Poll
Question:
Do you have a moral threshhold past which you would own slaves?
Option 1: I would own only black slaves
votes: 0
Option 2: I would own only white slaves
votes: 1
Option 3: I would own only sex slaves
votes: 14
Option 4: I would own all kinds of slaves
votes: 6
Option 5: I would never own slaves
votes: 23
Watched season 3 of spartacus recently.
Wondering what you think of slavery.
I would own Jaron slaves.
I would own Jewish slaves.
Is renting not an option?
I would own cheap slaves.
Slaves are too much trouble. I will just wait until we get those robots.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2015, 03:23:48 PM
I would own Jewish slaves.
I would never own Jewish slaves.
Ok I might go for a sex slave if she begged.
This poll is extremely one-sided. :rolleyes:
I went with never.
Just too much trouble.
You have to feed them and dress them, provide a roof, and chase them when they run.
I would rather have employees.
There is a reason why capitalism destroyed slavery.
Quote from: Valmy on April 10, 2015, 03:50:12 PM
Ok I might go for a sex slave if she begged.
Beggars are filthy and smell bad.
Quote from: Siege on April 10, 2015, 03:55:30 PM
I would rather have employees.
There is a reason why capitalism destroyed slavery.
Because employees were cheaper. :bowler:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2015, 04:03:33 PM
Quote from: Siege on April 10, 2015, 03:55:30 PM
I would rather have employees.
There is a reason why capitalism destroyed slavery.
Because employees were cheaper. :bowler:
Yep. But now contractors are. :P
0 hours contracts are what will get us all killed in a revolution. Mark my words.
What is a 0 hour contract?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2015, 04:35:51 PM
What is a 0 hour contract?
Essentially a contract with an external contractor who is a de facto employee but only gets paid for the hours actually worked (hence the "0 hours" as he or she gets no guarantee about pay/work in a given period) and enjoys no protections of a traditional employee.
More and more service providers (such as cleaners and the like) are getting employed this way in Europe.
Quote from: Siege on April 10, 2015, 03:55:30 PM
I went with never.
Just too much trouble.
You have to feed them and dress them, provide a roof, and chase them when they run.
I would rather have employees.
There is a reason why capitalism destroyed slavery.
It did? How do you figure that?
Hot chick slaves.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2015, 05:41:54 PM
It did? How do you figure that?
Because slavery was not competitive with wage labor in factories.
Because the slaves destroyed all of the machinery.
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2015, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2015, 04:35:51 PM
What is a 0 hour contract?
Essentially a contract with an external contractor who is a de facto employee but only gets paid for the hours actually worked (hence the "0 hours" as he or she gets no guarantee about pay/work in a given period) and enjoys no protections of a traditional employee.
More and more service providers (such as cleaners and the like) are getting employed this way in Europe.
Isn't that just American employment law? :P
It's a big issue with shop workers and the like in the UK too. The Lib Dems and Labour are both promising to abolish them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2015, 06:01:47 PM
It's a big issue with shop workers and the like in the UK too. The Lib Dems and Labour are both promising to abolish them.
They can try, but there will always be ways around it.
Gor slaves?
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 10, 2015, 06:08:07 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 10, 2015, 06:07:10 PM
Gor slaves?
:mmm:
I'd enslave houseplants, like on Gor: http://www.rdrop.com/users/wyvern/data/houseplants.html (http://www.rdrop.com/users/wyvern/data/houseplants.html)
Quote from: grumbler on April 10, 2015, 06:44:31 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 10, 2015, 06:08:07 PM
Quote from: PDH on April 10, 2015, 06:07:10 PM
Gor slaves?
:mmm:
I'd enslave houseplants, like on Gor: http://www.rdrop.com/users/wyvern/data/houseplants.html (http://www.rdrop.com/users/wyvern/data/houseplants.html)
*unzips pants*
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2015, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2015, 04:35:51 PM
What is a 0 hour contract?
Essentially a contract with an external contractor who is a de facto employee but only gets paid for the hours actually worked (hence the "0 hours" as he or she gets no guarantee about pay/work in a given period) and enjoys no protections of a traditional employee.
More and more service providers (such as cleaners and the like) are getting employed this way in Europe.
That actually sounds better than what employees get in Hong Kong. At least they get paid for hours worked. One of the chief labour complaints in HK is that employers can get away with demanding extra hours from employees and not paying overtime, because there is no requirement to specify the number of working hours in the contract.
These people aren't paid overtime for the most part Mono and they're paid by the hour. Does that not exist in Hong Kong?
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2015, 08:00:48 PM
These people aren't paid overtime for the most part Mono and they're paid by the hour. Does that not exist in Hong Kong?
Here it is like we pay you eight hours of wages but we actually demand that you work twelve hours without paying you more.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2015, 08:00:48 PM
These people aren't paid overtime for the most part Mono and they're paid by the hour. Does that not exist in Hong Kong?
what he means is that an employee works 60hrs but gets paid for 40. They settle for 2000$/week, but don't specify the number of hours.
Okay. But there's a difference between that happening to someone who will always get their 40 hours pay a week, or who is on a salary and has to do overtime and a zero hours contract. The former is normal, I've had that in many jobs.
A zero hours contract is that you're paid by the hours you work and each week the boss will phone you up and tell you how many hours you're getting. You don't get overtime (though chances are you've signed away the 48 hour maximum anyway), but you're also not guaranteed that 40 hours pay. It's a very precarious position and very open to abuse.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 10, 2015, 05:48:21 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2015, 05:41:54 PM
It did? How do you figure that?
Because slavery was not competitive with wage labor in factories.
Clearly it is or they wouldn't enslave people in East Asia to work in brick factories and the like. As far as I know, slavery tended to be abolished by government fiat, often by violence.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2015, 08:40:47 PMAs far as I know, slavery tended to be abolished by government fiat, often by violence.
And upheld the same way.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2015, 08:06:52 PM
Okay. But there's a difference between that happening to someone who will always get their 40 hours pay a week, or who is on a salary and has to do overtime and a zero hours contract. The former is normal, I've had that in many jobs.
A zero hours contract is that you're paid by the hours you work and each week the boss will phone you up and tell you how many hours you're getting. You don't get overtime (though chances are you've signed away the 48 hour maximum anyway), but you're also not guaranteed that 40 hours pay. It's a very precarious position and very open to abuse.
Seems like a zero hour contract is very common here, especially for construction workers.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 10, 2015, 08:53:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2015, 08:40:47 PMAs far as I know, slavery tended to be abolished by government fiat, often by violence.
And upheld the same way.
Incorrect. It was upheld by violence but typically by the owner of the slave. The state would get involved in case of a slave rebellion, and as states grew in sophistication they would regulate slavery (in the same way that it would regulate any other type of trade), but maintaining slavery usually fell to the owner. While it can't be certain, slavery likely predates the existence of states. We know it existed in stateless societies such as amongst hunter gatherers. When states formed and created protections for property ownership slavery was likely just one of many forms of property that was protected.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2015, 12:29:52 AM
Incorrect.
Slavery can't exist if the government says no. Sorry, but it just can't. It needs political backing or it fails.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2015, 03:10:31 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2015, 12:29:52 AM
Incorrect.
Slavery can't exist if the government says no. Sorry, but it just can't. It needs political backing or it fails.
:huh: There is plenty of de facto slavery going on out there (in the criminal world), despite government prohibition. But I'm assuming that kind is not what you're talking about.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 10, 2015, 06:06:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2015, 06:01:47 PM
It's a big issue with shop workers and the like in the UK too. The Lib Dems and Labour are both promising to abolish them.
They can try, but there will always be ways around it.
Pretty certain those are not possible in Spain.
Germany specifically banned them. If there are no hours in your contract the law assumes a minimum of ten hours per week or if there is a working history the average of the last weeks. Single time slots need to be at least 3 hours long. And the employer has to announce the time slots at least 4 days ahead.
There are ways to cheat that system, e.g. telling the employees to take long pause times etc. But it is less abusive than the UK system apparently is.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 10, 2015, 07:57:58 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2015, 04:37:59 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2015, 04:35:51 PM
What is a 0 hour contract?
Essentially a contract with an external contractor who is a de facto employee but only gets paid for the hours actually worked (hence the "0 hours" as he or she gets no guarantee about pay/work in a given period) and enjoys no protections of a traditional employee.
More and more service providers (such as cleaners and the like) are getting employed this way in Europe.
That actually sounds better than what employees get in Hong Kong. At least they get paid for hours worked. One of the chief labour complaints in HK is that employers can get away with demanding extra hours from employees and not paying overtime, because there is no requirement to specify the number of working hours in the contract.
That's different. We are talking about a situation here where a worker, going into a week/month, does not know how much or if he earns any money at all - but needs to be available. A situation when people are paid for 8 hours of work each day (or a weekly or a monthly salary)but end up working a few hours more would be preferable, imo.
Quote from: Monoriu on April 10, 2015, 09:59:39 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 10, 2015, 08:06:52 PM
Okay. But there's a difference between that happening to someone who will always get their 40 hours pay a week, or who is on a salary and has to do overtime and a zero hours contract. The former is normal, I've had that in many jobs.
A zero hours contract is that you're paid by the hours you work and each week the boss will phone you up and tell you how many hours you're getting. You don't get overtime (though chances are you've signed away the 48 hour maximum anyway), but you're also not guaranteed that 40 hours pay. It's a very precarious position and very open to abuse.
Seems like a zero hour contract is very common here, especially for construction workers.
It does make sense for some professions (namely, the ones where you provide service to an external customer) - but it is abused by being used for people who by all accounts should have a steady job (like tea ladies and the like).
I think the devil is as always in the details - some of the best paid job are effectively "zero hour contracts" but that goes with the territory. It is a different story when used for people performing repetitive menial tasks at minimum wage for the same employer.
Quote from: Zanza on April 11, 2015, 03:34:47 AM
Germany specifically banned them. If there are no hours in your contract the law assumes a minimum of ten hours per week or if there is a working history the average of the last weeks. Single time slots need to be at least 3 hours long. And the employer has to announce the time slots at least 4 days ahead.
There are ways to cheat that system, e.g. telling the employees to take long pause times etc. But it is less abusive than the UK system apparently is.
In Poland it is abused through various outsourcing contracts. Attempts are being made to curb it but it is not always very easy to do (for example, it is perfectly legitimate to hire a lawyer, a consultant or an author to deliver a specific product, such as a report or a book - and pay accordingly; but paying a cleaning lady to deliver a "specific product" of cleaning the same office every day clearly abuses the system; but then there are legitimate cleaners like my cleaning lady who is not really employed by anyone and has around 20 clients she visits on a bi-weekly basis - and here treating her like an employee would make no sense).
There are hundreds of methods to do it, and no law can stop them all. If people are willing, it will happen. And people will always be willing.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2015, 05:06:48 AM
There are hundreds of methods to do it, and no law can stop them all. If people are willing, it will happen. And people will always be willing.
Same can be said about pretty much every negative social phenomenon up to and including rape and murder. ;)
This is also the most common fallacy when talking about laws.
Can somebody add an option for hot chick robot sex slaves PLZ?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2015, 08:40:47 PM
Clearly it is or they wouldn't enslave people in East Asia to work in brick factories and the like. As far as I know, slavery tended to be abolished by government fiat, often by violence.
I would hazard a guess that the value of labor vs. machinery varies a lot over industries and over centuries. Factory owners in England in 1800 didn't use many slaves.
QuoteAs far as I know, slavery tended to be abolished by government fiat, often by violence.
Government fiat is generally used more pragmatically than idealistically. Slavery was abolished in the northern US and the UK after it ceased being something the elites depended upon for their income(and the economy as a whole). This was due to industrial capitalism.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 11, 2015, 08:26:32 AM
Government fiat is generally used more pragmatically than idealistically. Slavery was abolished in the northern US and the UK after it ceased being something the elites depended upon for their income(and the economy as a whole). This was due to industrial capitalism.
Interesting fact: slavery was never abolished in the UK. It was held in a court ruling to never have existed. "The air of England is too free for a slave to breathe."
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2015, 04:57:19 AM
It does make sense for some professions (namely, the ones where you provide service to an external customer) - but it is abused by being used for people who by all accounts should have a steady job (like tea ladies and the like).
I'd agree if there were insufficient flexxibility already but in those jobs - I've worked in them - there is a lot of flexibility almost inevitably by the type of people who work them. But even there the way to deal with the problem is have a core of full-time staff and more casual workers (students etc) on the edges. The problem we have is that some brands - like Sports Direct - are employing thousands of people on zero hours so chances are everyone in the shop, but the manager, is on a zero hours contract and can have their hours cut at any point.
QuoteIn Poland it is abused through various outsourcing contracts. Attempts are being made to curb it but it is not always very easy to do (for example, it is perfectly legitimate to hire a lawyer, a consultant or an author to deliver a specific product, such as a report or a book - and pay accordingly; but paying a cleaning lady to deliver a "specific product" of cleaning the same office every day clearly abuses the system; but then there are legitimate cleaners like my cleaning lady who is not really employed by anyone and has around 20 clients she visits on a bi-weekly basis - and here treating her like an employee would make no sense).
Again very common in the UK. Lots of employment agencies set people up as companies so that they're technically a contractor. Their tax bill will normally be lower (and so will the agency's), but the downside is because they don't have an employment relationship they've no entitlement to paid holidays, to public holidays being reflected in their pay or to sick leave.
In the UK it's also a big problem for recent grads.
I think it's a negative trend in itself but I think it's less problematic than zero hours contracts where you have no visibility further than a week. It's impossible to have any reasonable expectations or make any sorts of plans beyond that. And despite being legal for a long time it's actually a very new trend.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 11, 2015, 03:10:31 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2015, 12:29:52 AM
Incorrect.
Slavery can't exist if the government says no. Sorry, but it just can't. It needs political backing or it fails.
It very much can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_slave_scandal Here the government says no, but it's agents are either bribed or apathetic.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 11, 2015, 08:26:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 10, 2015, 08:40:47 PM
Clearly it is or they wouldn't enslave people in East Asia to work in brick factories and the like. As far as I know, slavery tended to be abolished by government fiat, often by violence.
I would hazard a guess that the value of labor vs. machinery varies a lot over industries and over centuries. Factory owners in England in 1800 didn't use many slaves.
QuoteAs far as I know, slavery tended to be abolished by government fiat, often by violence.
Government fiat is generally used more pragmatically than idealistically. Slavery was abolished in the northern US and the UK after it ceased being something the elites depended upon for their income(and the economy as a whole). This was due to industrial capitalism.
Slavery was abolished prior to industrialization in the North, though it was through gradual manumission. Most countries through out history abolish slavery for moral or philosophical reasons, not because they are industrializing as many states abolish slavery prior to the industrial revolution. For instance Russia abolishes slavery under Peter the Great, and it's not like there were alot of steel mills in Russia at the time. Same goes for South American countries.
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2015, 05:10:44 AM
Same can be said about pretty much every negative social phenomenon up to and including rape and murder. ;)
This is also the most common fallacy when talking about laws.
The willingness he was talking about was that of the employees.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2015, 10:24:37 AM
For instance Russia abolishes slavery under Peter the Great, and it's not like there were alot of steel mills in Russia at the time.
Russian elites didn't need to buy and sell slaves, they simply needed slaves to work their land. That continued until 1861. Freedom was a response to the zeitgeist which emerged first in more industrial countries.
As for the parsing of whether slavery was abolished in the North before industrialization, that really depends on how you define industrialization. It certainly wasn't full-scale industrialization, but the process was well underway in the 18th century. The point is, their economies and the status of (most) people in power didn't depend on slavery.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2015, 10:24:37 AM
For instance Russia abolishes slavery under Peter the Great, and it's not like there were alot of steel mills in Russia at the time.
That's a really retarded argument, given that (as most things about Russia) this was purely on paper and Russian peasants continued to be de facto slaves until the 19th century.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2015, 11:42:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2015, 05:10:44 AM
Same can be said about pretty much every negative social phenomenon up to and including rape and murder. ;)
This is also the most common fallacy when talking about laws.
The willingness he was talking about was that of the employees.
Really? You are going to make this cretinous argument again?
Quote from: Martinus on April 11, 2015, 12:56:08 PM
Really? You are going to make this cretinous argument again?
I was going to, but you just talked me out of it.
Marty is very persuasive. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on April 11, 2015, 06:39:54 AM
Can somebody add an option for hot chick robot sex slaves PLZ?
You should be choosing real love over Cherry 2000. :mad:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 11, 2015, 12:07:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2015, 10:24:37 AM
For instance Russia abolishes slavery under Peter the Great, and it's not like there were alot of steel mills in Russia at the time.
Russian elites didn't need to buy and sell slaves, they simply needed slaves to work their land. That continued until 1861. Freedom was a response to the zeitgeist which emerged first in more industrial countries.
As for the parsing of whether slavery was abolished in the North before industrialization, that really depends on how you define industrialization. It certainly wasn't full-scale industrialization, but the process was well underway in the 18th century. The point is, their economies and the status of (most) people in power didn't depend on slavery.
It was before trains in the US, that great symbol of industrialization. In the United States industrialization
increased the demand for slaves, not decreased it. The price of slaves kept increasing in the years prior to the civil war. If the elites didn't need slaves the price would go down. Russian slaves eventually became serfs but they could not be bought or sold (previously slaves in Russia could). If we are counting serfs as slaves then why should slavery be abolished in 1864? The elites still depended on it and it's not exactly like Russia was an industrial power. Going back further we see slavery decline in the late Roman empire and serfdom decline in the West in the late middle ages, again not time known for industrial output. There is no particular reason to see Industrialization as antithetical to slavery. The "zeitgeist" you spoke of has nothing to do with industrialization but rather the religious and philosophical ideas that opposed slavery in the last few centuries. Slaves were used in non-agricultural tasks in the past and are to this day. For instance slaves were used to maintain rail lines in the US prior to and during the US civil war.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 11, 2015, 01:10:22 PM
Marty is very persuasive. :lol:
I love it when he uses the word "cretin". It makes him sound like some kind of 19th century bumpkin.
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 11, 2015, 01:19:59 PM
You should be choosing real love over Cherry 2000. :mad:
I was more thinking of the robot chick from Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 11, 2015, 01:42:05 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on April 11, 2015, 01:19:59 PM
You should be choosing real love over Cherry 2000. :mad:
I was more thinking of the robot chick from Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone. :)
But....what about Molly Ringwald? :(
Is she a robot? :o
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2015, 01:23:28 PM
The "zeitgeist" you spoke of has nothing to do with industrialization but rather the religious and philosophical ideas that opposed slavery in the last few centuries.
Ideas don't exist in a vacuum. The notion that slavery is wrong had been kicking around for millennia. It flourished in the late 18th century in the North and in England because there was little pushback.
It's not so much that capitalism was the direct cause of abolition, but that it enabled it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 11, 2015, 03:05:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2015, 01:23:28 PM
The "zeitgeist" you spoke of has nothing to do with industrialization but rather the religious and philosophical ideas that opposed slavery in the last few centuries.
Ideas don't exist in a vacuum. The notion that slavery is wrong had been kicking around for millennia. It flourished in the late 18th century in the North and in England because there was little pushback.
It's not so much that capitalism was the direct cause of abolition, but that it enabled it.
You haven't really made your case. Slavery died out in a large part because the British found it repulsive and they were powerful enough to pressure other states into stopping the slave trade and eventually slavery itself.
The British weren't especially moral compared to anyone else. However, their wealth was in trade and skilled labor production, hence they didn't feel the need to rationalize continued acceptance of slavery.
Quote from: grumbler on April 11, 2015, 08:29:12 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 11, 2015, 08:26:32 AM
Government fiat is generally used more pragmatically than idealistically. Slavery was abolished in the northern US and the UK after it ceased being something the elites depended upon for their income(and the economy as a whole). This was due to industrial capitalism.
Interesting fact: slavery was never abolished in the UK. It was held in a court ruling to never have existed. "The air of England is too free for a slave to breathe."
I could be wrong but I believe that case was decided in the Tudor period as well. Which is pre-industrial by anyone's standards.
QuoteThe British weren't especially moral compared to anyone else. However, their wealth was in trade and skilled labor production, hence they didn't feel the need to rationalize continued acceptance of slavery.
That was the source of some of the British Empire's wealth. We also did very well out of the sugar plantations when abolitionism won I believe the West Indies was still at that point the big cash cow of Empire. The West India lobby was fiercely against it and against later abolition of the slave trade. It wasn't an economic move necessarily, I think it was above all a moral campaign and one of the early political campaigns in this country that mobilised ordinary people to a large extent. Of course there is a difference in that the economic benefits of slavery were not felt directly by many people in Britain who were the only people that needed to be mobilised to change the law.
Similarly France abolished slavery after the revolution despite it continuing to be of economic use in the richest colony of the French empire. Again that was a moral judgement. Napoleon, a supreme pragmatist, re-introduced it.
That's not to say either the British or the French were more moral than anyone else but I think the reasoning for their abolitionist movements and their support were moral not material.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2015, 06:59:40 PM
That's not to say either the British or the French were more moral than anyone else but I think the reasoning for their abolitionist movements and their support were moral not material.
I agree with that statement. The reason for the relative weakness of the opposition was material.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 11, 2015, 07:09:29 PM
I agree with that statement. The reason for the relative weakness of the opposition was material.
Yes and no. Perhaps at the time, but even then, as I say, the West Indies lobby was not weak and there were many MPs and Lords with personal interests in the plantations.
And during the American Civil War the workers of the cotton mills famously voted their support of the blockade on the Confederacy and their support of the Union. There was even some organisations of workers that refused to work with cotton from the Confederacy because it was slave-picked. There was economic suffering that was not sufficient to overthrow morality among those workers. Hence Lincoln's letter to the people of Manchester which is carved onto the base of his statue in Lincoln Square.
Again there were mill-owners and ship-owners who weighed the economic effects more than working people did. As ever minimal economic suffering is required to overthrow the morality of the already rich - we still see that today.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2015, 01:25:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 11, 2015, 01:10:22 PM
Marty is very persuasive. :lol:
I love it when he uses the word "cretin". It makes him sound like some kind of 19th century bumpkin.
Clutching a half eaten potato.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2015, 07:18:34 PM
And during the American Civil War the workers of the cotton mills famously voted their support of the blockade on the Confederacy and their support of the Union.
I'd like to point out that these were people who had grown up with slavery being illegal in Britain.
As for the West Indies lobby, that was a small part of a large empire. They could cajole, but not dictate.
No one would prefer black slaves over white slaves? That seems racist. :hmm:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2015, 06:59:40 PM
I could be wrong but I believe that case was decided in the Tudor period as well. Which is pre-industrial by anyone's standards.
The original case was the mansfield case in, as you note, the Tudor period. Shanley v. Harvey in 1761 determined that a slave was free upon arriving in England, but this was not considered a precedent, The Somerset case in 1771, however, was. These were still pretty much pre-industrial.
QuoteThat was the source of some of the British Empire's wealth. We also did very well out of the sugar plantations when abolitionism won I believe the West Indies was still at that point the big cash cow of Empire. The West India lobby was fiercely against it and against later abolition of the slave trade. It wasn't an economic move necessarily, I think it was above all a moral campaign and one of the early political campaigns in this country that mobilised ordinary people to a large extent. Of course there is a difference in that the economic benefits of slavery were not felt directly by many people in Britain who were the only people that needed to be mobilised to change the law.
Similarly France abolished slavery after the revolution despite it continuing to be of economic use in the richest colony of the French empire. Again that was a moral judgement. Napoleon, a supreme pragmatist, re-introduced it.
That's not to say either the British or the French were more moral than anyone else but I think the reasoning for their abolitionist movements and their support were moral not material.
I agree with all of this, and would argue that it was the development of a wealthy class not deriving wealth from the land that eventually allowed the anti-slavery movement to succeed. Money is power, and so long as the power remained in the landed class, abolition remained an uphill struggle.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2015, 05:58:29 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 11, 2015, 03:05:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2015, 01:23:28 PM
The "zeitgeist" you spoke of has nothing to do with industrialization but rather the religious and philosophical ideas that opposed slavery in the last few centuries.
Ideas don't exist in a vacuum. The notion that slavery is wrong had been kicking around for millennia. It flourished in the late 18th century in the North and in England because there was little pushback.
It's not so much that capitalism was the direct cause of abolition, but that it enabled it.
You haven't really made your case. Slavery died out in a large part because the British found it repulsive and they were powerful enough to pressure other states into stopping the slave trade and eventually slavery itself.
the only place the British needed slaves was in some colonies. Had the British held on to the US, they might not have been so inclined to abolish slavery.
First, they abolished the trade, than slavery in the british empire, but not in colonies where they were needed, and finally they paid compensation to slave owners. It was a gradual process, as slaves were less&less necessary.
And the thread is still open...interesting
Quote from: Tyr on April 12, 2015, 03:48:21 AM
And the thread is still open...interesting
Who is going to close it?
Quote from: viper37 on April 12, 2015, 02:06:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2015, 05:58:29 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on April 11, 2015, 03:05:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 11, 2015, 01:23:28 PM
The "zeitgeist" you spoke of has nothing to do with industrialization but rather the religious and philosophical ideas that opposed slavery in the last few centuries.
Ideas don't exist in a vacuum. The notion that slavery is wrong had been kicking around for millennia. It flourished in the late 18th century in the North and in England because there was little pushback.
It's not so much that capitalism was the direct cause of abolition, but that it enabled it.
You haven't really made your case. Slavery died out in a large part because the British found it repulsive and they were powerful enough to pressure other states into stopping the slave trade and eventually slavery itself.
the only place the British needed slaves was in some colonies. Had the British held on to the US, they might not have been so inclined to abolish slavery.
First, they abolished the trade, than slavery in the british empire, but not in colonies where they were needed, and finally they paid compensation to slave owners. It was a gradual process, as slaves were less&less necessary.
They actually found that slaves were still necessary which is why they came up with Indian labor schemes.
Did they come up with those? The usual MO was just to use already existing labor schemes like what the Spanish did in the former Incan Empire.
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2015, 08:17:09 AM
Did they come up with those? The usual MO was just to use already existing labor schemes like what the Spanish did in the former Incan Empire.
Other type of Indians.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2015, 08:44:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2015, 08:17:09 AM
Did they come up with those? The usual MO was just to use already existing labor schemes like what the Spanish did in the former Incan Empire.
Other type of Indians.
Yes I am aware. The British did not make extensive use of native American labor that I am aware of. I am talking about how Colonial arrangements like these typically went.
Okay. I don't understand the Inca reference then. After slavery was abolished Britain used Indentured laborers from India in large quantities. So clearly the elites still required cheap, not particularly free labor.
Quote from: Caliga on April 11, 2015, 02:04:05 PM
Is she a robot? :o
When sex robots become available, the high end versions will look like famous people from the present and the past. Licensing fees will be a good source of income for these celebrities. I even heard a crazy technophile dude talking about some sort of morphologist sex robot that could change its look at your command. Basicly the same sexbot could be Keira Knightly tonight, and Scarlett Johansson the next day, and the issue was how the royalties would be paid to the owners of the sex profile.
Very crazy shit, if you ask me. I guess some people are never satisfied. Regardless, the sexbot industry will have a major impact in the technological developments that will eventually lead to the Tech Singularity, just as early internet porn had such a major impact in the developmet of digital video and video streaming. Soon enough, as virtual reality start to take off, porn will have the same effect in pushing the limits of the technology.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2015, 09:20:11 AM
Okay. I don't understand the Inca reference then. After slavery was abolished Britain used Indentured laborers from India in large quantities. So clearly the elites still required cheap, not particularly free labor.
The Spanish really needed Incan slaves in their Navy, though. They were renowned for their torpedo boat experience.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2015, 09:20:11 AM
Okay. I don't understand the Inca reference then. After slavery was abolished Britain used Indentured laborers from India in large quantities. So clearly the elites still required cheap, not particularly free labor.
It was not a reference it was a famous example of what I was talking about. The local elites had ways of getting labor out of their people and the Euros just tended to coop that, preferably by buying off the elites themselves. Anyway agriculture required huge amounts of not particularly free labor from Sumerian times until mechanization came along. At least the British played a leading part in that.
So theoretically slavery should have died out with industrialization and all that. But it hasn't really. People always find new uses. At least we no longer have full-blown slave societies in the western world anymore.
Quote from: Siege on April 13, 2015, 10:09:13 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 11, 2015, 02:04:05 PM
Is she a robot? :o
When sex robots become available, the high end versions will look like famous people from the present and the past. Licensing fees will be a good source of income for these celebrities. I even heard a crazy technophile dude talking about some sort of morphologist sex robot that could change its look at your command. Basicly the same sexbot could be Keira Knightly tonight, and Scarlett Johansson the next day, and the issue was how the royalties would be paid to the owners of the sex profile.
Very crazy shit, if you ask me. I guess some people are never satisfied. Regardless, the sexbot industry will have a major impact in the technological developments that will eventually lead to the Tech Singularity, just as early internet porn had such a major impact in the developmet of digital video and video streaming. Soon enough, as virtual reality start to take off, porn will have the same effect in pushing the limits of the technology.
Well, at least it is better than breeding monkubines. :P
Malthus, stop making up words.
You are not in kinder anymore.
Quote from: Siege on April 13, 2015, 10:09:13 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 11, 2015, 02:04:05 PM
Is she a robot? :o
When sex robots become available, the high end versions will look like famous people from the present and the past. Licensing fees will be a good source of income for these celebrities. I even heard a crazy technophile dude talking about some sort of morphologist sex robot that could change its look at your command. Basicly the same sexbot could be Keira Knightly tonight, and Scarlett Johansson the next day, and the issue was how the royalties would be paid to the owners of the sex profile.
Very crazy shit, if you ask me. I guess some people are never satisfied. Regardless, the sexbot industry will have a major impact in the technological developments that will eventually lead to the Tech Singularity, just as early internet porn had such a major impact in the developmet of digital video and video streaming. Soon enough, as virtual reality start to take off, porn will have the same effect in pushing the limits of the technology.
The far creepier part will be douche's having the sexbot resemble ex-girlfriends or unattainable crushes. Will there be laws against your sexbot looking like someone without their permission?
My understanding is your likeness can't be used without your consent unless you're a public person and your likeness is therefore in the public domain.
But if you can alter your sexbot likeness in the privacy of your own home, there is no way to enforce it (unless likeness's are somehow tagged). Of course, this won't work if you are one of those douches that would take your sexbot out on "dates". :P
Isn't keeping her locked up at home robot cruelty? :hmm:
Quote from: Siege on April 13, 2015, 01:17:39 PM
Malthus, stop making up words.
You are not in kinder anymore.
You googled it, didn't you. :lol: