How would they be protected in the free-market?
Unpaid volunteers receive compensation in other ways. People do not voluntarily work for no reason. In this case, it usually makes an individual feel better about him/herself, it looks good on a resume, etc. Either way, it yields some sort of benefit/satisfaction. So no, it doesn't answer my question at all.
are you aware that slaves oftentimes received compensation in the form of food and shelter?
Is preventing your capital good from depreciating a form of compensation to that capital good? Keeping your slaves alive so that they can work is not compensation, it's investment.
oure simply attempting to detract from the issue because your position is untenable.
You haven't demonstrated this, nor has anyone else.
This has notthng to do with marxism
So then the definition of labor you've provided is entirely your own and you should substantiate it.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric, is your position that if you bought me to work for you, and then decided to start paying me a wage for meeting certain goals, because positive incentives motivated me more than avoiding a whipping, that I would no longer be a slave?
how can property quit?
working under the initiation of agression cannot be free will work.
a slave is someone who can't leave, a free person can leave and pay any fines and return property, but they can leave.
I think it's safe to say that Malachi, Andrew Cain, and I have been talking about the concept slavery in everyday speech.
Well yes, definitions/language are entirely determined by how they are understood/employed by society, but I was more interested in logical consistency and precision. After all, an anarchist, to the common person, is a bomb-throwing lunatic covered in make-up.
I think it's my turn to be snarky. This is basic libertarianism, found in any elementary text.
Well, and as you already pointed out, the common person, in everyday speech, does not nor has ever considered the conscripted solider to be a slave. The common person does not believe that slavery ended in the U.S. in 1979 (when the draft came to an end). So you can’t have it both ways: you either want to examine logical consistency, or accept the commonly understood uses of such phrases.
In the USA, we are not slaves to the state, but the state sure robs us. In North Korea, I think it would be safe to say that the citizens are slaves to the state. Of course, in many ways the state does consider us citizens to be its property.
This is the sort of slippery-slope I was referring to in my op with respect to ambiguous definitions. Is it really true that living in an economically depressed geographical region necessarily makes one a slave? It seems like people are more interested in using the word slave for their own self-serving reasons i.e., to refer to something that they do not agree with (living in a communist state, or working for a wage that is below western standards). It lacks clarity and yields confusion.
hey might perceive it differently based on the roles they inhabit, but that shouldnt concern you because roles are irrelevant, the only thing that matters is remuneration. They were remunerated with living conditions and food. Thats indisputable. Volunteers receive no tangible remuneration. You must amend your definition of slavery to exclude them or admit the possibility that slaves also worked for intangible remuneration, such as pride of belonging to a family farm.
So the farmer that prevents his tractor from rusting is compensating it?
I am going to assume that you mistyped and meant to say "slavery" instead of "labor." I'll also point out that gotlucky has provided you with ample references, you really ought to take a look.
No, you claimed that my characterization of labor (as the fop which, by definition, earns a wage) was incorrect, and that the fops are truly determined by certain relationships (the italics are mine).
this is completely untrue. Those categories (labor, land, capital) are defined by the nature of the working relationship.
No, you claimed that my characterization of labor (as the fop which, by definition, earns a wage) was incorrect, and that the fops are truly determined by certain relationships (the italics are mine):
Definitions are definitions. They are neither consistent nor inconsistent. However Murray Rothbard, Bryan Caplan, Ron Paul, etc. used a particular definition consistently. If you don't like their conclusions, so be it.
Well, and as you already pointed out, the common person, in everyday speech, does not nor has ever considered the conscripted solider to be a slave.
I don't recall pointing this out. I would like a source.
The common person does not believe that slavery ended in the U.S. in 1979 (when the draft came to an end).
Certainly. Most people don't take the time to think through to the logical conclusions of certain premises. If slavery means X, then Y are slaves. If slavery means X, then Z are not slaves. Most people don't sit down and reason things out the way we do on this board. And it's questionable that it ended with the end of the draft. Once contracted into the military, you cannot just quit.
So you can’t have it both ways: you either want to examine logical consistency, or accept the commonly understood uses of such phrases.
There is nothing necessarily inconsistent about common definitions. After all, the standard libertarian use of the word aggression is one of the commonly understood uses of the word. I was unaware that libertarians were inconsistent with the word aggression.
Not at all. I make a distinction between theft and slavery. As far as I'm aware, the citizens of North Korea are treated as property owned by the state. There are forced labor camps and they are told what to do. Unless I am mistaken about the situation in North Korea, that is entirely consistent with my definition of slavery.
Meanwhile in the USA, the situation does not seem that we are the property of the state. We are free to do a great many things, but every year we must make sure we cut a check to Uncle Sam or else. Now, I understand that I haven't provided a definition of theft, but I should hope that you recognize the common libertarian position that taxes are theft.
Or do I need to cite sources for that too?
My point is that you, on the one hand, criticize me for not using the commonly understood notion of slavery and then, on the other hand, you completely dismiss it when introducing the idea of conscripted soldiers as slaves. I'm saying that you can't have it both ways.
My main point, which no one has addressed at all, with the exception of malachi (who continues to fail miserably), is that my definition is precise and it avoids the ambiguity associated with your definition (North Koreans are not slaves simply because they live there, and wage-earners are not slaves because they are laborers).
You can have the last word. it seems to be very important to you.
There are forced labor camps and they are told what to do.
Are they all in forced labor camps? Are the Musicians that love their dear leader and love to play slaves? What about the athletes, or just the common North Korean who is completely brain-washed?
I asked for you to source this absurd claim. I have not done such a thing. At this point, you are being dishonest. You are a liar.
Whether or not your definition is precise is beside the point. The question is whether it is a useful distinction. I could define a murderer as someone who earns a wage, but it entirely misses the idea of what most people would consider a murderer.
I am not saying that North Koreans are slaves merely because they live there. I just said in the above post, that they are slaves because they are owned and forced into labor. If that is false, please demonstrate that. It is my understanding that this is what goes on in the North Korean nation.
But I have already made that point, and you ignored it. This is another example of dishonesty on your part. Nowhere did I say that the citizens of North Korea were slaves merely for living there.
Where have I demonstrated that I must have the last word? All I can see is that I have responded to your posts to me. And you have responded to my posts too. You really like making unsupported claims.
Slaves can be brainwashed. Please read the narrative of Frederick Douglass that I provided. Your ignorance is astounding.
It's that or you are a liar.
You can have the last word. It seems very important to you.
Just kidding. I'll probably respond to your shenanigans. And Malachi made a great point: I'm waiting for you to source your absurd claim that slavery is limited to those who do not earn wages. Until you do so, I think it's clear to all who read this thread that you are full of shit.
I could define a murderer as someone who earns a wage
Huh? But that wouldn't be helpful at all..
I just said in the above post, that they are slaves because they are owned and forced into labor.
Okay, what about those that aren't forced into labor? And in what sense are they owned?
Slaves can be brainwashed. Please read the narrative of Frederick Douglass that I provided.
So you're saying slavery can be voluntary? doesn't that undermine your entire argument?
Go ahead, it's yours, for real this time. I promise!
Esuric: Huh? But that wouldn't be helpful at all..
Somehow you managed to not quote before or after:
gotlucky: Whether or not your definition is precise is beside the point. The question is whether it is a useful distinction. I could define a murderer as someone who earns a wage, but it entirely misses the idea of what most people would consider a murderer.
Are you delibrately being dishonest? After 3,000+ posts, you feel it is okay to delibrately misquote people?
Esuric: Okay, what about those that aren't forced into labor? And in what sense are they owned?
As I have already stated, it is my understanding that the citizens of North Korea are owned and forced into labor. Perhaps it is the case that only some citizens are slaves there, but I do not know enough about North Korean society, and most people don't really know what goes on there anyway.
But it is also my understanding that the ones that aren't forced into labor are the ones that work for the state as masters. Again, perhaps this is incorrect, but you have yet to actually demonstrate that my understanding is incorrect. From the newspaper articles and the documentaries about North Korea, it seems that North Koreans are either essentially either slaves or slave owners.
Esuric: So you're saying slavery can be voluntary? doesn't that undermine your entire argument?
No, I did not say that. I don't get why you are so dishonest. Not only are you delibrately misquoting me and misrepresenting my arguments, you have been incredibly hostile for our entire discussion. TBH, I have no idea what I did to you to merit such treatment. It was only after your continued hostility that I have called you a liar.
Esuric: Go ahead, it's yours, for real this time. I promise!
Whatever. You can respond or not. If you do, I would appreciate a response to my above paragraph. I don't get how someone with 3000+ posts could be so dishonest and hostile.
"There's no doubt that slavery is involuntary servitude. No one is willing to work without any form of compensation, and I already said as much in my response to cain. "
Sure there are. They are called volunteers.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael