Once more: any involuntary infringement on agency is bad. Some, those with unimpeachable justifications, are necessary to serve society’s goals. If you want to claim slavery itself is one of those things, the onus is on you to provide the unimpeachable justification for it.
If you want to claim that slavery is a valid form of criminal justice, then you should actually define what slavery is. This means you need to illustrate the distinction between ‘slavery’ and other forms of compulsory restriction. Without that, you’re insisting that an undefined, open-ended condition of potentially unlimited restriction is ‘unimpeachably justified’… which is something of a stretch, to say the least.
Then maybe you shouldn’t have attempted to lurch back that way.
Once more: any involuntary infringement on agency is bad. Some, those with unimpeachable justifications, are necessary to serve society’s goals.
Once more, you have not said why slavery is a special exceptions to those infringements you do accept. I grow tired of asking this: it is not a difficult question:
Is your sole objection to slavery, in comparison to the other infringements you mention, its general nature?
I am happy to argue my position, but I have already argued (and you have too) that infringements happen that share aspects with slavery (children, imprisonement) and those infringements happen for similar reasons (read my previous post).
The fact that you are asking for a definition of slavery (are you suddenly not sure what it means, it is really not that difficult a concept to grasp) indicates to me that you are afraid to take a position. I also don’t believe there are any indications that we are using different concepts of slavery, so asking for definitions is a waste of effort and a distraction at this point.
Don’t behave like a child please. This is an adult conversation.
Oh Murr… you’re really weeblewobblin’ your way into some odd rhetorical contortions here. It’s already been established by both of you that involuntary infringement on agency is to be avoided if possible. The onus of justifying exceptions to this then falls on the one laying forth the exception in question.
It’s very simple. On a subject like slavery, or indeed jail or even just something as simple as determining traffic laws and other restrictions upon agency for the good of society, you have to answer the question “why should this exist”, not “why shouldn’t it.”.
If you are unwilling to answer why, the entire foundation of your chosen standpoint erodes from underneath you as you and your entire line of debate become nothing but a distraction. A malicious one at that, standing in the way of any honest and real discussion on the subject.
The onus here is on you, and if your position wasn’t untenable to begin with, it really shouldn’t have been this difficult for you to respond with something other than ‘no u’.
Because those infringements are already special exceptions. My sole objection to slavery, in comparison to the other infringements that I’ve mentioned, is that it is an involuntary infringement that is not one of those special exceptions.
I’ve already said ‘involuntary reduction in agency is bad unless there is a necessity’. If you want to make a case that slavery should be considered valid, you have to say why. And you have offered absolutely no justification for slavery that places it in the same category as criminal justice or societal protections of the young and/or infirm. Just saying ‘it’s the same thing!’ is a load of horse crap if you’re not willing to explicitly define what it is you want another special exception carved out for. And, really, it’s a pretty craven tactic to use.
Involuntary reduction of agency is bad. This is a baseline conceit that underlies the very existence of society. Tell me why the case you champion should be granted a special exception to that statement.
Obviously, I tend to agree with the direction of your argument. Having said that, surely the counter point is that the statement above regarding agency is purely cultural. We Matari and the Gallente would agree - albeit from slightly different philosophical staring points. But the Amarr would not, since their whole society is based on the reduction of agency - that is, complete subservience to the will of their God.
That is seen by them as ‘good’ and underlies the very existence of their society. One can argue that even the True Amarr undergo ‘involuntary reduction of agency’ since they are required to obey God and Empress without question. Certainly they see the removal of agency from ‘lesser’ peoples as being to those people’s benefits, and in so doing, underpinning their society’s existence.
One could make an argument that the Caldari State also views the reduction of agency to be a good thing for their society, as the suppression of the individual will for the good of the whole is integral to their sense of cultural difference.
Whilst you do note earlier in the post the qualifier “unless there is a necessity” the Amarr response (almost certainly the pragmatic Caldari response) surely would be that their culture and societal structure demands it as a necessity. Agency is freedom, and freedom is only dear to two of our cultures.
Whilst I have a lot of time for the Federation and its notions of law and human rights, I think we have to be careful (as the Gallente perhaps, are not) in extrapolating those ideas onto cultures so significantly different in base concepts as the Amarr. In the end, argument is useless against these people.
Fundamentally, we disagree with any idea that our people may be enslaved. They believe that such a reduction of our agency is for our own good. Neither side can conceive of the starting point of the other.
Thus the only response is to force the issue by war until one of those positions is respected or imposed.
The institution of slavery is a dead weight preventing us adapting our methods of achieving Reclaimation. It’s also a bringer of corruption, abuse and excess in the extreme, this is undeniable. Sooner we can start having sane discussions on moving forward from it, adapting to our current situation where we cannot expand militarily against all our neighbours, and stop being deluded that the status quo is just fine the better, but circular logic and argumentation isn’t going to cut it.
No, it is not. The first principal of social interaction (upon which society is based) is that the parties voluntarily abrogate their agency in order to secure the benefits of cooperation. Even the Amarr society is based on this core principle. The fact that they twist and pervert their society in order to rationalize their need to exploit others does not change it. It only makes their society built upon a lie and corrupted to it’s most basic levels.
The State, by comparison, does not compel people to accept reduced agency for no benefit. Not only are all of their occupational positions, even at the lowest rungs of society, paid positions… people can quit. There will be repercussions, obviously, but Caldari society acknowledges that they can… even if it’d be seen as stupid to do so.
Also flawed. Agency is self-determination—the ability to make meaningful decisions about the course of our own lives. This is actually an important and necessary concept for the dominant cultures in all four empires. The Caldari State exists because self-determination mattered enough that they opposed the unjust political pressure of the Federation.
The Empire’s culture is partially grounded in the concepts of obedience before God, and sin. Obedience only has weight if an individual can choose to disobey. A rock that falls when you drop it in a gravity well is demonstrating no virtue in doing what you want it to do: it cannot do otherwise. Thus, the very value of obedience to God, rather than pure indulgence of self, is grounded in agency.
The State, by comparison, does not compel people to accept reduced agency for no benefit. Not only are all of their occupational positions, even at the lowest rungs of society, paid positions… people can quit. There will be repercussions, obviously, but Caldari society acknowledges that they can… even if it’d be seen as stupid to do so.
False analogy. There is only a superficial difference between people that cannot quit their job because they will probably die without income, and people that cannot quit becoming a slave because they might die trying to do so.
The system is setup in such a way that people are encouraged to make the right choice: serve society according to it standards. It is just that Amarr society is more honest about it. We do not create the illusion of choice like the Caldari do. Work can simply be another form of slavery, one which a societies try to paint as ‘moral’ while painting superficially different methods (like slavery) as ‘immoral’.
The institution of slavery is a dead weight preventing us adapting our methods of achieving Reclaimation.
This needs support in argument and evidence, otherwise you are just a lonely man shouting at God.
It’s also a bringer of corruption, abuse and excess in the extreme, this is undeniable.
No it isn’t. There, that is my demonstration of how it sounds to be a lonely man shouting at God. I just denied what you called the undeniable, but as anyone can point out, my denial doesn’t hold weight because it is unsupported by argument and evidence.
You are great in many ways mr. Onzo, but perhaps you skipped a number of church classes?
Because those infringements are already special exceptions. My sole objection to slavery, in comparison to the other infringements that I’ve mentioned, is that it is an involuntary infringement that is not one of those special exceptions.
I guess that it means you steadfastly refuse to answer my simple and relevant question. I will show my humility by answering yours first and then I’ll hope you’ll answer mine.
We both agree that involuntary reduction of agency is bad for the individual but is sometimes necessary for the benefit of others and society.
We both agree that such reduction can be inflicted on those who have shown themselves unable to make properly informed and well-reasoned decisions regarding complex issues which often require long time perspectives.
We both agree that such reduction can be inflicted when their past behaviour if society classifies that behaviour as criminal
I contend that such reduction should only be inflicted within a system of checks and controls by people who do not directly benefit from such reductions (i.e. judicial system). You have not agreed with this yet.
We both agree that child rearing and imprisonement as punishment of a crime are among the permissible reductions.
We both agree that such a reduction does not to need be completely fair at an individual level: it is ok to consider a prodigy child still a child and imprison a murderer that will likely not kill again.
You claim that slavery is “a special exception” to all these measures without arguing why. You have not argued what aspects make the other reductions allowable but slavery not. When asked to confirm if the one thing you mention (generational nature) is why you think is a special exception, you steadfastly refuse to answer.
I’ll now argue why slavery is superior in terms reduction of agency for the individual to methods you (likely) accept:
1. Slavery versus the death penalty
This is blatantly obvious. Slavery is superior in all aspects since the death penalty removes all agency. Even though Matari terrorist sometimes yell ‘death before slavery’ the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of slaves (> 99.8%) to do not commit suicide when given the chance. That is sufficient proof that they consider slavery superior and choose it before death. I believe all major societies in New Eden have the death penalty. This means that all societies inflict a greater reduction of agency than slavery. Hence it cannot be argued that slavery “inflicts too much reduction” while also upholding the death penalty (in any form).
2. Slavery versus a life sentence (imprisonement)
Slavery has the following advantages of above sentencing someone to imprisonement for life (also a practice common to all major cultures of New Eden)
Slavery allows for a full family life (meeting a partner, marriage, children, family dinners, growing old together etc.)
Slavery allows for full education (vocational schooling, church schooling etc.)
Slavery allows for more choice in freedom of movement (when your work day is over, you can go to sit on your porch or go inside and spend time with your family)
Slavery allows for many moments without any supervision or restriction (like going into town getting groceries for your master)
Slavery allows for emancipation (you can be freed for good behaviour)
Slavery allows for you to contribute positively to society (instead of wasting societal resources by wasting away in a prison)
These are just some arguments why slavery does not need “a special exception” when compared against the two other reductions (which are not considered ‘immoral’ by New Eden major cultures). Besides my other remaining question I know ask you to provide an unimpeachable justification for the two comparative examples.
None of this demonstrates any justification for slavery. You’re saying ‘slavery’s nicer than X’, but that doesn’t justify slavery at all. But we’ll come back to this once I address your request at the end there:
The Death Penalty:
As a reduction of agency, capital punishment is, indeed, more of a reduction of agency than slavery. It’s also a lot less of a societal burden in the long-term, both in terms of the economic costs and in terms of the detrimental effects slavery has upon society itself.
That doesn’t mean capital punishment should be used in any but the most extreme circumstances—far from it. Still, when that level of penalty is levied, the decision has been made for a reason. There’s no rehabilitation value in killing someone. There’s no estimation of ‘this person deserves to return to society at some point’. In fact, the idea of such an individual returning to society is particularly abhorrent. The death penalty is literally society cutting its losses and saying ‘we are all better off if you don’t exist’.
As for your assumption that I support the death penalty… only in the absolute most extreme cases. In all of New Eden, I suspect maybe one case rises to that standard in a hundred… years. And really, at that level, it’s probably better for society if it’s not quite legal, but carried out by a singular individual who then has to stand and face trial for his actions—a societal sin-eater, if you will. Is that the level of support you assumed? Or are you just making assumptions without the first clue of who I am and how I feel?
Life Imprisonment
Full family life. The opportunity to better oneself. More freedom of movement. Periods without supervision or restriction. And all this for someone who has received a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. After all, you list a potential for emancipation, so it’s not just someone who’s potentially eligible for parole, but if they fail to secure it, will rot in prison for a period greater than the potential span of their natural life. (Say, someone who could earn parole after 20 or 40 years, but otherwise will spend the next 600 in jail. Even among the upper class of Amarr, that’s not something they’ll walk away from.)
Pray, tell me: why should society be giving these things to someone has so egregiously or consistently flouted the social contract? These things are the very benefits society provides people for adhering to the mutually-beneficial compact in the first place. They had those things. They threw them away.
As for ‘contribute positively to society’… if your penal system can’t put inmates to work, you should consider getting new administrators.
Now, let’s look at your really rather interesting attempt to twist things around at the end there:
Slavery needs a special exception to the fundamental tenets of society on its own. Killing people is bad, right? Killing people is immoral. Killing hundreds of thousands of people is even worse! But defending yourself in a war is ok, so why is murder bad?!?!?!
That’s your argument.
You demand I tell you why slavery is bad. I’ve answered that. Slavery is bad because it is an involuntary infringement on agency. Full stop. Other special case infringements are still bad, but they are acceptable because they are necessary. That doesn’t make them not bad. You haven’t said why slavery, specifically, should be considered among them, or why it should actually rise to the level of ‘not bad’. Instead, you keep saying ‘but you haven’t answered my question’ when I quite clearly have. Repeatedly.
And, just to have it said?
In the first case, I don’t believe those people don’t directly benefit from such reductions. Having a stable, functional society is a clear and direct benefit. Sorry, your judges, lawyers, etc, all benefit from doing their jobs in a way that goes well beyond their paychecks and they’re specifically trained to know that.
In the second, if it can be determined the murderer is likely to not kill again, rather than is not likely to kill again, then sentencing should take that into consideration.
Now, a case can be made that that’s splitting some pretty fine hairs, but the distinction is actually rather important. The murderer is being found guilty of the crime. This means there is suffient evidence to lead a generally functional criminal justice system to conclude that this individual has committed this offense. It can be proven that they have violated the social contract in a particularly egregious and irreversible way. You can’t make amends to the immediate victim of that act. You can’t fix it. They’re dead. This person did that. It’s been proven with evidence. And that evidence has been critically examined and judged to be compelling.
If you want to call for someone to be trusted despite that evidence… you’d damned well better be able to show equally compelling evidence that this individual’s future mental state cannot be put back into the same general condition it was in when they decided to commit the act in the first place. If you can do that? Then you’ve likely got some extremely mitigating circumstances surrounding the initial crime, and those should be taken into account.
If you can’t? Then you cannot honestly tell me ‘this murderer will likely not kill again’, because that’s an active, affirmative position that you just do not have the evidence to support. At best, you can say there isn’t evidence of any high probability of a repeat offense: ‘not likely to kill again’.
And since you’re being all prissy about ‘you didn’t answer my question’ because you apparently need things spelled out for you so clearly and simply that infants are looking at you going ‘dude, I don’t understand words, and I get this’… well, I felt it best to be clear on that point.
None of this demonstrates any justification for slavery. You’re saying ‘slavery’s nicer than X’, but that doesn’t justify slavery at all.
That is because you have justified slavery already by admitting that reducing someone’s freedom is acceptable for several reasons. You have not argued why you think some reductions (imprisonement) are fine while others (slavery) are not. I cannot argue that for you.
Let me explain it in a simpler terms so that you can understand: if you claim that everybody needs to eat food to survive (and I agree with you), and you think eating oranges is good while eating apples is bad, it is not up to me to prove to you why oranges need a special exception. You need to argue while apples are good and oranges are bad. It is really that simple. I have humored you by comparing oranges and apples assuming you will someday argue your own points.
As a reduction of agency, capital punishment is, indeed, more of a reduction of agency than slavery.
It was your claim that a reduction of agency should not be more than absolutely neccessary. From that claim it must logically follow that for any crime in which a death penalty is suited, the (lesser) sentence of slavery is also appropriate. That means you support slavery, but only in limited cases, right?
As for your assumption that I support the death penalty… only in the absolute most extreme cases.
Then will you climb the barricades to protest against the death penalty in case of desertion during wartime, which is fairly universal in New Eden? Deserters are perfect examples of people who still have plenty to contribute to society.
Pray, tell me: why should society be giving these things to someone has so egregiously or consistently flouted the social contract?
Because the Amarr believe in mercy. Because the Amarr believe that an individuals are not solely to blame for their own transgressions. The Amarr believe in shared responsibility, like parents being responsible for the crimes of their children. You do not imprison a child when she crosses the line, you provide her with stricter guidance. That is what slavery is. It is society taking responsibility for their errant children.
Slavery needs a special exception to the fundamental tenets of society on its own.
Why? Why does slavery need a special exception and imprisonment or death penalties do not? I have been asking you this for many times, but you seem to skip around answering this central question. Don’t just claim it, argue and provide evidence if you can. You still remain stuck at the ‘its bad and no t acceptable because I say it is’
Other special case infringements are still bad, but they are acceptable because they are necessary.
They are? I think I can cite hundreds of examples in literature about societies doing just fine without imprisonement or death penalties. I can also hink of a famous story of some kids abandoned on an space station. They didn’t suddenly drop dead at the moment that parental guidance was removed. Those reductions (imprisonement etc.) might be useful, but they are certainly not neccessary. To argue that such these forms of reduction are neccessary is well, dumb.
In the first case, I don’t believe those people don’t directly benefit from such reductions. Having a stable, functional society is a clear and direct benefit.
I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word direct. If a suicide ganker blows up a freighter, it will not directly affect you unless the freight was yours, or you were pilotiing the freighter or were tha ganker. Prices might go up, or ithe black market may be flooded, but those effects are called indirect. You understand the difference now?
Actually, I do think you understand the difference between direct and indirect, and between neccessary and useful, as you demonstrate wisdom and eloquence. I suspect you displaying willfull ignorance brought about by being unwilling to ‘lose the debate’ in the public eye. I understand and sympathize.
If you want to call for someone to be trusted despite that evidence
This is what slavery is. Slavery is supervised trust. Like we do with our children. Emancipation is paramount, not paranoia or punishment. This is why slavery is an enlightened method of correcting societal wrongs. And yes, if people continue to escape such supervision, harsher measure (like transcranial microcontrollers or vitoc) will be employed. But the goal remains emancipation and as much agency as possible.
You know why? Because statistics clearly show that putting criminals together and restricting their options only serves to increase the chances that they will remain criminal after they have ‘served their time’. in prison I think the recidivist rate for most violent crime in Federation is, what, 50%? That recidivist rate for slaves pales next to that.
We need to give people a second (or third or fourth) chance at life. Slavery does that.
Ms. Arrendis, I admit I can be heavy-handed and sometimes downright adverserial when I’m in an argument.
In the past the intellectual anarchists of Star Fraction stopped posting on the summit altogether after complaining that I was too persistent in my refutal of their arguments and asking me if I could not ‘just leave them alone’ while they continued their false propaganda.
I know I’m not always right and sometimes make mistakes or fail to see things clearly. But I will not stand for nonsense on subjects I have thoroughly studied nor will I entertain fallacious arguments about those subjects.
I leave this thread as is. I think I cannot make my point any clearer to the public, and I don’t believe I can convince you either.
I got this far and my brain tried to herniate itself out of my ears. “This one thing is bad but okay, so ALL BAD THINGS ARE OKAY!” really? Really?
I thought better of you, but if this is the quality of your argumentation these days, perhaps it’s time for retirement old man. Your mind is going.
I am unsure what you mean. I have never stated this.
The only point of contention in the argument was from ms. Arrenids, who said, more or less: ‘these things are all bad but neccessary, but slavery needs a special exception (because it is superbad?)’. We agreed on the badness, not on the special exception or the necessity.
Ms. Arrendis then failed to point out why one was badder than the others and why one was unneccessary while the others were neccessary.
The amount of words should be sufficient to make some eyes bleed, yes.
No, I haven’t. I’ve established that reducing someone’s agency is a bad thing, and must be justified. Each specific form of reduction must be justified on its own. The fact that some forms of it are justified does not provide a blanket justification for slavery. If you want to add slavery to the ‘white list’, you have to prove why slavery is a necessary mechanism, rather than other mechanisms which do not relegate a human being to the status of property.
That’s only the case if your capacity for logical reasoning is so irreparably harmed that you might need a caretaker established, yourself. The death penalty is only acceptable for those cases where no lesser form of reduction is sufficient. That, too, doesn’t make slavery an acceptable mechanism.
Summary execution during wartime is deemed acceptable in the field because the facilities and resources for more thorough criminal justice procedures don’t exist. Where they do, summary execution should never be tolerated. Nor have you demonstrated your assertion that it is ‘fairly universal in New Eden’.
They do. And the principles supporting those special exceptions have been explored at length in this discussion. I’m starting to suspect you may be fully aware of how dishonest your statements are, rather than just being in denial, as I’d hoped.
I can cite hundreds of examples in literature of humans being able to fly unassisted, too. ‘I READ IT IN A STORY!!’ doesn’t make it true.
Does the judge not enjoy the benefits of a stable, functional society? Is he not freed from the necessity to grow/hunt his own food? Build her own shelter by hand? Produce their own clothing? These are direct benefits—they impact directly upon the judge’s life, even if the mechanism by which the products of these benefits come to exist is indirect.
Slavery is the reduction of a human being to the status of being the property of another.
Please demonstrate that all slaves have committed violent crimes, before you want to make that comparison. Most of your empire’s slaves have committed no crime at all. They’re simply descended from someone who, at some point in time, committed some… oh, wait, no, most are descended from the children of people whose only crime was not being Amarr.
So you’re comparing the recidivism rate of violent criminals (not even just criminals) vs… ‘everyone’? Yeah, that’s arguing in good faith right there.
Lies, evasions, and calling huge swaths of people who’ve done nothing wrong except who they were born to criminals.
That is what Amarr society is.
Then you shouldn’t spew it.
By the way…
You probably don’t want to put ‘in the past, people who couldn’t keep defending their position against someone who’s right would make a dramatic statement and then run away’ right before, you know, making a dramatic statement and running away.
We do not chip freeborn children as part of their care. We do not inject free children with vitoxin. We do not sell free children or non-enslaved prisoners on to other parties for economic profit. We do not forcefully breed free children and prisoners. These are all parts of management in the institute of slavery.
The institution of slavery also creates a demand for more slaves given we cannot risk a military operation of conquest to push the Reclaimation forward. This enables unsanctioned slave taking, promotes the use of breeding facilities and also creates the absurd paradox of generational slavery being the end goal and yet many Holders continue to drag their heels on releasing enslaved bloodlines even when demanded so by the Empress.
By virtue of treaty that the Amarr Empire signed up to, as demonstrated by the High Inquisitor’s response to a petition asking for the end of sales of slaves on the SCC market, non-Holder capsuleers of any and every factional loyalty or none is able to purchase slaves directly from Amarrian markets quickly and legally. How is a slave to be Reclaimed when dwelling in the cargo hold of a Nullsec Capsuleer Bloc pilot’s latest shiney solo combat vessel?
As already established, the Amarr Empire is not getting swathes of new families into the fold through sanctioned enslaving practices, instead recycling the same blood lines we already possess through Generational slavery or from unsanctioned and illegal (by Treaty, which the Amarr signed and gave its word upon) slave taking. What are we to do to continue the Reclaimation in this long peace of ours? Are we to sit on our hands waiting for some unknown situation to happen? Attempting to peacefully convert is entirely an option that often gets ignored, and is hampered by an institution we cannot even continue to legally feed new souls into outside of multiple generations of already enslaved families, or formerly faithful criminals.
This is just a taste of all the issues.
What is the religious dogma on the justification and purpose of slavery does not always equate to the reality of how it is managed and proscribed. Dogma and Scripture are also not immutable, otherwise why would we have an official organisation for considering, analysing and adjusting the codification and removal of parts of the Scripture? I am staking my principle and position to encourage debate on this, as every change starts out, rippling through the social strata before finally being considered in the highest authorities. But it pleases me no end that a civilly offered opinion is met with an uncivil veiled insult about my knowledge, or my being some Lonely Man Shouting. Was it not good enough to address the points put forth?