RE: SLAVE TRADE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master



Message

MasterJBK -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/9/2007 7:49:50 AM)

yes it shows american arrogance and close mindedness. I mean we close off ourselves from the rest of the older world by being to close minded, now i don't wish to imply that all american's are close minded just a vast majority. I like in the bible belt were most get offended by a gay guy hitting on them.



Aswad -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/9/2007 9:59:21 AM)

To michael:

Well, no need for all the cards to be dressed up. ;)

To JBK:

Instituting it for crimes would be insane. Providing it as an alternative that nonviolent criminals can choose instead of jail, with certain state-determined easements, would be an entirely different thing, and is the only form of it that I would advocate, as any other form fails to serve any purpose beyond pervy fantasies that have no place in politics.

As to openmindedness, go take the Big Five personality inventory at the personality project.

To zack:

If they were accorded legal rights, or corporations became major buyers, then some of those below the poverty line would probably consider it, yes. That has happened in the past, and is a form which has a rather long tradition, if memory serves. But there is a big difference between being a servant, being a slave with inalienable rights, and being a slave with only negotiated easements.

Apart from that one point, the rest of your post does not warrant a reply.



MasterJBK -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/9/2007 10:54:47 AM)

already took a personality test. i am openminded up the wazzo. yes it is insane for today's society. and i didn't say non violent i wouldn't institute indentured servitude to ppl who don't need a little attitude adjustment. and violent criminals need it more than non violent, of coarse the courts and the government would have to regulate it. it is not like we don't already force criminals to pick up garbage and make liscence plates to give you an example maybe not making liscence plates anymore. but you understand what i am saying. we should take it one step further.



atendersoul -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/9/2007 12:53:56 PM)

what ashame that this posting that started off so well and was becoming interesting to be so side tracked here.....



Aswad -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/9/2007 4:14:16 PM)

JBK,

I didn't say it was insane for today's society. I said it was insane, period. Prisons are a good enough breeding ground for crime, hate and resentment of authority without adding slavery to the mix. Criminals generally need rehabilitation. They don't "need" slavery, or whatever else. And it's not about what they "need". It's about what we, society, need. Which is not harder criminals. And violent criminals would be damn dangerous as slaves.

The entire point of the matter is to solve problems, along with taking certain rights a step further.

By letting them choose it as an alternative, rather than enforcing it, you're giving them a chance to take responsibility for what they've done, and take charge of how they make their way back, along with placing them in an environment that will generally be better for them than prison (depending on how it is regulated), and generally be better for the rest of society. At the same time, there will be less overcrowding in the prisons, and a lot better separation between the individual criminals. Various other reasons, too, but you hopefully get the idea.

What you are talking about, is not what I'm talking about.
And the fact that many would think as you do is my only reservation about the whole thing.



AquaticSub -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/9/2007 6:33:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zack2912

Children of the slaves will be brought up with the values to serve the master in every way possible like still happens in villages and farming sector for social security and survival.


Even if this comes to pass, the children should not be owned. They didn't make that choice and should be considered free until they choose (at an age where they are educated and wordly enough to make the choice) to serve.

My owner owns me. He does not own what comes out of my womb. That is his child, not his property. This sounds to me like a good way for men to get out their responsibilities as a father. And a deadbeat dad is just that - a loser deadbeat even if he calls himself a master.



Aswad -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/9/2007 7:01:21 PM)

Agree with AquaSub.

Even thinking cynically (which I don't, in this regard), it would make no sense to have the notion of slavery as a born condition in the modern era. To acknowledge the option of voluntarily entering into it is one thing. I could even go along with the owner having legal custody of the child, unless there was some easement to the contrary. And how children can be reared is a seperate topic. But to have them born into slavery would be a caste system, which isn't just reintroducing slavery (albeit in a consensual form), but also reintroducing the caste system. I see potential benefits to the former, but not to the latter.



LafayetteLady -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/9/2007 11:02:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

The ramifications of our country (USA) moving backward to a return to slavery, consensual or not would be absolutely terrible.


I disagree. Consensual slavery, even in a literal definition of the term, remains different in nature. The main point of contention is that I believe it should be an inalienable right to exercise free will, as you do, but I hold that to also mean that an act of will (a choice) should be free to enact permanent changes. This is so in other regards, like DNR orders.

For me, the whole concept of informed consent is basically a means to try to discern the act of will, and seperate it from those things that may interpose themselves between their will and mine (i.e. weed out things that would make it not their own will, whether in the sense of it being a whim or impulse, as opposed to actual will, or in the sense of  it being an illness that masks or displaces their will).

But, at the risk of repeating myself, I do subscribe to the idea of prior consent. That one can make the choice up front, and not just continously in the moment. Whether that is acceptable and legal, will depend on prevailing cultural bias et cetera, and on law / legal precedent. Personally, I think people should be allowed to make any choice, not just the choices handed to them, as those are never the full range of choices available. I also think the law should reflect this.

My two cents, in any case.


That is the whole point.  Look at the slaves/subs on this site alone.  They have made choices they thought were informed, only to find out the information they received was not quite right.  Given what is being talked about here, the right to remove that consent and choice would not exist.

A DNR is quite a different permanent choice than choosing to be a slave for life.  Even with DNR orders, they are typically involved in situations where the person's quality of life would be severely and permanently damaged to the point of non existence.  To equate that with choosing to live a life where you no longer HAVE free will is ridiculous. 

Allowing someone to make any choice at any time exists within the limits of the law.  Everyone seems to forget that the abolishment of slavery came about for a reason.  Yes, that was not consensual slavery, but the same problems would come to exist.  The right to CHOOSE who one serves in paramount in consensual slavery.  The right to choose to stop serving is a basic human right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zack2912

Well I feel that before slavery emerges as a trade it will be the wish of the needy people to be slaved and taken care of voluntarily . Examples :-

1. People end up in prisons by deliberately commiting minor crimes so they are not worried about  safety , survival etc. The state feeds them.


People in prisons are constantly worried about their safety, and while we are on the subject, people commiting MINOR crimes do not go to prison, they go to jail.  There is a vast difference between the two. 

I would be very curious where you actually came up with this information.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zack2912
2. have u witnessed servants boasting among fellow servants about their masters wealth , salary & benefits recieved , treatment etc.

So the same will be the case with slaves boasting about their masters dominance and powers to protect and feed them.


Those "servants" are paid for their service and their employer is their boss, not their owner.  If at any time they decide that their BOSS no longer pleases them, they are free to leave.  When they may be lured away to another, more wealthy employer, it is typically for a more financially benificial situation, money in their pockets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: zack2912

Children of the slaves will be brought up with the values to serve the master in every way possible like still happens in villages and farming sector for social security and survival.
money slaves who are under debt and have to serve.
the masters religion will be adopted by the slave and the masters god will be the slaves god.


And thereby remove the right to choose to be a lifelong slave by deciding that children's fates are decided by the choices of their parents.  You are talking about the same kind of non consensual slavery that was abolished with the Emancipation Proclamation.  Perhaps you have heard of it?

The bottom line is that far too many people when they find themselves in a difficult or vulnerable position in life could easily be persuaded to make a choice that could change their life forever with no hope for changing it if they someday decide this is not what they want.

While current consensual slavery may not be widely accepted and technically illegal, all of the changes and suggestions made here would do nothing but turn the progress of this world back a century and it is ludicrous to even consider it.



RPutnamJr -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/9/2007 11:13:54 PM)

One could make an arguement though that even if they are not owned there is the arguement that they are still slave economically to their boss, thus making them slaves upon the system that they are in. For one does get better educational opportunities and other benefits from wealth and being around wealth that they would not necessarily benefit from if they did not have the wealth to start with.

Paris Hilton is a prime example of how wealth begets wealth...that is one girl with no substance to her...what a waste if you ask me. And people who work for minimum wage stuck in a cycle of economic poverty is the other extreme.



RPutnamJr -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/9/2007 11:20:27 PM)

Now when it comes to real life and slavery,

One could if they wish do a prenuptual divorce, which I read about is becoming more in place dealing with child custody and other arrangements that were not usually covered in more traditional prenuptuals dealing with economic issues. Although one would not technically own a child, one could put in there who would raise the child in case of divorce and so forth.

Robert



zack2912 -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/10/2007 12:15:28 AM)

We are all Slaves to our Destiny



MasterJBK -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/10/2007 7:37:01 AM)

children should not be owned agreed. they should decide to be owned or not when they turn 18



MasterJBK -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/10/2007 7:42:45 AM)

very true.

and many don't think like me but then again many do.

i was thinking that they needed a little lesson in humility. not that it would be a lesser punishment.

and dangerous criminals wouldn't be dangerous if kept shackled with non lethal throwing capacity on their shackles. and advance we have yet to come up with. and i don't mean to give them a choice in the matter, so consensuality would not be an issue b/c whether they consent or not. and i might have said give them the choice before i apologize for misleading you.

the fact that criminals get worse is not b/c we put them in jails, but we allow them to interact with other criminals and share stories and ideas...my thinking is take them out of that enviorment all together.

and yes i agree we should put criminals through rehabilitation but wasn't that the original idea of prisons. (i only talk about american prisons b/c i do not know how other prisons came to pass.)



sirguym -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/10/2007 10:36:28 AM)

I organise events; the Tawsingham community where subbies (male, female, TV) line up in a Hiring Fair like we used to have in the UK from C14 until the early 20th century, where agricultural or domestic labourers would be hired for a 6, or 12-month period.
They are there, dressed in their 'Sunday best' servant's or maid uniform, for inspection by potential Masters and Mistresses, as skivvies or sluts, with a contract in hand that says what they good at, and what they're not, and what they will do and what they won't.
If a Mistress or Master wants to inspect their teeth, tits or whatever, then they can allow them to; or not. If the slave-girl wants to ask if the Master can get it up she can; until the contract is signed they are still free.
If paired-off they sign the contract for the duration and are 'property' for that time; no money changes hands though, though I guess it could - but it would probably be a subbie paying the Dom (or more likely Domme).
Their Master or Mistress may sell their contract (and by implication their services too), or rent them out, or just give them away, according to the terms of the contract agreed.
If they don't get hired (or are rejected as too much effort by their Master or Mistress) they go to the Workhouse, run by a Mistress and have to do the chores for the whole community and don't get much fun, to give them an incentive to look pretty and act compliantly, etc. at the Hiring Fair and afterwards.
It seems to work very well for all concerned, and for a lucky few is the beginning of a longer term relationship.
It is not an auction, but a negotiation; though not a wholly equal one; but who wants that anyway!
It may not be legal; but I cannot see anyone bringing it to law, so long as we keep it safe. sane and consensual.




AquaticSub -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/10/2007 10:59:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sirguym

It is not an auction, but a negotiation; though not a wholly equal one; but who wants that anyway!

As far as Valyraen and I are concerned, if the negotiations are not conducted on equal ground, if someone has the advantage over the slave or submissive, then one has to wonder why they consented. To us, that submission isn't worth anything and isn't worth having.
quote:



It may not be legal; but I cannot see anyone bringing it to law, so long as we keep it safe. sane and consensual.



So they can leave whenever they want and you stop people from getting abusive? 



whipingherfeet -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/10/2007 3:09:46 PM)

yes sounds good to me .we could have naked slaves girl at k mart on sale .



Aswad -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/10/2007 5:47:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

That is the whole point.  Look at the slaves/subs on this site alone.  They have made choices they thought were informed, only to find out the information they received was not quite right.  Given what is being talked about here, the right to remove that consent and choice would not exist.


Nor should it. Shit happens. Let the next person be more careful. If they can't deal with the consequences, they have no business pretending to be competent to give informed consent. Really, if you knew signing up for something might permanently (or, rather, at that person's discretion) hand your self-ownership to another, would you perhaps think a bit more carefully about it than if you know you can back out? If people are unable to do that, they should be in a different kind of slavery: legal guardianship.

quote:

A DNR is quite a different permanent choice than choosing to be a slave for life. Even with DNR orders, they are typically involved in situations where the person's quality of life would be severely and permanently damaged to the point of non existence. To equate that with choosing to live a life where you no longer HAVE free will is ridiculous.


That's your opinion. Mine is that if you're competent to choose death over life, you are also competent to choose the manner in which you live on an equally permanent basis. And that the existence of people who are incompetent should not mean every citizen is to be treated as mentally incompetent.

quote:

Allowing someone to make any choice at any time exists within the limits of the law.


No. The law specifically excludes the possibility of certain choices, and also specifically includes provisions that deprive a person of the right to choose freely given certain clear circumstances, such as legal guardianship or psychiatric inpatient care. Both of these are conditions that you can affect up front by an Advance Directive, and conditions that are not up to you when you want to exit them, wherein you are deprived of choice.

quote:

Everyone seems to forget that the abolishment of slavery came about for a reason.


No need to jump to conclusions. I'm well aware it came about for a reason. I faced half again as long a jail term as a premeditated murder for not refusing forced labour and the temporary resignation of my freedom to make my own choices, in my own country. The problems associated with it are not unknown to me.

quote:

Yes, that was not consensual slavery, but the same problems would come to exist.


You'd end up with some problems, and a lot of advantages. The problems would be tied to preexisting social problems in the US, while the advantages would be independent of that. Hence, the former are solveable by social measures. As for the rest, a quick competency test, government regulation, notarization without the future owner present, and you have better safeguards on slavery than childhood.

quote:

The right to CHOOSE who one serves in paramount in consensual slavery.


Not really, no. At least one forum member has mentioned arrangements for being transferred to another owner if her current one should pass away. I did not get the impression she chose him herself. This comes down to the bit about a modern concept of property, which includes easements, and those can include nontransferrability, as they actually do for some goods already.

quote:

The right to choose to stop serving is a basic human right.


Not in my opinion. You don't get to choose whether to be a president or a bum. You get to choose what you aim for, and what you try to do. Something you can still do, unless you're being seriously drugged or neurosurgically modified, which is more likely to happen in an inpatient setting. What you're saying is that the right to choose should only be the right to choose between the alternatives presented by a third party, without inventing one of your own.

Note also that there are already things you can choose to get into, or even be dragged involuntarily into, that you can't choose to get out of at any time. The Army, for instance, where leaving at a bad time is called desertion, and can be an execution offense. Or inpatient care, where the docs decide when you get out, and can employ any means they deem necessary to keep you from leaving their care, including mind altering drugs. Or prison, where you can be wrongfully incarcerated and put into forced labour.

quote:

The bottom line is that far too many people when they find themselves in a difficult or vulnerable position in life could easily be persuaded to make a choice that could change their life forever with no hope for changing it if they someday decide this is not what they want.


See the various points above. This is a social problem, not a slavery problem. Anyone undergoing SRS is in a difficult and vulnerable position in life, and are allowed to make a choice that definitely will change their life forever with no more hope of successfully changing it. Similar things are the case for various mental and physical illnesses.

Not to mention that this pretty much sums up why welfare efforts are a part of crime prevention in the first place.

quote:


While current consensual slavery may not be widely accepted and technically illegal, all of the changes and suggestions made here would do nothing but turn the progress of this world back a century and it is ludicrous to even consider it.


What is ludicrous is to consider considering something to be ludicrous.

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - A. Einstein.



Aswad -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/10/2007 5:54:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJBK

i was thinking that they needed a little lesson in humility.


Then I think you need it more. Seriously. You have no idea what their situation is like, yet confidently pronounce what they need, expressing closed-minded ideas that are no more than repeating the party line with a bit more hubris than usual and a "solution" that conveniently fits your sexual fantasies...

quote:

and dangerous criminals wouldn't be dangerous if kept shackled with non lethal throwing capacity on their shackles.


That is expensive, not reliable, and more likely to malfunction than to actually work.

And given a few years to figure out how to poison the owner while s/he sleeps ... I certainly wouldn't want one.

quote:

and i don't mean to give them a choice in the matter, so consensuality would not be an issue b/c whether they consent or not.


That is unethical and counterproductive. It illustrates why I have not made a serious effort at pushing the idea.

quote:

the fact that criminals get worse is not b/c we put them in jails, but we allow them to interact with other criminals and share stories and ideas...my thinking is take them out of that enviorment all together.


Even Norway has lower recidivism rates than the US does, and Denmark is way better than both. And we do allow them to interact with the others, more than you do in the US. You seem to be in complete ignorance of the basic facts. Familiarize yourself with other countries than your own before you try to predict the outcome of things, or make judgments about what is intrinsic to something, and what is the cultural context of your own country.



sting516 -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/10/2007 6:25:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BossyShoeBitch


quote:



As a Domme, this brings up SO many memories of getting turned on as a kid watching Roots..
OMG, when they had the slave auctions and the slaves would be paraded around and inspected ..yummmy..
That's about when I realized I  wasn't like the other boys and girls LOL![sm=evil.gif]


i'm reminded of a time when i was at a semi-private dungeon in San Francisco...there was a fem sub who was presented for inspection...and  she was poked, prodded and explored in many way for one and all...truly someone who felt she was a slave in every sense of the word.



sirguym -> RE: SLAVE TRADE (8/11/2007 12:59:59 AM)

quote:

As far as Valyraen and I are concerned, if the negotiations are not conducted on equal ground, if someone has the advantage over the slave or submissive, then one has to wonder why they consented. To us, that submission isn't worth anything and isn't worth having.

The  Slave is there because he /she wants an owner and have consented to be owned.
The choice they have is to agree with any proposition put to them - or not - and if not they end up as a slave in the Workhouse

So they can leave whenever they want and you stop people from getting abusive?


Yes, at any time a slave can walk from their owner and go to the Workhouse instead.

If they are in the Workhouse they can choose to quit the community.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875