Slavery would fix the economy.

[FUNKbrs]

YES.

I JUST SAID THAT.

GIVE IT A MINUTE TO SINK IN.

"Slavery would fix the economy"

Now, WHY would I say this? BECAUSE IT'S TRUE.

The MAIN problem in the economy right now is actually very simple: very unqualified people are doing jobs in the economic sector that are above their abilities, and when they fail, the economy fails. This is caused by a "paper value" system of human worth, where people are valued not by their actual ABILITY, but rather by the APPEARANCE of ability on PAPER. For example, a guy with an MBA gets a job in upper management right out of college because his family paid for the degree and FORCED him to get it. He hates his job, dithers away all his time, and the company falters. At the same time, a poor uneducated entrepeneur with 6 years of business management experience is denied this same job for lack of education, despite in reality being MORE qualified.

I know what you're thinking: "But what does this have to do with slavery?"

I'm getting there.

You see, certain people don't have the internal drive to succeed... like the man with the MBA. He achieved because he was FORCED to, and when that force went away, he faltered. He needed a MASTER to keep him in line. The lawn service guy, on the other hand, was his OWN master, and succeeded as best he could with the tools he was given.

So then, it could be rightly said that until you've managed some level of internal autonomy (meaning you come up with your own plan and follow it without help) you're not truly educated, no matter how many classes you take or other skills you may have. Therefore, in order to encourage this autonomy, (which is the exact OPPOSITE of our current economy that sits around waiting for the government to step in and fix things) people who fail to pass a standardized autonomy test should be by default slaves.

Take a crackhead. Crackheads are leeches on society; there's no doubt. HOWEVER, drug addiction requires a certain level of freedom. Take away that freedom (many people find it easier to stay clean in prison, where they still may have access to drugs, but no freedom to indulge), and you lose the chemical dependency.

Now, I'm NOT saying the guy with the MBA isn't capable, what I'm saying is that someone other than himself should be making the decision of where he should work, and be put in charge of the money made from it. The guy with the MBA would be paid an allowance from this, with the left over being applied by his master to his various costs, such as his wife, kids, house, bills, etc. The master, of course, would benefit directly from any overages.

The government does this already to some extent through the use of Parole Officers, which basically ARE slave masters for ex-prisoners, but I don't think we should have to wait for these underachievers to commit a crime before assigning a task master to their case. This needs to be done PREEMPTIVELY in order to avoid such an unscrupulous character from, say, becoming CEO of a major company, screwing everything up, and then floating away on a golden parachute, use that money to buy their kid a degree they don't deserve, and start the cycle all over again.

Now, I know what you're saying: "But who designs this test, FUNK? Couldn't such a thing be used to take freedom away from people who deserve it, but aren't good at the test?"

To this, I answer simply: "That's why they get to take the test more than once"

The idea here is not to keep people in slavery, but actuality FORCE them to value their freedom by not treating it like a right, but a privliedge.

Not all people are the same, and being 18 has almost NOTHING to do with internal maturity. Some people are mature at 15, some at 18, some at 21, some at 25, and some NEVER AT ALL. The idea is to only allow freedom to those who can handle it, in the same way we issue driver's licences or marriage licences. (yes, by law, you're not actually allowed to start a family without a license. this law is woefully underenforced, resulting in many unwanted children each year)
If we started enforcing marriage licences, not allowing people power of attourney over themselves by default but instead making them earn it, and assigning qualified masters over people who aren't mature enough to run their own affairs, we would insulate ourselves from incompetence in the business world, and in turn stabilize the world economy. Nobody ever loses money on purpose, afterall.

SO, then, if we instituted slavery for those under a certain level of autonomy (not for people who are capable of running things on their own) we could protect the economy from wasteful bungling and keep our economy stable, as well as our population.

[Diederick]

The question that rises is what you find more important: the quality of human life, or the quality of a supportive of the previous. A perfect economy is great, but it shouldn't be at the cost of what it is supposed to be good for - the quality of human life.

Unless of course you're some freak who cares more about himself than anyone else.

[BetaOrionis]

As wonderful as that sounds, Funk, it won't work in real life.

Comparing it to the drivers license was a good analogy. I drive like a paranoid fucktard for five minutes, then once I get my license I drive recklessly again. People would force themselves to be autonomous for the duration of the test, but once it's over . . . back to normal.

It sounds really good on paper though.

Just like communism.

[FUNKbrs]

At 10/27/08 02:36 PM, Diederick wrote: The question that rises is what you find more important: the quality of human life, or the quality of a supportive of the previous. A perfect economy is great, but it shouldn't be at the cost of what it is supposed to be good for - the quality of human life.

I frankly don't see how having a master would reduce my quality of life in I was too poor of a master of my self to run my own affairs. In fact, I'd probably be much more successful if I DID have someone in charge of me telling me what I should do. Forget the propaganda you've heard, we're talking a purely benevolent form of servitude based upon necessity that already HAS precursors in our current society, not yanking people out of their homes, stripping them of their identities, making them property and treating them like cattle. Although some people ARE like cattle, which is why they need masters to fit into society.

Unless of course you're some freak who cares more about himself than anyone else.

hey, there's nothing freakish about that! I'm quite up front with my hatred of all living things, thank you very much. That's not dirty skeleton in my closet, I hang mine up from the flagpole!

[MultiCanimefan]

I agree 100% with you on the Freedom section of your post, Funk. I believe many things should be privilages and not rights. The "right" to drink at 21? No, it should be a privilage; you must EARN the "right" to drink. The "right" to vote at 18? No, it should be a privilage given to you after those bestowing it see you've had numerous political discussions and actually KNOW what you're talking about. And, if you abuse these privilages, you get them taken away, simple as that. As for the rest of your post, yes it looks good in theory, but in practice it won't work, because it's too utopian, and humans don't like making things easy for themselves.

[psycho-squirrel]

The main reason the economy is so bad is because people are spending money they dont have.

People us credit cards all the time and cant pay their fee's. Interest rates go up and the fee's get more expensive.

The banks that own the credit cards dont get the money from the fees and thus they loose money.

So here is how you can help to fix the economy....spend in cash. If you must use a credit card, have money already to pay it back, or know that you will have money to pay it back in no time.

So in other words, how people spend their money is how the economy will be fixed. Spend money you have, dont spend money you dont have.

When people are spending a lot with money they have, then the economy is good. The flow of money is high.

I dont see how slavery would solve anything. People in need of money would be out of jobs because slaves would be taking over, and thus those people would have to use credit to pay the bills, and thus get us back where we started.

Plus, you cant bring slavery so easily. You try to make someone a slave, they will fight back. You would have a bit retaliation of people who would become the slaves, guns in hand.

[FUNKbrs]

At 10/27/08 05:05 PM, psycho-squirrel wrote: The main reason the economy is so bad is because people are spending money they dont have.

...and they spend money they don't have because they're undisciplined and incapable of living within their means. A slave master could be the guiding hand that forces the slave to live within their means. Again, the slavemaster is in charge of the finances and has power of attourney over the slave.

I dont see how slavery would solve anything. People in need of money would be out of jobs because slaves would be taking over, and thus those people would have to use credit to pay the bills, and thus get us back where we started.

Again, these slaves WOULD earn wages, however, they would have no power over the wages they earn. Those wages would fall under the jurisdiction of the slave master. So no, the slaves would NOT compete unfairly with non-slave labor.

Plus, you cant bring slavery so easily. You try to make someone a slave, they will fight back. You would have a bit retaliation of people who would become the slaves, guns in hand.

That's funny. We force children into public schools, which is damn near slavery. The trick is to start BEFORE a minor obtains power of attourney over themselves. I'm not talking about taking free people and making them slaves, I'm talking about taking children, who aren't fully developed people yet, and not allowing them the power of self determination until they're capable of passing a simple test to prove they deserve it.

[Lioliu]

This is going to sound quite juvenile, but;
STFU.
Not only is slavery wrong ethically, Using slaves would be economically disastrous after a while. We are smarter today and we have put behind that semi-barbaric past.
Smart, ethically-minded people would ask if the goods were made by slave labor, and if it were, they would not purchase it. After a while (and with quite a lot of people), a lot of businesses would fail, and sooner or later, slavery would be abolished again.

would it be ethically correct if we were to enslave Nazis? Hmmmmmmm..................

[psycho-squirrel]

Look, I know you are not serious. Just saying that how to fix the economy would be to spend money we have, and not use credit so much. Just use it when we have to and only when we know we can pay the fees back asap.

[psycho-squirrel]

But for the sake of argument

At 10/27/08 05:21 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 10/27/08 05:05 PM, psycho-squirrel wrote: The main reason the economy is so bad is because people are spending money they dont have.

...and they spend money they don't have because they're undisciplined and incapable of living within their means. A slave master could be the guiding hand that forces the slave to live within their means. Again, the slavemaster is in charge of the finances and has power of attourney over the slave.

That has some good points, but there should be people that are over the slave masters to make sure they dont abuse their power.

I dont see how slavery would solve anything. People in need of money would be out of jobs because slaves would be taking over, and thus those people would have to use credit to pay the bills, and thus get us back where we started.

Again, these slaves WOULD earn wages, however, they would have no power over the wages they earn. Those wages would fall under the jurisdiction of the slave master. So no, the slaves would NOT compete unfairly with non-slave labor.

But doesnt slavery mean that you get no money at all? But I think I do remember hearing about slaves long ago in Africa where the slaves would get a small wage, in some tribes.

Plus, you cant bring slavery so easily. You try to make someone a slave, they will fight back. You would have a bit retaliation of people who would become the slaves, guns in hand.

That's funny. We force children into public schools, which is damn near slavery. The trick is to start BEFORE a minor obtains power of attourney over themselves. I'm not talking about taking free people and making them slaves, I'm talking about taking children, who aren't fully developed people yet, and not allowing them the power of self determination until they're capable of passing a simple test to prove they deserve it.

I would not want to live in a country like that. The ones that are not capible...do they become slaves for life or until they learn how to be self reliant?

Are the punishments of the slaves strict or not. Do they get to be with their families or be taken away from them? What if the parents refuse?

If there was a vote for this, I would vote against it, and get others to vote against it.

You solve a problem but gain another. Sure the economy is better, but you destroy freedom.

Plus, if you use slavery to solve the economy issue, it will no doubt cause people to use slavery or other means to solve other issues.

However, this has no chance of becoming true in our life time or the next, not unless we are taken over.

We had slavery once in America, we dont need it again.

Now if you are serious, which I am pretty sure you are not. But if you are, dont go on about slavery unless you are willing to become the slave. It is easy to condem others.

But really, just spend money you have. Dont rely on credit.

[CBP]

Why not just deport them, instead of starting the civil war again? We're still sore from the last one.

[LazyDrunk]

Sweet thread. I think we'd need a constitutional amendment in order to bring this grand scheme into fruition.

Other than the obvious "human rights" violations, I don't have much to argue about. Would autistic or otherwise handicapped individuals be subject to the same system?

The idea here is not to keep people in slavery, but actuality FORCE them to value their freedom by not treating it like a right, but a privliedge.

How would this cut down on golden-parachuting con artists?

related link

[Al6200]

The problem with forcing people to work is that you give people three options:

1. Don't work at all, and then accept that you're going to get beaten or abused.

2. Do the absolute minimal amount of work not to get beaten, but no more.

3. Work your hardest.

If you make the punishment harsh enough, you can rule out #1, and if there are no incentives for good work, you can rule out #3, which leaves people doing #2 - doing the absolute least amount of work they can do without getting in trouble.

Now that works fine for someone who does menial labor like stacking bricks, or making fries. But could you imagine a doctor who works like that? Could you imagine what the world would be like if programmers didn't do any work beyond the absolute minimum?

Slavery and bad working conditions are an intrinsic property of unskilled labor, and are irrelevant to today's high tech, educated workforce.

[Bladezguy]

The fact that you would even post this means that you deserve to die.

[DeathAura]

This is very easy to debate since...

1: you are a complete idiot
2: people like you and Bush got us into this mess
3:Slaver would make rebellion
4:rebellion would kill most of us
5: you are throwing civil rights and our constitution right out the door.
6: Rebellion=less of an economy
7: You are a selfless prick
8: you are a Nazi

Now go die like the Nazi you are. You must be like some dumbass 12 year old that just listened to your redneck dad as he was fucking your sister.

[FUNKbrs]

At 10/27/08 06:04 PM, psycho-squirrel wrote: That has some good points, but there should be people that are over the slave masters to make sure they dont abuse their power.

Absolutely. Slave masters should be likewise licenced and registered with some form of oversight agency, possibly a civil government organization.

But doesnt slavery mean that you get no money at all? ... long ago in Africa where the slaves would get a small wage,

Not necessarily. It was common for slaves to have an allowance or recieve bonus rewards for exceptional work, and in these ways it was not uncommon for slaves to buy their freedom from benevolent masters, which is the ENTIRE point of this form of slavery: to FORCE people to better themselves. This form of slavery is by no means permanent! An old man as a slave is a worthless concept, and children already ARE legal property which can be disputed in court.

:The ones that are not capible...do they become slaves for life or until they learn how to be self reliant?

Again, not for life, because retired people don't need to be managed; they don't have any productivity left to waste.

Are the punishments of the slaves strict or not. Do they get to be with their families or be taken away from them? What if the parents refuse?

Punishments for slaves should not impede with their ability to work, so this by definition means they would eat well, never be bruised or cut, or even be worked beyond their point of exhaustion. Slaves would be slaves because they're incapable of managing their own lives; the proper coercion for them then is to restrict their freedoms, nothing more. This form of slavery has point in helping develope human ability; it's by nature a benevolent form of bondage. Yes, their families would have visitation rights.

I I would vote against it, and get others to vote against it.

Where would you find the breaking point? How many indigent drunks would you have to meet before you thought to yourself: "Someone needs to do something."?

You solve a problem but gain another. Sure the economy is better, but you destroy freedom.

I really don't see how my form of bondage would cause another problem. Even the chronically unemployed have some form of case manager. I'm just making that relationship a little more official, for the good of all.

Plus, if you use slavery to solve the economy issue, it will no doubt cause people to use slavery or other means to solve other issues.

Logical fallacy: Slippery slope logic. That's like saying that old style american slavery would eventually result in cannibalism as a way to maximize profits on investments by not wasting the meat of slaves. What if this slavery is too weak and pointless, so it actually eventually phased out as people begin to value their own worth again?

We had slavery once in America, we dont need it again.

Not the same kind!

. It is easy to condem others.

Actually... it wouldn't be so bad, having someone to do all my books for me and get me jobs. Afterall, in this form, I benefit too. I DO get an allowance, afterall, and I don't have to live with my master; he/she would be using my money to pay for my own place to live, etc.

At 10/27/08 06:15 PM, CBP wrote: Why not just deport them, instead of starting the civil war again? We're still sore from the last one.

why would this start a civil war? If someone didn't want to be a slave, THEY COULD PASS THE TEST FOR FREEDOM. Again, this is Platonic slavery as based on the classical work Plato's Laws.

At 10/27/08 06:52 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Sweet thread. I think we'd need a constitutional amendment in order to bring this grand scheme into fruition.

Indeed.

Would autistic or otherwise handicapped individuals be subject to the same system?

LOL. THEY. AL.READY. ARE!!! If a teacher in school singles out a student as "special needs" and has them made a ward of the state because parents are capable of rendering sufficient care, this is EXACTLY what happens in our current legal system.

How would this cut down on golden-parachuting con artists?

Because the test would weed them out. The test would have to kick ass, though.

At 10/27/08 08:31 PM, Al6200 wrote: The problem with forcing people to work is that you give people three options:

1. Don't work at all, and then accept that you're going to get beaten or abused.

No beatings in my form of slavery. Sorry for the misconception. You just get to kind of rot in a cell in a sort of halfway house/mental ward

2. Do the absolute minimal amount of work not to get beaten, but no more.

These would be the long-term slaves. If they would increase their workload, of could of course earn their freedom.

3. Work your hardest.

Those capable of this wouldn't end up slaves in the first place under my system

... people doing #2 - doing the absolute least amount of work they can do without getting in trouble.

Slavery and bad working conditions are an intrinsic property of unskilled labor, and are irrelevant to today's high tech, educated workforce.

I think you're trying to straw man me here. My form of slavery isn't permanent, doesn't involve physical abuse, and is almost a mirror image of the current "work release" program in our prisons. However, in my system, people don't get that post graduation grace period where they have the freedom to commit crimes, get away with them, and use that as a life style until they ended up in prison, which is basically the system I'm describing already in society today.

At 10/28/08 02:16 AM, DeathAura wrote: This is very easy to debate since...

1: you are a complete idiot

Ad hominem attack. Even the stupid can be correct.

2: people like you and Bush got us into this mess

I never voted for Bush. I voted for Ralph Nader. Bush would never support this, because he fights wars to spread freedom and democracy, two things I'm very much against.

3:Slaver would make rebellion

Anyone motivated enough to rebel would probably just pass the test to gain freedom. That would be MUCH easier than a slave obtaining a firearm.

4:rebellion would kill most of us

I would like to see the math on this. How many slaves do you think there would be, and how effective do you think they would be against modern police? Any person intelligent and motivated enough to mount a rebellion would probably get their freedom first, because passing the freedom test wouldn't be as hard as toppling a government with.... slaves.

5: you are throwing civil rights and our constitution right out the door.

Slaves still have rights in my system. Just not as many as people who have proved their worth by passing the test. Much like those people who don't pass a driver's licence exam don't have as many rights as those people who have driver's licences. We are not as free as we think we are.

6: Rebellion=less of an economy

You still haven't made the case for why people too stupid to... basically graduate highschool...would mount a successful rebellion against people who are measurably smarter than them, AND who have superior numbers and weapons.

7: You are a selfless prick

*buffs nails*

Yup, I AM pretty selfless. Not everyone has the balls to subject themselves to all this abuse for the sake of right and the betterment of all mankind.

8: you are a Nazi

So you're saying I think people should be happy to live where they live and have strong socialist leanings? Then I guess so. Nazi is short for "national socialist" after all.

Now go die like the Nazi you are. You must be like some dumbass 12 year old that just listened to your redneck dad as he was fucking your sister.

I don't have a sister. I may be your real dad, though. What's your mom's name? Not that I'd remember, of course...

[Richmond23]

OP wins.

[Rideo]

At 10/28/08 06:07 PM, Richmond23 wrote: OP wins.

Another Richmonder?

Tell me you're from the real Richmond in VA*, not that copycat Canadian version.

Richmond VA is actually the third city in the world to be named such, but it's the only one worth
mentioning.

[KidneyThief]

The faults here include, A: Immorality, B: Judgement (How would you determine who becomes a slave, when, how?) C: Emotion: (Few will sit idly by or let themselves become a slave. Also a slave is not a "motivated" worker. Threat to ones life and/or well being does not always instill efficiency.

[catman03]

At 10/27/08 02:36 PM, Diederick wrote: The question that rises is what you find more important: the quality of human life, or the quality of a supportive of the previous. A perfect economy is great, but it shouldn't be at the cost of what it is supposed to be good for - the quality of human life.

Unless of course you're some freak who cares more about himself than anyone else.

Seconded. There are abundant easy quick ways to make a perfect economy, but all of them would significantly lower the quality of human life for the populace. The whole reason any country needs an economy in the first place is to maintain a system of trade and prevent anarchy. Well anarchy has a very low quality of life, which is why people are against it. If we valued large amounts of wealth more than the improvement of the quality of human life, then we would all just make an anarchist system and start killing each other to hoard wealth. That's the ultimate economy: sitting on a pile of goods. But government, and by extension economy, is necessary because the quality of human life has a higher priority. While it's entirely true that many individuals would function better and be more productive as slaves, it's not worth the accompanying cost in quality of life. What the OP seems to want is a totalitarian society where everyone does what is necessary for the collective good, which would create an incredibly high surplus with a well maintained economy. It would also suck ass for everyone involved.

[FUNKbrs]

At 10/28/08 07:00 PM, stranger14 wrote: The faults here include, A: Immorality,

If it's immoral to stop people from falling through the cracks in society and ending up indigent and homeless, then call me Satan.

B: Judgement (How would you determine who becomes a slave, when, how?)

This was in the opening post, but I'll reiterate: Standardized Testing. The same way we determine who's worthy of going to college or not, or who's even really worthy of graduating highschool. And as we all know, those who graduate highschool are given MANY more opportunities by society than those who don't. This system is merely an extension of a system we ALREADY HAVE. I'm not really proposing anything new; I'm just admitting the way the system REALLY works, and with that admission, suggesting an improvement.
C: Emotion: (Few will sit idly by or let themselves become a slave. Also a slave is not a "motivated" worker. Threat to ones life and/or well being does not always instill efficiency.

That's the whole point! Educate yourself! Pass the freedom test! This is what I WANT!!! People motivated to better themselves!!!

READ.
THE.
THREAD.

Your last point PROVES you're not reading my argument, because I've stated OVER and OVER: No slave should be punished in a way that reduces their ability to work, and that has ALWAYS been the primary rule of slavery! Beatings, starvation, execution... these things have NO place in the policies of the efficient taskmaster. Dead slaves can't work, beaten slaves can't work, starved slaves... CAN'T WORK!!! The whole POINT of slavery is to generate labor, and the idea that such inhumane policies would be profitable to slave masters is simply ludicrous. Abusing a slave is basically throwing money out of the window!

At 10/28/08 07:10 PM, catman03 wrote:

At 10/27/08 02:36 PM, Diederick wrote:

Seconded. There are abundant easy quick ways to make a perfect economy, but all of them would significantly lower the quality of human life for the populace.

Name some. I'm all ears. This week I was so broke I had to eat raw flour. That would never happen to a slave who's meals are GAURANTEED, like any prisoner or ward of the state. God I wish I was kidding. BTW, lentils and rice make GREAT emergency rations incase you have to blow your grocery money on the doctor, yet another expense I wouldn't have to worry about if I were a slave.

The whole reason any country needs an economy in the first place is to maintain a system of trade and prevent anarchy. Well anarchy has a very low quality of life, which is why people are against it. If we valued large amounts of wealth more than the improvement of the quality of human life, then we would all just make an anarchist system and start killing each other to hoard wealth.

Wow... you just have no idea, do you? We CURRENTLY live in an anarchist society! Anarchy isn't some stupid dream had by some stupid 13 year old while he listened to a shitty punk band, anarchy is NOW. We, free individuals bound to no laws, have CHOSEN to create governments, have CHOSEN to be bound by laws, laws which at any time we DO have the freedom to disobey, fearing nothing but the eventual retribution we would suffer, regardless of the existence of government, from our victims and their allies.

Even cavemen accrued wealth. There IS an economy even in an anarchy, although paper money probably wouldn't work. That's why anarchists used gold, and for that matter, the US has a Fort Knox because of this. Trade created government, not the other way around.

Furthermore, people have a cash dollar value. The idea of killing people as a way of gaining wealth is possibly the most ignorant and ludicrous thing I've ever heard. You've watched WAY too many movies. Subjugation and bondage, THESE are the ways military domination earns money. Dead people aren't worth much, but living people can produce wealth for their entire lifespan.

That's the ultimate economy: sitting on a pile of goods. But government, and by extension economy, is necessary because the quality of human life has a higher priority. While it's entirely true that many individuals would function better and be more productive as slaves, it's not worth the accompanying cost in quality of life.

I think you're assuming it's impossible to be happy as a slave, and that's just not true. Go into any prison, and you'll find people enjoying themselves every bit as much as those on the outside. Happiness is relative; take a starving refugee from africa, and merely give him enough to eat, and he's in heaven. Now imagine trying that with Paris Hilton. See what I'm saying? Happiness is relative. When you spoil yourself with excess, you lose the ability to appreciate what you have and begin to value you things that don't even really matter, like tiny dogs in purses.

What the OP seems to want is a totalitarian society where everyone does what is necessary for the collective good, which would create an incredibly high surplus with a well maintained economy. It would also suck ass for everyone involved.

The first part of that is completely, 100% true. I AM pro-totalitarian and COMPLETELY anti-freedom. All I can honestly say is this: Don't knock it until you've tried it. The military is VERY much a model of the type of bondage/ownership/slavery I'm proposing, and I think you'll find a remarkably large portion of individuals prefer the military way of doing things. You join the military because the whole "freedom" thing is overated, bottom line.

Our army is currently 100% volunteer, as defined as not having a draft in place. Why would people volunteer for 24 hour days, living in government housing, eating government food, and doing what they're told? BECAUSE IT'S BETTER THAN FREEDOM.

[Minarchist]

This thread is contains more economic fallacies than Obama's bookshelf.

[WritingPad]

At 10/29/08 12:17 PM, Minarchist wrote: This thread is contains more economic fallacies than Obama's bookshelf.

Gave me a laugh, best reply so far.

[FUNKbrs]

At 10/29/08 12:17 PM, Minarchist wrote: This thread is contains more economic fallacies than Obama's bookshelf.

Feel free to go ahead and point some out, since there are so many. I mean, slavery is CLEARLY an invalid economic concept, what as it was the lynchpin of agriculture until about 200 years ago in a human history of 100,000 years. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)

Slavery works, and has a historical history of working. It's freedom that's the spurious concept. In fact during abolition, there was a GREAT argument against the mistreatment of irish "wage-slaves" who unlike regular slaves, actually earned LESS money than it took to feed themselves per capita, to the extent which they had to have large families with high levels of child-labor in order to support themselves. Ergo, the racist term "irish twins" meaning siblings from the same mother with less than a year between them, because in order to have enough workers to maintain their farms, irish women had to stay nearly perpetually pregnant. There was also a VERY high instance of child mortality in such families, and the many children, once old enough to have the freedom to earn wages on their own, were summarily kicked out of their homes by force to make way for new child-laborers.

This led to a HUGE indigent population of ignorant young irish, giving rise to signs saying such things as "no dogs or irish allowed" or "Irish need not apply"

HISTORY. STUDY IT.

[Minarchist]

I'm not that stupid to think you're that stupid. You're just trolling.

[FUNKbrs]

At 10/29/08 01:05 PM, Minarchist wrote: I'm not that stupid to think you're that stupid. You're just trolling.

You must not know me. If you legitimately prove me wrong, I'd LOVE to back down. I'd LOVE to live in a world where we really ARE all free, filled with kittens and puppies and rainbows and love and shit.

It's just not true, and whoever told you it was LIED to you. I'm making points that obey basic logical rules based on historical fact. Point out where I'm using a logical fallacy, and I'll be GLAD to concede the point. Point out where I'm just making shit up as opposed to citing history, and I'll be GLAD to back down.

I have no emotional interest invested in the arguments I've made so far, arguments that appear to those who don't bother to learn about them to be inherently wrong. I'm basing my concept of slavery DIRECTLY out of Plato's Laws, a book that was used to justify actual, historical, functional slavery for hundreds of years, the kind of slavery that stood up in countless courts of law, the kind of slavery people fought to PROTECT, not destroy, particularly the Roman empire, a continent spanning empire that was almost ENTIRELY funded economically by such slavery.

Calling me a "troll" is an ad-hominem attack, a logical fallacy. Even if I AM trolling, THAT DOESN'T MEAN I'M NOT RIGHT. Would I be trolling if I said "YOU'LL ALL BE DEAD IN A 100 YEARS!!! MUWAH HA HA!!!!"? Maybe, BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT NOT TRUE.

Why even bother calling me wrong if you're not going to back it up? You're only helping to make me seem more right by chickening out, because you know in your heart I AM right, that noone is really free, and that the world would be a better place if we all just admited this, accepted it, and used this knowledge to better ourselves as opposed to living in denial about the truth of things, like some protein starved vegan who can't figure out why she's so sick when she looks in the mirror, with her two big fat canine teeth staring right back out at her telling her the answer.

[LenardNotLenny]

I'd have to say, I'd agree with you.

The only thing is, I would never sacrifice human conditions for the economy. You might be different, but I would rather live in a country where the economy is terrible, than a country where I, or any other human being, is in threat of constant servitude to someone else.

Its sickening to think anyone would put financial gain over the future and opportunity of an individual.

[polym]

there's a difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEDGE

you're disregarding arguments by calling them ad hominem, assuming YOUR ARGUMENT is right, which in itself, is ad homienm

it's too bad a mod can't lock this thread considering you're a mod yourself

i've read some of your posts and your threads recently, and all you've been doing is trolling and spouting bullshit

seriously, sooner or later somebody has to do something about your stupidity

[MultiCanimefan]

At 10/29/08 03:37 PM, polym wrote: there's a difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEDGE

you're disregarding arguments by calling them ad hominem, assuming YOUR ARGUMENT is right, which in itself, is ad homienm

I'm starting to think people around here are throwing the term "ad hominem" around as if it's applicable to every argument.

An ad hominem is when you attack a person's character rather than their argument. For example, me saying FUNK's argument is invalid because he has a beard is an ad hominem because it attacks him, in this case his looks, at the expense of me not addressing the points of his argument.

So saying "you're wrong because you look like so and so" is an ad hominem; him saying his argument is right is NOT an ad hominem because he hasn't attacked anyone's character.

[FUNKbrs]

At 10/29/08 03:37 PM, polym wrote: there's a difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEDGE

Yes, yes there is. And freedom is a priviledge, not a right. I believe I stated this in my first post, had you read it. That's why in america, ,when you break the law, they take away your freedom by putting you in jail. See? Priviledge. Unlike the RIGHT to healthcare regardless of ability to pay, which, btw, you get free healthcare in prison. Because it's a RIGHT.

you're disregarding arguments by calling them ad hominem, assuming YOUR ARGUMENT is right, which in itself, is ad homienm

You can't even SPELL ad hominem. It's latin for "to the man" and if you'd taken a course in logic, you'd know that it's on a short list of logical fallacies. No matter how stupid, ugly, incompetent, or whatever insults you hurl at a person who makes an argument, the argument should stand on its own merits. How is it "an attack against the man" to disregard an argument that is logically fallacious? Pointing out a logical fallacy in an argument is EXACTLY the proper way to disprove it. I'm attacking arguments, not people. Way to go with the whole bothering to look up what "ad hominem" actually meant in a dictionary before trying to use it sentence, btw.

it's too bad a mod can't lock this thread considering you're a mod yourself

Bitter about your tiny e-dick, are you? I was making threads like this before I ever got modded. In fact, it was threads like this that GOT me modded. I probably wouldn't be a mod if I didn't post this way.

i've read some of your posts and your threads recently, and all you've been doing is trolling and spouting bullshit

Really now? "Spouting bullshit" ? How concise and applicable! Oh wait... no, you just have the sense of humor of a damp rag. IT'S FUNNY. I CAN'T HELP IT YOU'RE TOO DUMB TO LAUGH. I hear this is a common problem among stupid people, though.

That, btw WAS an ad hominem attack. See how that works?

seriously, sooner or later somebody has to do something about your stupidity

Really? Most people like me for having the exact OPPOSITE quality of what you claim. In fact, I notice that basically all you have to offer at this point are insults... not true logical argmuments or facts. If you'd notice, you'd realize I almost NEVER insult those who disagree with me. I just... prove them wrong. Because they are. Which is why they disagree with me in the first place.

However, I must admit, when they brainwashed you, they did a REALLY good job. Bravo on whoever your handlers/masters are. You HONESTLY believe the right way to resolve intellectual disputes is to run around calling people "stupid." Go back to school, kid.