Of course it does. How can slaves be compelled to work without abuse and punishment? And how can slaves be acquired without taking them captive? You could be a slave from birth, but then you are being taken prisoner from birth.
If you do not abuse and punish slaves, then they will refuse to work. And if they work voluntarily without the threat of abuse and punishment, and they are not kept confined against their will, then they are not slaves, they are volunteer workers. Or do you think that some people are natural slaves, who would voluntarily enslave themselves?
If you think slavery is possible without physical violence, I’d like an explanation of how that could work. Well, I could call Bill Clinton my slave, but if I cannot compel him to provide free labor from me, then he isn’t much of a slave, is he? Without compulsion, slavery is impossible.
Certainly not all physical punishment is bad. Most people got swatted a few times on the butt when they were growing up because they didn’t obey authority and they still turned out all right.
cmkeller would be a good guy to have around right now; he always makes these things clearer than I can. But, I will try.
If I understand them, your questions (in order) are:
[list=1]
[li]Can slaves be compelled to work without punishment?[/li][li]Can slaves be aquired except through capture?[/li][li]Isn’t a slave, by definition, a slave against his will?[/li][/list=1]
The answers are Yes, Yes and No.
Let me explain - I refer you to
First of all, understand that the Hebrew word “Eved,” here translated as “servant,” is also translated as “slave.” So, as far as the intent of the text, the two terms are interchangable.
According to Judaism, slavery has a legitimate place in a respectable economy - it provides a way for a man with no other options to care for himself and his family.
The way it works is, if a man has no other financial options, he is allowed to sell himself into slavery to support his family. This period of enslavement lasts until the Shmitta Year (every 7[sup]th[/sup]), when all slaves are freed and their debts cleared.
So, can he be compelled to work without punishment? Yes, since (as Libertarian pointed out earlier) his position was his choice. He made his bed, so he lies in it. This is also the reason why slaves can be acquired without capture - He chose to become a slave. Regarding your third question - Obviously, he is not a slave against his will since he was the one who initiated his slavery.
The owner of such a slave needs no chains or whips to keep him. No beatings are neccesary to make him work. I should point out that Jewish Law actually forbids this sort of abuse of slaves; If a slave-owner owns but one pillow, he is required to give it to his slave before sleping upon it himself!
Before you cry foul and say that these sort of slaves are not what was meant in the OP, look back at verse 4, above. True, after the Shmitta, the slave is freed, but his children are not - they remain property of the master.
Of course this is slavery of a kind different than we saw in this country, or anywere else in history for that matter. Look at verses 5 and 6 - rules had to be established to govern what happens if a slave wants to remain a slave after his term is up!
I can’t imagine this was much of an issue in Frederick Douglas’ day.
I return to my original position - it is interesting to debate the merits or evils of slavery, but we should leave abuse, punishment and the taking of captives out of the discussion; they are irrelevant.
The interesting thing about slavery, if you think about it, is if you escape from slavery – go over the plantation wall as it were – you essentially become a slave to not being a slave.
Because, obviously, if you were to return to your life of slavery at the plantation, you will be punished for escaping much more so than you would be rewarded for freely returning. Not to mention the master would hold you up as an example of how the escaped life is so horrible that you willfully returned.
So in this escaped life you live in fear of capture until such a time as you reach the land of freeness – the promised land, Israel. Not that the master could not still subtly lure you back, but you would then be out of his power and no longer a slave to not being a slave.
(as a man who apparently forgot to take his meds once said to me – “You got to wonder, Is that Real, because Is rael?”)
At first I thought, man, this is dumb, do we really need to discuss why slavery is bad?
Then I am reading and someone says that slavery can only be maintained through the threat of punishment… Hmmm, this is true.
And then I think, isn’t it also true about any other legal convention of our society? The concept of private property would be meaningless if there was no threat of punishment if you stole my stuff.
Foreigners are prevented from entering the US under threat of punishment.
Does it mean society cannot use force or the threat of force?
I think the justification of slavery being bad should not rest on the use of force idea but just rather on the concept that we are all equal and blah blah blah.
Good topic to discuss, Crazy Boob. I started a thread week or so asking for guidance on how one would maintain a belief in (or argue effectively for) cultural relativism/moral univeralism. That is, given that people’s moral values are culturally based, is there a core set of moral values to which all cultures adhere/subsribe?
Is slavery inherently wrong? I myself belief that - in and of itself - nothing is inherently right or wrong. But Libertarian’s take, though, is a good place to start in trying to build an argument for deriving a core set of moral values that cultures subscribe/adhere to (the “do under others” credo). In this case, I would venture to say that MOST cultures today would subsribe/adhere to the belief that slavery is wrong.
Keep thinking along those lines, and you’ll be a libertarian yet. Apparently, though, that would make you one of Lib’s cronies…
Libertarianism distinguishes the initial force. Thus, I don’t have the right to attack you. However, if I do anyway, you have the right to defend yourself. In much the same way, libertarians are pretty adamant about the ways that society can use force, and they generally involve protecting individuals from “initial” force or fraud.
You might say, we’re even more anti-slavery than your average Joe.
Equal in what way? We’re not the same height, intelligence, age, color, weight, experience, wealth, etc. Do you mean we have equal rights? To what, for instance? Maybe life, liberty, and property? That gets you back into, er, libertarianville, wouldn’t ya say?
btw, whether or not we are equal, I insist that I am not “blah blah blah blah”.
