A thought experiment

Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you:



1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master's whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.

2. The master beats the slaves only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.

3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.

4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.

5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city for wages. He requires only that they send back to him 50% of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation.. and to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return.

6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and a joint decision is made by all of them. They determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your earnings they decide to take; what activities may be forbidden to you, etc.

7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty to enter into the discussions of the 10,000.

8. You are allowed you to vote if they are deadlocked; this has never yet happened.

9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue.

The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the Tale of a "Slave?"

Still a slave throughout because in #5 the Master is still requiring 50% of your wages which, as opposed to taxation, doesn't appear to be going, specifically to services for your benefit, but to his pocket ... and he appears to still have the right/capability to call you back to the "plantation," so I assume there is still bondage even if not constant. Am I right?

reply to post by SpectreDC

The question is: which transition from case 1 to case
9 made it no longer the Tale of a "Slave?"

Non sequitor.

Slavery is an internal state, not an external state. It is not what the "master" does that makes a slave a slave. It is how an individual internalizes their experience that makes them a slave or free.

For example:

Case 1:
A man lives in a society with no legal controls on his actions. There is no law preventing him from doing anything he pleases. He may lie and cheat and steal and murder if he wishes, and noone will stop him. Not one person has any desire to control his actions in any way, and not one person makes any attempt to do so. However...this man firmly believes that he absolutely must dress up in a suit and tie every morning and go in to an office and work a job he hates in order to provide for his family. His wife is rich and reminds him every day that he need not work, they could happily go anywhere they want and do anything they wish without a care in the world. But he rejects this because he belives that it is station in life to work.

That man is a slave.

Case 2:
A man is taken by force to a work camp, and is branded with hot irons. he is bound by chains and told that he must dig in the mines or he will be executed.

He says no, shuffles out the door, and is shot dead with the chains still on his ankles.

That man died free.


[edit on 15-4-2010 by LordBucket]

Originally posted by Hadrian
Still a slave throughout because in #5 the Master is still requiring 50% of your wages which, as opposed to taxation, doesn't appear to be going, specifically to services for your benefit, but to his pocket ... and he appears to still have the right/capability to call you back to the "plantation," so I assume there is still bondage even if not constant. Am I right?

DING DING DING

We got a weiner!

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

The question is: which transition from case 1 to case
9 made it no longer the Tale of a "Slave?"

Non sequitor.

Slavery is an internal state, not an external state. It is not what the "master" does that makes a slave a slave. It is how an individual internalizes their experience that makes them a slave or free.

For example:

Case 1:
A man lives in a society with no legal controls on his actions. There is no law preventing him from doing anything he pleases. He may lie and cheat and steal and murder if he wishes, and noone will stop him. Not one person has any desire to control his actions in any way, and not one person makes any attempt to do so. However...this man firmly believes that he absolutely must dress up in a suit and tie every morning and go in to an office and work a job he hates in order to provide for his family. His wife is rich and reminds him every day that he need not work, they could happily go anywhere they want and do anything they wish without a care in the world. But he rejects this because he belives that it is station in life to work.

That man is a slave.

Case 2:
A man is taken by force to a work camp, and is branded with hot irons. he is bound by chains and told that he must dig in the mines or he will be executed.

He says no, shuffles out the door, and is shot dead with the chains still on his ankles.

That man died free.


[edit on 15-4-2010 by LordBucket]

...I'm taken aback at your rather ingenious answer sir.

Although surely, the difference here is obvious in that you are using a different definition for slavery than I. A definition in which someone can certainly argue as correct but at the same time not correct.

In the case of this thought experiment though, think specifically in the case of chattel slaves.

so i'm a weiner, eh? does that mean i'm wrong, right or fell right into your craftily laid trap? what's the ... right answer?

Originally posted by Hadrian
so i'm a weiner, eh? does that mean i'm wrong, right or fell right into your craftily laid trap? what's the ... right answer?

...I take it you've never heard humor in which when someone says "you're a winner" it sounds like "you're a weiner".


You had the right answer, in that you never change from being a slave.

Of course, the post above suggested an answer that is also right but I forgot to specify what slavery was in the case of sequences in my original post.

reply to post by SpectreDC


sweet! but is there a message? is there an inference? are we all slaves? and is this in relation to taxation, or more general?

Originally posted by Hadrian
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

sweet!

but is there a message? is there an inference? are we all slaves? and is this in relation to taxation, or more general?

This thought experiment is credited to a Harvard logician (I forgot his name).

What this infers is that yeah, we're all in a sense slaves. This isn't some "wage slavery" nonsense as this is actually more of an anarcho-capitalist argument than anything else.

In the context of hard logic, one can not suggest that the state is not a slave master. Could the slave in the above scenario escape? Yes, and he could be hunted down and killed. Could you as a citizen not pay taxes? Yes, and you will be hunted down, arrested, and if you resist arrest, killed.

Furthermore, you can not effectively ever escape from this situation. Besides the fact that emigrating to another country is incredibly taxing on the individual, you're effectively moving from one slave owner to another, as there is no state less nation outside of a few micro-nations (which are not even recognized).