Why is slavery such a bad thing? (I don't mean racial, just people having a slave)

Permabanned
Joined
18 Nov 2011
Posts
368
Location
Aberystwyth
Why is it such a bad thing?

People on benefits for over 2 years in my opinion should be designated an owner. Therefore, when they do tasks for their own who will be required to educate them, they will have earned their dole money. This makes sense. It will help them build skills for working life, get them motivated to find non slave work. Its the perfect system. Sometimes you need to be cruel to be kind.

Obviously disabled people and the elderly are exempt from this. Only those who can work but choose not too should be given an owner by the government.

Obviously there should be no discrimination based on origin or skin colour. If you're British and you're white and you've been claiming for 2 years + you should be a slave, no question about that, as Sir Alex would say.

Slavery back in the day was inhumane and disgusting because it was done out of racial hatred. In this scenario its done out of making the system better and helping socio-economics. If the slave steals for their owner, they get their benefits cut. If the slave refuses to work, they get their benefits cut. Obviously there would be designated hours, 5 per day seems fair enough to me for a slave to work if they're getting dole money.

The only thing the owner would have to do is to feed the slave mid way through their shift which seems reasonable.

Anyone else agree? A moderate slave system would work in the UK. :cool:
 
Because its a fundemental breach of our human rights? The right to be free?

And such a system would be completely open to corruption and abuse. Would slaves still have the vote? What happened if they refused to work? Would they be tortured? Imprisoned? Executed?
 
Do you mean that you think people should provide some form of service to earn their benefits? If so why use the emotive language?
 
Because its a fundemental breach of our human rights? The right to be free?

It would be a legally operated system. They would still have human rights. However, while in work they should do as they're told as long as it involves the work, common sense can be used.

And such a system would be completely open to corruption and abuse. Would slaves still have the vote? What happened if they refused to work? Would they be tortured? Imprisoned? Executed?

Not really. They would still have the vote. If they refused to work they'd have their benefits cut for lack of commitment to the cause. They wouldn't be tortured or anything sadistic like that from the old era, they'd be financially penalised for a period.
 
dlj4mp.jpg
 
now in today's world we call it being a butler or a servant and forcibly changing your own name to Jeffrey or Jeeves. :D

Do you mean that you think people should provide some form of service to earn their benefits? If so why use the emotive language?

Slavery hasn't always been a bad thing. Its only looked upon in a negative light because modern Britains are ashamed of what has happened in the past and rightfully so. That stemmed from racial hatred. However, across the world, slave type of regimes have worked wonders and this is proven.

There is nothing wrong with a MSS (Managed Slave System) in my opinion. As long as equality was still there and they were still respected as humans. It wouldn't be racist, it would be a case of 'right, you've had 2 years to work, you've taken from the system for too long, now we're going to find you someone to work for in return for the benefits you receive, if you decline, they will be stopped with immediate effect'.
 
What the hell?? You're not describing slaves...you're describing employees.

Why even bother using the term unless you're trying to get a rise out of people? It's unbelievably unnecessary and pointless in this context.
 
What the hell?? You're not describing slaves...you're describing employees.

Why even bother using the term unless you're trying to get a rise out of people? It's unbelievably unnecessary and pointless in this context.

This.Thread is obviously just looking for a strong negative reaction.
 
What the hell?? You're not describing slaves...you're describing employees.

Why even bother using the term unless you're trying to get a rise out of people? It's unbelievably unnecessary and pointless in this context.

They'd be slaves. An employee has set things they're contractually bound to do.

A slave has to do anything they are told by their owner. Two different things entirely. If the owner tells the slave 'I'm cooking, so in the meantime go pick up the dog poo out the back garden', then the slave has to do it. If not they have their benefits cut.

Also, employees legally have to work for a minimum wage. Slave wage would equal JSA meaning less than minimum wage per hour.

5 x 5 = 25. So they'd get just over £2 per hour

Oh, and owners can trade/sell and buy slaves from each other or the government. There would be a slave list with all their skills.
 
Last edited:

I don't think you quite understand the definition of a 'slave' and 'human ownership'. There's no parallel in modern 1st world society to traditional slave-hood.

There's not really anything else to say but if you persist in using the word 'slave' here then it just becomes a question of semantics. And pointless attention-mongering.
 
Back
Top Bottom