great deal of the population, agency that could have been used in founding new businesses. Restricting individual enterprise is without exception a poor idea.

I think it was justified. sure they are human, blacks I mean, but they where also very uncivilized. we brought them over and gave them a somewhat better life albeit if you ignore the whippings, but humans are no different than animals. sometimes being hit is the only way to teach. especially if the slave is illiterate and doesn't understand English. I believe it wasn't a bad thing. it was also smart. have someone else work for you who has no clue about anything other than work. it's working smart, not hard. no today, in the modern world, I don't think it's totally necessary. especially since most everyone is a lazy asshole and some working could them some good.

It doesn't exist if it's existance can cease if you change your views.

> great deal of population
That's where you're wrong, most of jobs that could be done by slaves are already being done by machines

> humans are different than animals
No, they're not, fundamentally there are no differences. Sure we're more advanced evolutionally, but we're the structures of the same biological components.

You should be able to own slaves, and also sell heroin to 5 year old prostitutes. We libertarian now.

look, an illiterate slave.
I said humans are no different than animals

The thing about a Libertarian free market is that its self correcting.

So if you get into that kind of business it wont be too long before you get your correction...

How is that relevant to any of the points I made?

Government should enslave africans and give whites a basic income from the profits they make
This would free whites to work on important things like science, music, video games, etc

>It was your statement with one word changed,

>one word

>"but probably you're enjoying being one"

>you are

>enjoying

www.dictionary.com

google.com search how to speak english

bye bitch

Blacks in Africa
>built some mud huts
>weak from disease
>skinny from famine
>stressed from war

Blacks in America before 1860s
>helped build a great nation
>grew strong with plenty of exercise
>always had plenty to eat
>carefree existence with zero stress

Blacks in America after 1860s
>built nothing
>weak from drugs
>fat from junk food
>constant stress of constant crime

Yeah, I actually care about black people so I 100% support slavery. Emancipation was a jewish trick and boy, did they get the niggers good.

Slavery threads are the most edgy threads on Sup Forums

More importantly that's a sexy statue

Sorry, 'no' is very short word, easy to miss, Lithuanian is better language, you can't confuse two things so different

There will be no such corrections, it's very profitable. The platation owners were very rich.

Removing agency from a small percentage doesn't change much

It's gramatically correct. It's present tense. I know your language better than you.

>It's gramatically correct. It's present tense. I know your language better than you.

It literally isn't you stupid faggot. Please ban this idiot.

Pretty sure this is The Greek Slave by Hiram Powers. There is a version of it in the Saint Louis Art Museum. Lots of other versions are out there too, I know there is one in Brooklyn.

>Removing agency from a small percentage doesn't change much
That doesn't mean it's a good idea. Let's say Jeremiah finds a more arable patch of land to grow crops. In a free society, he could buy that land for himself, compete with the local farms, helping to lower prices and improve the quality of the crops. If, on the other hand, he's a slave, he has to fuck off back to the cotton field and forget about it.

This is hardly any different from arguing a no safety net free market vs welfare dependency.

totally.


>

I think that I should be allowed to own qt loli slaves that I take lots of care of and cuddles.

>tfw one of few Americans whose family owned slaves
Feels good mang.

I don't think it's right though. Humans deserve to have their freedom. Yet, I think it's an over-exaggerated issue. Slaves were expensive and they weren't beaten to a pulp constantly.

Also, .

Our current "globalism" "free trade" paradigm is analogous to slavery in what kind of effects it has on the host country. Very few people get very rich, individually, and lots of people get very poor. The health of the country overall suffers.

The first round of US slavery was started by bringing in over half a million negroes that have multiplied to over 40 million. What will this free trade leave in terms of damage?

Ppl as property, not objects