Are you a Slave?

[KidBlondie]

A question I'm asking myself.

 

If you know of a working definition please share. Or help me pick apart mine.

 

1. Slave: someone whose bounds on freedom and ownership of property is limited by the coercion of someone else.

2. Democratized Slave: someone whose bounds on freedom is limited, a portion of their property distributed, by coercion of the masses. 

 

 

I'm looking for the minimum qualifications. 

[dsayers]

I'm looking for the minimum qualifications. 

 

Somebody whose servitude is involuntary. How's that?

[J. D. Stembal]

This video should provide some insight when establishing your definitions.

 

[shirgall]

I think slavery is the absolute form of servitude... completely subject to another's direction. You can voluntarily become a slave, but you cannot voluntarily leave being a slave. Also, you cannot set boundaries (time or type of service) for being a slave.

 

Temporary forms of complete service (for example signing up for a three year stint with the armed services) may not fall into the category of slavery but the problem I have with that is that you can be ordered to your death. In that case the "temporary" condition fails.

 

Indentured servitude has been equated with slavery at times, but the cause of that was the long-term nature of the servitude (effectively permanent) or the arrangements where you "buy yourself out" through service but are never paid enough to complete the contract.

 

The "democratized slave" definition has merit, and people will always tell you that it's temporary because laws can be changed or you could always move somewhere else... but as a practical matter neither of those hold up (there is no completely tax free place to go and it costs a heck of a lot to just move to places with lower taxes).

[fractional slacker]

Not sure slavery has an objective definition without some context. What would abstract slavery look like? Now you have to define coercion and force. That's a slippery slope. Not saying those things don't exist, I am just saying they are very difficult to give an absolute definition of.

It's hard to imagine any person having absolute freedom or being an absolute slave.

Sorry, I am pretty sure this was not very helpful. It was the first thing that came to mind.

[entropyanndroid]

Not sure slavery has an objective definition without some context. What would abstract slavery look like? Now you have to define coercion and force. That's a slippery slope. Not saying those things don't exist, I am just saying they are very difficult to give an absolute definition of.

It's hard to imagine any person having absolute freedom or being an absolute slave.

Sorry, I am pretty sure this was not very helpful. It was the first thing that came to mind.

 

I had a similar response in mind. I am reminded of where Hegel touches on "Absolute Freedom and Absolute Terror" in his Phenomenology of Mind/Spirit. Hegel (as he often does) spends a lot more time in this chapter specifying his terms than making any actual arguments. One particular sentence in this section seems to define the thrust of the argument he is getting at, however.

 

Para. 589: Universal freedom can thus produce neither a positive achievement nor a deed; there is left for it only negative action; it is merely the rage and fury of destruction. (Baillie translation, courtesy of Marxists.org)

 

Granted that this is an unflattering view of the phenomenon of universal suffrage as a disjointed appeal to Being-for-Itself (egoistic existence). This is also one of Hegel's earlier works, however, and strongly informed by the subversion of hopes he'd harbored previously regarding the French Revolution.

 

Stirner develops this stream of consciousness a bit further in the second part of The Ego and its Own.

 

What a difference between freedom and ownness! One can get rid of a great many things, one yet does not get rid of all; one becomes free from much, not from everything. (Byington translation, courtesy of TheAnarchistLibrary.org)

 

Here we see the development of Hegel's thoughts on Being, Freedom and other phenomena taken down a more plainly Egoist path towards the distinction between Freedom and Ownness. Freedom as comprehended by the subjective individual (Being-for-Itself) is as difficult to define and realize as Equality and other lofty, absolute ideals. Freedom from what? Freedom of what? Freedom for what or for whom? Some individuals will find their freedom enhanced by binding up the options of others, namely those who more readily identify with the herd.

 

From an Egoist standpoint, at least, we can observe that the only path that leads away from the gordian knot of Leviathan as State is to specify that we wish for that encourages Ownness; that is, the opportunity to be unique individuals, rather than simply members conforming to herds.

 

It can be argued, as might a Nihilist, that life at its core essence is a form of slavery. That life which is least slavish is the one in which there is the best opportunity to exist, contented, as a unique entity, however.