A few questions for abolitionists

[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

[tomdemaine]

I'm not saying Zomg statism = slavery. This is really a response to the idea that anyone who wants rid of government intrusion in their lives has to become an expert on every possible conceivable little detail and how each interaction between people would work in a free society. A lot of these arguements were made by those who didn't want to see an end to slavery.

Stop taking my money from me against my will first and then we can start talking about how intellectual property is going to work and who owns a gold mine that two people start digging at the same time = Lets stop the barbaric practice of slavery first and then we can start working out how to integrate millions of ex slaves.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying Zomg statism = slavery. This is really a response to the idea that anyone who wants rid of government intrusion in their lives has to become an expert on every possible conceivable little detail and how each interaction between people would work in a free society. A lot of these arguements were made by those who didn't want to see an end to slavery.

Stop taking my money from me against my will first and then we can start talking about how intellectual property is going to work and who owns a gold mine that two people start digging at the same time = Lets stop the barbaric practice of slavery first and then we can start working out how to integrate millions of ex slaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have become one of my favorite posters. This is top notch stuff.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying Zomg statism = slavery. This is really a response to the idea that anyone who wants rid of government intrusion in their lives has to become an expert on every possible conceivable little detail and how each interaction between people would work in a free society. A lot of these arguements were made by those who didn't want to see an end to slavery.

Stop taking my money from me against my will first and then we can start talking about how intellectual property is going to work and who owns a gold mine that two people start digging at the same time = Lets stop the barbaric practice of slavery first and then we can start working out how to integrate millions of ex slaves.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have become one of my favorite posters. This is top notch stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really, it's analogous to saying: You have no right to hold men against their will unless they seriously threaten the health of others. Liberty is an absolute right, so stop putting people in prison immediately. We'll sort out the details later...

You can't do away with the consequences of such a change that easily.

And taxation is not at all analogous to slavery - you lose a portion of your money, and that's all, as opposed to your liberty, your right to go where want, associate with who you want, change jobs, not work, be free from assault, torture and rape, etc.

Chalk up another flawed ACist analogy. Is anyone keeping count? [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
And taxation is not at all analogous to slavery - you lose a portion of your money, and that's all, as opposed to your liberty...

[/ QUOTE ]
Having money forcibly removed from you is losing some of your liberty.
[ QUOTE ]
your right to go where want, associate with who you want, change jobs, not work, be free from assault, torture and rape, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
matter of degree for the win.

[tomdemaine]

my baby horse does not appear to have the requisite speed.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]

Not really, it's analogous to saying: You have no right to hold men against their will unless they seriously threaten the health of others. Liberty is an absolute right, so stop putting people in prison immediately. We'll sort out the details later...

[/ QUOTE ]

yup I doubt you'll find many ACists who support prison for non violent offenders (and I imagine there aren't that many who think that the prison system is the best way to deal even with violent offenders) we will work the rest out later

[ QUOTE ]
You can't do away with the consequences of such a change that easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are potentially 6 billion brains, each with more processing power than the greatest computer ever built that could be harnessed to sorting out these problems if only we got rid of the shackles of oppression.

[ QUOTE ]
And taxation is not at all analogous to slavery - you lose a portion of your money, and that's all, as opposed to your liberty, your right to go where want, associate with who you want, change jobs, not work, be free from assault, torture and rape, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are lots of things that I'm not free to do. I'm not a drug taker but if I were I wouldn't be free to do that if I chose and I am constantly restricted towards who I can and can't associate. You are correct that it is to a lesser degree than slavery and you can argue that it is to a far far lesser degree but something that is less evil can never become good and we should always be working to get rid of evil wherever we see it right?

Also visit a US federal prison sometime and then talk to me about assault torture and rape.

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
be reborn a woman in most countries and then talk to me about assault torture and rape.

[/ QUOTE ]

[latefordinner]

Some perspectives on bringing about an anarchist society from the Left:

social revolution (also google you can't blow up a social relationship)

An anarcho-primitivist perspective

An early 20th Century Ukranian perspective

more on anarchism and non-violence

Ward Churchill on revolution vs devolution

--

Personally I think that there is quite literally so much wrong with the world that you can go in whatever direction you want and work on things. Some people are best cut out for bullshitting on an internet forum, others writing books, others building alternative structures/institutions outside of the state, some engaging in militant direct action - some anti-war, some pro drug legalization, some organizing their workplaces, etc.

--

Make no mistake though. If/when the corporate/state power structure begins to crack - whether through the actions of those in opposition to it or under the weight of its own contradictions, the ruling class will not hesitate to use violence to protect their power. They never have throughout history and they won't this time around either.

--

The nonviolence vs violence debate is a canard anyway. The system is incredibly violent and we all make decisions everyday, some blindly, some hypocritically, some inavoidably, that contribute in some way to the violence of the system - whether we recognize it or not. There is no privileged place of standing outside of the system and acting with perfect gentle restraint. Indeed, by not taking actions that may help change the world we live in to a more just, free, and humane one, one contributes to the functioning of that system.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
You have no right to hold men against their will unless they seriously threaten the health of others. Liberty is an absolute right, so stop putting people in prison immediately. We'll sort out the details later...

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[ QUOTE ]
You can't do away with the consequences of such a change that easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed the entire point of the OP.

[ QUOTE ]
nd taxation is not at all analogous to slavery - you lose a portion of your money, and that's all, as opposed to your liberty, your right to go where want, associate with who you want, change jobs, not work, be free from assault, torture and rape, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taxation is perfectly 100% analogous to slavery. To me, money is the fruit of my labor. I'm told other people are entitled to the fruits of my labor for as long as I live, and so I slave for them in exchange for nothing, while they receive the fruits of my labor for free. If I refuse, I am punished severely.

In what way is that *opposed* to losing my liberty? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
your liberty, your right to go where want, associate with who you want, change jobs, not work, be free from assault, torture and rape, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope this was "Liberty + plus these other sweet things" and not the most sad demoralizing attempt to define liberty I've ever seen.