How can people even try defend slavery?

Slavery led to the south being over reliant on slaves and neglectful of new technologies that would have increased crop yield/productivity. The economist touches on it here
economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2013/09/economic-history-2

Notice all the arguments in this thread (other than mine?)

>oh it makes the economy bad
>oh it creates an outcome i dont desire

disgusting

youre all disgusting

slavery is INTRINSICALLY wrong because it violates NATURAL LAW

Biblical slavery is morally acceptable. It was more akin to community service than anything. The slaves had rights to protect them they could only be slaves for 7 years unless they volunteer to continue being a slave which wasn't even uncommon because of how the society of the time works. If you commit level of crime you become a slave. We currently practice a form of this today but we call it prison, and instead of slaves being "property" of the people they commit crimes against, they become slaves to the state for a certain amount of time.

It's important to the distinction between this form of slavery and the chattel slavery that we familiar with today. There is no moral justification for that.

That's not true, that's impossible

>they become slaves to the state for a certain amount of time
only in america

Every government in at least some circumstances can and does take away an individuals freedom. This is not unique to the USA.

How new are you?

Cheap slave labor replaced work for the average citizen and the rolls of the unemployed masses grew to epidemic proportions. These issues had a great destabilizing effect on the social system which had a direct role in the demise of the Republic. As the rift between Senatorial elite (optimates) and social reformers (populares) grew, the use of the unemployed, landless, yet citizen mobs were an overwhelming ploy grinding away at the ability of the Senate to govern. Though there are many factors involved in the Fall of the Republic, slavery and its effects rippled throughout every aspect of that turbulent time period.

Just for defeating me in argument you're going to get beaten up.

Stand still.

But that's because Rome imported most of their slaves. Just like how today western countries are importing menial labour force.

the US does not take away an individuals freedom

an individual defers their natural right of liberty to the collective thru due process of law when they infringe upon another's life, liberty or property

archive.org/details/cannibalsallorsll00fitz

Slavery is the de facto condition of nearly every man on earth. No matter how hard you try man will always be divided into rich and poor.

What capitalists would have is a society based on their money, where all human interactions are an exchange of money.

Rather than reduce the honest working man of the world to this degrading condition where they are forced to labor every day of their life only to survive, while others profit off of their sacrifice, there is an alternative.

19 out of every 20 people regardless of race would be better off as slaves. Governed in their actions by a paternal Master, in a relationship ordered by god. As man has lived throughout all history, and as opposed to being just as reliant on a distant and uncaring Capitalist boss, who has no obligation to see to their needs.

Free labor is cheaper than slave labor. Abolitionism is entirely the product of the ruthless capitalists in the north. Field slaves in the south have a longer lifespan and live more fulfilling lives than any northern factory laborers.

Slavery is a positive good. It serves to grant meaning to the lives of men, as all parts of society become part of a single large paternal family, and guarantees to all a fixed place in the world.

These were the arguments that took hold in the south and prompted Lincoln to make his House Divided speech anyways.

Its a shame the ideology of the South has been so deeply buried most confederataboos don't even know it.

Semantics

without forced labor that only makes you a prisoner

It depends on the situation and the time. There have been a huge number of different societies that have practices slavery throughout many thousands of years of history.

Racial arguments are the most famous of course, but so too religious arguments were used. Ex. the Spanish justified slavery upon non-Christians being Christianized in the New World.

Burkeanesque arguments can be put forth too; there is a natural state of society, with a hierarchy and slaves belong in that. Freedom is never absolute, there must be order too.

A functionalist way is that it is simply good for the economy, which works if there isn't much of a counter-force against slavery.

The benefits of slavery to the enslaved could be extolled, that they're being christianized/civilized/taught the value of labor (the last assuming that of course they're lazy and thus they must be forced to work).

Arguments to tradition were made. In the US, defending slavery often used the bible to justify slavery. But it can also proceed from historical analysis; civilizations regarded as great, such as the Greeks or Romans, could be argued as their upper elites having the leisure time to achieve that greatness because of slavery.

Once slavery is brought into existence, then a property rights defense is possible. As slaves are property, one cannot free them or one robs a man of property.

In the US during the final decades of slavery, there was a small utopian wing, which argued slavery was a way to breed a new race of laborers, perfectly designed for their tasks, and that only slavery was able to provide for the capacity for this evolution.

Slavery could take forms that were more contractual than American, such as in Rome there could be essentially contracts to sell oneself into slavery. So too, slavery can be in less alienating, commercialized settings.

Before "natural rights" were created, slavery was even easier to defend. If there are no rights, then how can slavery be wrong?

That's what community service is.

Rules of nature

...

Good post.

>anti-slavery
>progressive
Wew lad

its not semantics

rights exist before government, government does not grant you rights

>NATURAL LAW
W E W
E
W

But slavery is bad even from a consequentialist and pragmatist standpoint

damn dude youre right

slavery isnt intrinsically bad

its ok in some situations like when 99% of the population votes to enslave the other 1%, then its totally ok because might makes right d00d xd ur totally more rational than silly natural law

only if it creates undesirable consequences for yourself (which it might not)

Its our culture.

this

It is though. Natural law is might makes right.

*tips post-modern fedora*

How can people defend slavery is different from whether or not you agree from those arguments. as points out many different angles could be taken. Even a simple argument "they are better off as slaves" isn't necessary disputable if you treated your slave like family.

Expendable manual labor, think of blacks as meat robots that pick crops for example.

Slavery does have undesirable consequences. It's a short-term gain with long term negatives. As de Tocqueville points out societies that practice it become lazy, ignorant and apathetic. A perfect example of this would be the American South, former Spanish colonies, Italy, and the Arab countries.

undesirable consequences to you™

consequentialism is so gay

I agree slavery is intrinsically bad but natural law is a shit argument.

consequentialism is never an argument

>having an abusive master is better than a fat boss
A master has no obligation to see to the needs of slave whereas a boss is required by law to do so. This argument is autistic.

Adam Smith said it wasn't in the 18th century faggot
it's too inefficient

>consequentialism
where was that implied

Because we aren't cucks?...

Slavery always exists you fucking idiot.

'Condemning slavery' is like condemning the sky or condemning oxygen. It makes zero sense because it's necessary and it's always been there.

Assuming you mean chattle slavery:
If you're the property of someone, that someone has a bigger interest in you being well than when you're rented by someone (aka wage labor).
Because, if you're rented but do not perform (because he's worked you to physical breakdown), the renter just goes and rents someone else. The cost to him is the same, the rent is just paid to someone else.
If you're property, replacing you because you're broken is associated with costs that would not arise if your owner had not broken you.