Slave owners, reparations, and retroactive laws

[John Dibble]

No/no. The plantocracy, by and large, were benevolent paternalists who took care of their slaves. That's the story that's passed down through generations of my family anyway

Dave

Personally, whatever your answer to the poll is, I feel that it is irrelevant how the owner treated the slave. Slavery is slavery, even if it is 'benevolent'. Would you tolerate me forcing you to work for me whether you wanted to or not, even if I was benevolently paternalistic and took care of you?

No - but it is now 2004, not the 1861 and I think we've moved on from then since times have changed. It was just the way things happened to be back then. The South was primarily agrarian and negroes were much more adapted to working in hot conditions than whites were, they could have been free, I suppose, but they weren't whatever the rights and wrongs of it. Had I been around, it's possible, just like my grandfather (in the segregated South of the 20s and 30s), that I could very well have been ahead of my time, in believing that slavery, like segregation, was morally wrong. I don't know

Perhaps in the context of the time, slaves being provided for was marginally preferable to ex-slaves working for a pittance and having to provide for themselves - but things have fundamentally changed since then and are not really applicable to today's socio-economic context

Dave

I don't care about the times - it's wrong as I'm concerned. No matter what year it is I wouldn't tolerate being a slave - I would fight with everything that I am even if it meant death. My point is simply that it doesn't matter how the slaves were treated in regards to reparations - slavery is slavery, it's forcing people to do your bidding against their will. It's not the reason that reparations should or shouldn't be paid. I'm still leaning no/no, but my reasons aren't for how the slaves were treated(which was varied anyways, furthering the reason I don't think we can base reparations policy on that).

[Gustaf]

John, what do you think of my point? I take it from your statement that you would fight slavery even if you were legally a slave. Isn't it then equally justified to punish slave-owners retroactively?

[John Dibble]

John, what do you think of my point? I take it from your statement that you would fight slavery even if you were legally a slave. Isn't it then equally justified to punish slave-owners retroactively?

Well, I'm still juggling with that. I'm leaning towards it more being the government's fault for allowing the violation of rights in the first place - it is their job to protect my rights, after all. What would matter more to me than punishing my 'masters' would be to attain freedom and keep it - having freedom is good enough for me, plus losing me does create a loss to the person who 'owned' me.

[David S]

Lets take a hypothetical case. Suppose that the People for the Ethical Treatment of animals suddenly becomes a powerful political force and assumes a position of control in the House the Senate and the Presidency. In other words they control the government. In 2010 they pass a constitutional amendment banning the ownership of cats, dogs and other pets. Then they pass a law prescribing punishment for anyone who owned a pet today. Is it fair?

[A18]

Slavery is justified in certain circumstances

[Emsworth]

Slavery is justified in certain circumstances

... such as?

[A18]

Tribal warfare and such. In those situations, it would be justified to kill the other side, so enslaving them would seem more merciful.

[John Dibble]

Tribal warfare and such. In those situations, it would be justified to kill the other side, so enslaving them would seem more merciful.

In terms of wartime I suppose it is somewhat justifiable, but once a war is over it's not really justified to keep them as slaves. Of course, if you really want to be merciful you simply imprison them.

[A18]

How is it unjustified to keep them as slaves? That's what tribes did to each other.

[Emsworth]

Consider a hypothetical in which person A wants to murder person B. He originally chooses to boil his victim in oil, but laters decides to just shoot him. The latter action may be more merciful than the former: but it is not necessarily justified.

[A18]

Ah, but I stated that it would be justified to kill the other tribe. Now, we can debate that, but if we accept the premise, then you can see why I don't think slavery is always justified.

But you bring up an interesting example yourself. Let's say person A boils person B's wife in oil. Is person B not justified in killing person A, boiling him in oil, and/or enslaving him?

[Emsworth]

Ah, but I stated that it would be justified to kill the other tribe. Now, we can debate that, but if we accept the premise, then you can see why I don't think slavery is always justified.

I will accept the logic, but not necessarily the premise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a society with government and laws, definitely not. The only circumstance in which it is potentially justifiable is perhaps the state of nature: but I hesitate to bring it up, debate over the so-called natural law is almost always based on arbitrary assertions, never on actual logic.

[John Dibble]

How is it unjustified to keep them as slaves? That's what tribes did to each other.

Just because that's what tribes did to eachother doesn't mean those tribes were justified. I'm sure those same tribes also occassionally did some other things like raping their enemies' women. I have a distinct problem with punishing innocent people, and that's usually what slavery entails(otherwise we'd call chain gangs cleaning up the side of the road slavery, now wouldn't we?). In war, you usually have average Joes fighting eachother because of their governments - usually those people wouldn't be fighting eachother or causing death and whatnot - since they don't have much choice in being at war I think that the most justified thing you could do is imprison them. If slavery is the most merciful option(for some reason you may not be able to imprison them), I suppose it can be justified, though after the war is over they should be freed - the fighting is over, so they no longer are a threat to you, so keeping them in chains longer than necessary for you to keep them from killing you is not justified.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a society with government and laws, definitely not. The only circumstance in which it is potentially justifiable is perhaps the state of nature: but I hesitate to bring it up, debate over the so-called natural law is almost always based on arbitrary assertions, never on actual logic.

In the state of nature, I believe the most justified thing would be to kill him quickly - just end his life and be done with it, no need to bring yourself down to his level. Forced labor, while perhaps a decent punishment in this case, would be a bit risky I think - you have to sleep, and I'm assuming that in a state of nature you don't have anyone to watch your back.

[A18]

How is it unjustified to keep them as slaves? That's what tribes did to each other.

Just because that's what tribes did to eachother doesn't mean those tribes were justified.

Um, if someone tries to wipe out your civilization and enslave you, they deserve what they get.

[John Dibble]

How is it unjustified to keep them as slaves? That's what tribes did to each other.

Just because that's what tribes did to eachother doesn't mean those tribes were justified.

Um, if someone tries to wipe out your civilization and enslave you, they deserve what they get.

If someone tries to wipe out my civilization and enslave me, I would fight them, sure, but that doesn't mean I should be like them and live by their morals.

[A18]

'Should' is just subjective. It is arbitrary to say that locking someone in a cell is okay, but not making them do work.

[John Dibble]

'Should' is just subjective. It is arbitrary to say that locking someone in a cell is okay, but not making them do work.

I suppose, but I've stated what I believe - if you believe otherwise, fine.

[A18]

Okay, but what you believe is nonsense.

[John Dibble]

Okay, but what you believe is nonsense.

I believe unnecessary cruelty is unjustified, and that's nonsense? Well I could equally say that what you believe is facist garbage.

[A18]

Unless you're trying to make up a new form of the word face, you need to learn to spell.

[John Dibble]

Unless you're trying to make up a new form of the word face, you need to learn to spell.

Don't act like you've never made a typo or misspelled a word.

[Gustaf]

This proves something I have long suspected - a lot of people who call themselves "classic liberals" or libertarians are just atheist conservatives. (talking about Philip of course)

[John Dibble]

This proves something I have long suspected - a lot of people who call themselves "classic liberals" or libertarians are just atheist conservatives. (talking about Philip of course)

Uh, I like to call myself a classical liberal and a libertarian too, ya know.

[A18]

I'm not an atheist.