[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
These are interesting responses but I have a few more points. I have spoken to a few slaves who say that their masters are good masters. If they want to be slaves can we deny them that? I think it's better to work within the current system than try to get rid of it all together. Sure slavery is flawed. I realize that one of those flaws is that people are forced to work for no pay but I heard of a group of slaves who managed to negotiate their beatings down from 10 a day to 1. That shows that working within the system can work.

Also if the slaves don't like the current system why don't we see more attempted runaways? Sure there are some but not as many as you'd expect if the system was all that bad. THere are some places where they don't practice slavery why don't all the slaves try harder to move there?

You see when a slave child is born he can't fend for himself, his master provides him with food and shelter and in return he agrees to work for life. This is an implicit social contract between slaves and their masters slaves are implicitly agreeing to be slaves by accepting the food and shelter offered by the masters.

Look forward to your further responses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a bit of a strawman.

Most common conceptions of slavery assume it an involuntary relationship -- people forced into bondage against their will; this is obvious, given the analogy you're trying to flesh out here -- "zomg slavery = statism!"

And yet your narrative redefines slavery as a voluntary relationship to make your analogy work -- see the bolded quotes -- because, of course, the parallels between real forced bondage and statism are tenuous at best, so you're forced to reconstruct slavery as having voluntary characteristics (which, as noted, are inherently contradicted by the very meaning of the word 'slavery'). Then, you use that vital redefinition to draw out an analogy to the relationship between state authority and citizens and slave and master (because boy, they sure do seem awfully similar, now that we've redefined slavery as voluntary).

Statists claim the relationship between state authority and citizen is voluntary, so you essentially ignore their argument by relying on drawing out an analogy to a relationship that is by definition involuntary. Hence the strawman.

Now, you can legitimately claim the relationship between the state and isn't voluntary, but you should argue that instead of engaging in this, since this more or less ignores the arguments of your opponents.

So yeah, while it's possible to get the conclusions you want by casually redefining words, I think it's a bit of a hollow victory. I'm not sure why some here lauded you for this thread, since the fallacy on display was rather transparent.

Lastly, I don't quite understand your point about runaways. Chattel slaves in ante-bellum America ran away frequently. Your point about run-a-ways sort of back-handedly refutes your own argument. African slaves held in bondage before the Civil War frequently fled their masters, leaving yourself open to the inevitable "if the state is treats you so brutally, why haven't you run away yet like they did, if the scenarios are analogous" type arguments.

tl;dr summary: Tom, your pony fallacious and self-refuting