Bring Back Slavery

[LazyDrunk]

But not just any slavery, just "you lost a war and now you're our bitch" -type slavery. Nation-based slavery, if you will. Say your country goes to war, and loses. All citizens who currently belong to the losing nation are now given the option to die or become slaves to the victors. They are given the choice between these two assuming they didn't take the GTFO option (which nobody seems to take).

But why permit slavery and executions? Just to solve disputes over land after a war has taken place?

Well, yeah. If a country chooses to abandon all other options and leans towards warfare, it's civilians should accept the possibility that if they lose, that's it. There's nothing else, no second chances for them.

Now I'm not talking about generational slavery, where the children of slaves become slaves, because all slaves will be sterilized. Want a good way to wipe your culture clear of the human map of history? Go to war and lose.

[x-Toadenalin-x]

At 3/23/06 01:33 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Bring back slavery

What about wars when not all the population are behind them? If we had lost the Iraq war, would it only be the pro-war people who were rounded up?

[LazyDrunk]

At 3/23/06 01:39 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 3/23/06 01:33 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Bring back slavery

What about wars when not all the population are behind them?

If your country is a warring nation that wars all the time, and you're a citizen there, you're endorsing its ways.

Whose responsibility is it to keep their governments in check?

If we had lost the Iraq war, would it only be the pro-war people who were rounded up?

Nope, everyone.

[x-Toadenalin-x]

At 3/23/06 01:45 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

If your country is a warring nation that wars all the time, and you're a citizen there, you're endorsing its ways.
Whose responsibility is it to keep their governments in check?

But then you'd be advocating civil war as a last resort to stop your government from starting a war it might lose. If you lost the civil war, would you then become a slave?
If so, what would be the point of protesting in the first place?

Also, what about a war of defence. If we invaded France tomorrow, we'd probably win, but it wouldn't be fair to enslave France's citizens under your justification.

[LazyDrunk]

At 3/23/06 01:57 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 3/23/06 01:45 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

If your country is a warring nation that wars all the time, and you're a citizen there, you're endorsing its ways.
Whose responsibility is it to keep their governments in check?

But then you'd be advocating civil war as a last resort to stop your government from starting a war it might lose.

Yep. Finish cleaning up your own shit before you start shit in other countries. Makes sense to me, no?

If you lost the civil war, would you then become a slave?

Assuming the civil war was fought under the premise of peace vs war, it would really depend on the victor, wouldn't it?

If so, what would be the point of protesting in the first place?

Protesting is and always will be a way to divert attention.

Also, what about a war of defence.

Clarify please.

If we invaded France tomorrow, we'd probably win, but it wouldn't be fair to enslave France's citizens under your justification.

If going to war for the sole purpose of creating slaves is your nations thing, you wouldn't have to worry long before a unified force decides it's time to put a stop to it.

[x-Toadenalin-x]

At 3/23/06 02:07 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

If you lost the civil war, would you then become a slave?

Assuming the civil war was fought under the premise of peace vs war, it would really depend on the victor, wouldn't it?

Exactly - you could end up being enslaved to avoid being enslaved. And since you are more likely to avoid being enslaved (on purely grounds of probability) if you support your government in a war, your plan encourages warmongering, and unquestioning obediance.

Also, what about a war of defence?

Clarify please.

Well, if someone invaded you, it is unreasonable not to fight back. You would declare war, and try to oust them from your country. If you lost, would you be enslaved? Under your idea, yes, you would, even though you had no choice whether you went to war or not.

Hence you are not punishing warmongering, you are punishing not spending a huge amount on defence.

If we invaded France tomorrow, we'd probably win, but it wouldn't be fair to enslave France's citizens under your justification.

So you don't deny there are cases where your slavery idea is immoral?

[peedee]

Slavery is already here. We are slaves the workforce.

[sdhonda]

Actually, under the geneva thingy you can actually force people in occupied terriritories to work. You have to pay them though, and you cant force them to be soldiers or to work against their country, so its technicly not slave labour. But close enough.

BTW, forcing everyone in an occupied zone to become slaves and lose all their rights would result in MASSIVE INSURGENCY.

[LazyDrunk]

At 3/23/06 02:10 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 3/23/06 02:07 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

If you lost the civil war, would you then become a slave?

Assuming the civil war was fought under the premise of peace vs war, it would really depend on the victor, wouldn't it?

Exactly - you could end up being enslaved to avoid being enslaved. And since you are more likely to avoid being enslaved (on purely grounds of probability) if you support your government in a war, your plan encourages warmongering, and unquestioning obediance.

Or you could utilize the GTFO option (that nobody eve seems to take). You fought in the civil war? You still fought in a war and lost. You knew if you lost you could be enslaved, but you fought anyways.

Do you really see my plan as forcing people to sellout to themselves instead of standing up for what they believe in?

Tell me, what are the consequences for losing a war?

Well, if someone invaded you, it is unreasonable not to fight back. You would declare war, and try to oust them from your country. If you lost, would you be enslaved?

Yes. If you can't defend yourself, or don't have enough friends to help defend, you'd be enslaved.

Under your idea, yes, you would, even though you had no choice whether you went to war or not.

There was also the GTFO option, the execution option, or (more obviously) join the military and fight back option.

Hence you are not punishing warmongering, you are punishing not spending a huge amount on defence.

In this case, I'd be punishing asshole countries who fuck with everybody else, making enemies and opening themselves up for attack.

Ok, say Chile decides that Peru has pissed them off for the last time. Chile declares war on Peru. Peru, having been an asshole to all the other S. American countries, has no allies. Chile wins, and Peru is now just another province of Chile, it's citizens dead, enslaved or GTFO'd. Because Peru couldn't form allies, or stop pissing off Chile, or prevent a war, or defend itself, it forfeits it's right to be a sovereign nation. Game over.

If we invaded France tomorrow, we'd probably win, but it wouldn't be fair to enslave France's citizens under your justification.

So you don't deny there are cases where your slavery idea is immoral?

Of course not. Morality is simply knowing the consequences beforehand. Are you saying the "system" we currently have for defeated nations is moral when is encourages continued strife and slaughter?

[LazyDrunk]

At 3/23/06 02:21 PM, sdhonda wrote: BTW, forcing everyone in an occupied zone to become slaves and lose all their rights would result in MASSIVE INSURGENCY.

That's the idea. Quit making warfare a business and turn it into what it is: me fighting you over your beliefs.

[Ravens-Grin]

At 3/23/06 01:57 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: But then you'd be advocating civil war as a last resort to stop your government from starting a war it might lose. If you lost the civil war, would you then become a slave?
If so, what would be the point of protesting in the first place?

*crickets* Bolshevik Revolution *crickets*

[JMHX]

At 3/23/06 02:27 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

At 3/23/06 02:21 PM, sdhonda wrote: BTW, forcing everyone in an occupied zone to become slaves and lose all their rights would result in MASSIVE INSURGENCY.

That's the idea. Quit making warfare a business and turn it into what it is: me fighting you over your beliefs.

Thank you, Vercingetorix

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

At 3/23/06 02:15 PM, peedee wrote: Slavery is already here. We are slaves the workforce.

Except we get paid and have the choice not to work.

[SouthAsian]

Why resort to 2,000 year old tactcs?

If enslaving nations entire populace never caught on centuries ago, why would it succeed now?

[LazyDrunk]

At 3/23/06 02:47 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote: Why resort to 2,000 year old tactcs?

They work better than what we have now.

If enslaving nations entire populace never caught on centuries ago, why would it succeed now?

It never caught on?

[SouthAsian]

At 3/23/06 02:50 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

At 3/23/06 02:47 PM, -MuTe_EcHo- wrote: Why resort to 2,000 year old tactcs?

How?

It never caught on?

Yeah,even though the allies were victorious they never enslaved the Germans,Japanese or Italians.and that was only 60 years ago.If we enslaved entire populations it would cause a negative boom in demand of products.Even if the slaves didnt get to buy anything there was still the cost of feeding them,taking care of them so they could labor.

[x-Toadenalin-x]

At 3/23/06 02:25 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:
Do you really see my plan as forcing people to sellout to themselves instead of standing up for what they believe in?

Yes I do, but I hope I can see both sides of the argument.

Tell me, what are the consequences for losing a war?

At the moment? Depends entirely on the war. Afganistan and Iraq lost, and both are probably going to be better off after the war than before it. Germany lost WW1, and it was practically destroyed.

Well, if someone invaded you, it is unreasonable not to fight back. You would declare war, and try to oust them from your country. If you lost, would you be enslaved?

Yes. If you can't defend yourself, or don't have enough friends to help defend, you'd be enslaved.

Then, as I say, your plan encourages a global arms race. Both sides frantically trying to obtain arms. Since the original point of your plan was to reduce conflict, you would not suceed.

Hence you are not punishing warmongering, you are punishing not spending a huge amount on defence.

In this case, I'd be punishing asshole countries who fuck with everybody else, making enemies and opening themselves up for attack.

Or, conversely, rewarding warmongering countries who are prepared to invade unpopular countries.

Of course not. Morality is simply knowing the consequences beforehand. Are you saying the "system" we currently have for defeated nations is moral when is encourages continued strife and slaughter?

No. On an intellectual level there is pretty much no difference between your plan and what happens in reality. I assumed this topic was made purely as a though excersize, rather than because you actually believed it.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 3/23/06 01:45 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

Bring back slavery

That's nonsensical.

[x-Toadenalin-x]

At 3/23/06 03:14 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

At 3/23/06 01:45 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

Bring back slavery

That's nonsensical.

I disagree. People thought slavery was acceptable for many hundreds of years - what makes you think our generation has a monopoly on the truth? -LazyDrunk- raises an interesting (if somewhat disturbed) argument. He has backed his argument up with good logic and example.

The lasst you can do is dignify him with the same.

[lapis]

How about debt slavery? If you go bankrupt, you're given to the one you owe money to as a slave. This agrees more with Western / Enlightenment Age values like individualism and capitalism. Individualism, because enslaving entire populations also punishes the ones who have nothing to do with the conflict, like peace activists and children who are not ready to make that decision. And capitalism, since who is the State to restrict the economic freedoms of the wealthy when they want to trade humans? A slave economy could also be run more efficient (decrease labour costs), and high efficiency is among the goals of every true capitalist society.

Because the form of slavery you suggested would be a way of applying "survival of the fittest", just on a scale of nations rather than individual people. It would just stimulate the people of weaker countries to try and migrate illegally to the more powerful countries. The larger nations who have little appreciation for values like human rights and individualism would invade their weaker neighbours, creating a few powerful blocks of strong nations and protectorates who'll spend huge sums of money on their armies, and every dollar that you tax economic agents for that's spent on the military could be better spent to improve the economy by the agents themselves.

[ubernoober]

Dude, we could totally like take over france so i could get one of those guys to mow my lawn.

But seriously nation-based slavery would creat more wore just as a way to gain more slaves.

[Whiteout82]

Even if this was to come back, think america is hated by all those middle eastern countries or at a good chunk of them, don't you think they would want to invade us? Sure it's a long trip but they could always send people here as immigrants then get illegal weapons from where ever and start a war right under our brow. Who says they have that much intellegence, well apparently they do if we can't find one of them in a mountain range after how ever many years. And if we wanted couldn't America, with it's almost limitless amount of nuclear arsenal be able to submit countires into becoming slaves, this for starters would encourage revolutions for freedom. Peace activists on the home front would be against it, and the weapons race would be accelerated hundreds of times more than it is right now.

[fahrenheit]

How would we distribute them? First come first serve, or auctions. Because they would go anywhere from 2,000 to 50,000 depending on the specimen. Only the rich would be able to afford them.

At 3/23/06 01:39 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: What about wars when not all the population are behind them? If we had lost the Iraq war, would it only be the pro-war people who were rounded up?

No civilians would be rounded up, we would lose an invasion not a defensive war. We didnt nearly focus as many troops as we could have there and if they won they wouldnt be able to take our country because of our other groups and our national defense. Not to mention the surviving troops that come home.

[sweede]

Man, this is disgusting!
This confirms my prejudices of americans as dumb, arrogant, war-crazy and thinking they own the world.
This also makes me long even more to the end of the american empire. (it is an empire and as all others, it will fall)

Now to the topic:
You think just becouse you got a great army you can rule the world?
You can't even occupy one country!
You think you are worth more than an iraqi, why?
Becouse you were born in USA?
Excuse me, I must vomit so this is the end of my post

[LazyDrunk]

At 3/24/06 09:12 AM, sweede wrote: Man, this is disgusting!
This confirms my prejudices of americans as dumb, arrogant, war-crazy and thinking they own the world.
This also makes me long even more to the end of the american empire. (it is an empire and as all others, it will fall)

Be careful what you wish for. You want to work with people like me.

Now to the topic:
You think just becouse you got a great army you can rule the world?

I think 3rd world countries need to either quit teaching you guys english, because your grasp of the language is lacking.

You can't even occupy one country!

You don't understand the American military, and the true reason for our presence in Iraq.

You think you are worth more than an iraqi, why?

The same reason an Iraqi thinks he's worth more than me.

Becouse you were born in USA?
Excuse me, I must vomit so this is the end of my post

Resistance is futile. When you learn our language, you are becoming our culture. When you buy our clothes, you are endorsing our empire. When you become ignorant, you're encouraging our ways.

Knock it off.

[sweede]

At 3/24/06 10:10 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:

I think 3rd world countries need to either quit teaching you guys english, because your grasp of the language is lacking.

Now sweden is a 3rd world country, wow great geographical knowledge.

You don't understand the American military, and the true reason for our presence in Iraq.

Pretty much, the same reason as all the american wars: Money.

The same reason an Iraqi thinks he's worth more than me.

He doesn't think hes better than you, he probably doesn't know much in geography, but wait, I wonder if you do:
Whats the iraqi capital?

Resistance is futile. When you learn our language, you are becoming our culture.

I speak english, it is the language of england and their former colony america.

When you buy our clothes, you are endorsing our empire.

Always avoid: Made in America signs.
However I like Burger king.

When you become ignorant, you're encouraging our ways.

Knock it off.

I'm not ignorant, a person who thinks becouse he's american he's better than others is ignorant.

[Narusegawa]

I think we should bring bak endentured servants. Where if you commit a crime on someone you work to repay them. None of this jail bullshit, that's a waste of time and money.

[psycho-squirrel2]

no. slavery is bad and immoral.

not all citizens are for war. and dont say "well they could leave" because they cant always. even if they want to leave, they might be too poor to leave.

it used to be this way. not anymore. you want to go backwards. people like you dont want to advance. people like you want to take the world back to the dark ages or even before that.

anyone who says yes to this thread gives up their right to live.

[Shadic-1]

Because when a country starts a war, all the citizens fully support that war, and the losing country is always the evil one which deserves to be conquered because they have less funding for a military.

I think your idea is a great way to make every superpower nation form into one nation and create world conquest by eliminating the weak though.

[psycho-squirrel2]

it is a good thing your idea wont work.