Slavery is neutral.

Greetings, just so we have a substance filled discussion.

What was your impression of the topic to draw you to accept?

"Slavery — The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude."

I'm going to add to this definition. Slavery is the control of freedom and obligation.

Even with the definition you used, it is still a neutral thing.

The best or most easiest case to make are the judicial systems enslaving individuals all day everyday.

These individuals are persons......owned as property....by another who is the owner and is under the owner's control. Ordinarily involuntary. Usually these individuals have to be captured and taken against their will in order to take away their freedom, control their freedom for the good of those with freedom untouched to an extent of course.

If I decide as a right to you whether you stay or go, what to eat ,what to do, where to be, that is my power as being the owner of you.

You are enslaved, imprisoned, obligated, in servitude exactly.

"Contention 1: Slavery is not be neutral, because it is inherently coercive"

Just because it is by nature coercive, doesn't mean it's not neutral. Again with the judicial penal system, it is by nature coercive but it can be good to take away freedom.

"Slavery without coercion would just be volunteering. "

I can volunteer myself to be a slave. Once I do , it'll be the last act of freedom otherwise allowed by my slave master. So volunteering can be involved. Do you follow?

"If a slave could leave without repercussions, he would. So the effort slave owners and slave societies have to use to force control slaves necessarily violates the non-aggression principle because you have to initiate the use of force against someone to put them into slavery and to keep them as slave."

Speaking of repercussions, do you believe the 9-5 is modern day slavery of the economic monetary enslavement system?

"Putting someone into slavery involves violence or threats, kidnapping, and selling them against their will. Each when unjustly initiated is immoral and bad.

Keeping someone as a slave involves restricting their movement, beatings or whippings to enforce obedience, forcing them to do labor, etc. All of which when initiated are immoral."

Ok so this is straying away from your own definition. This was not how you defined slavery. You're painting a specific context here making slavery in this context negative.

Hence you follow it up with the following:

"Because of this inherent coercion, slavery is not neutral, it is overwhelmingly, shockingly, flagrantly bad, even evil."

Inherit coercion to keep people safe is not bad. So just like a gun, it is a neutral element until otherwise influenced.

I appreciate you providing the definition you did even before allowing me to explain what I mean in my position because it still demonstrated neutrality.

"Contention 2: Slavery is bad, because it treats people like property"

It's not bad or we can't honestly declare it's bad until we unpack what "treats people like property" looks like. There are dogs and houses that are property that get treated better than many people in terms of welfare.

"As human beings we are endowed with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by our creator. If someone violates our right to liberty by enslaving us, they violate our right to liberty.

Because slavery turns someone into an object that can be owned, it is inherently degrading and morally bad, not neutral."

This just doesn't matter in some situations. In some situations it's justified to violate the rights or take them away or violate them by removing them. Whichever way you feel about them.

This works both ways. Freedom in and of itself is not good. It is also neutral until proper context is laid out. Evidence has been shown all throughout known history that it was good, absolutely good to take freedom away amongst applicable matters.

Everybody should not have freedom. Doesn't matter what rights you claim are there.

"Contention 3: Slavery leads to further abuses"

Not necessarily. Slavery can have rules and when rules are broken, it's abuse to not enforce those rules.

"Because a slave is owned by his master, he is placed into an unequal power dynamic. "

Unequal power doesn't necessarily equate to automatically good or bad. Just like in a prison system, in any authoritative situation, anywhere there is superiority.

Superiority does not necessitate abuse or mistreatment. All these things about unequal power, slavery, freedom, without adding a context to it such as the context of abuse, they're completely neutral.

"When a master has that much power over another person, abuse is likely to occur. "

Likelihood is not the same as the actuality. The exception is not the same as the rule. When a master has power , it is just a master with power (neutral). Until we open up what type of master, who the master is.

Like a master volume knob. Totally ineffectual until either a positive or negative influence contacts it to control other volumes on a speaker .

One influence can properly use it to keep the sound intact or abuse or misuse the function and blow the speaker.

"In the Milgram experiment, participants were told by authority figures to give electric shocks to people hooked to electrodes until they died.

In the Stanford Prison Experiment, students assigned as “guards” quickly engaged in such humiliating and abusive behavior toward students assigned as “prisoners” that the experiment had to be stopped prematurely.

This is a fact of human psychology across all cultures: When people are given excessive power or authority over others without accountability, abuse becomes more likely."

My case and point broaching a negative context to apply to a neutral definition.

I can say the same of several penal prisons, a positive context restraining and containing incorrigible menaces and perpetrators of society, it's a fact that in order to maintain them, authority, rule and order from the governments, which are authorities in unequal power to non government entities and agencies are administered and are superior which master over non law abiding citizens for the sake of law abiding citizens.

I predicted and can see what the opposing side is saying. The opposing side is only looking at slavery with a built-in context, in a negative light.

However even the opposite side's definition doesn't reflect this "built-in" context but is actually neutral.

Whether the opposite side realized this or not. The opposing side slipped with this acknowledgment of neutrality that doesn't have to contradict slavery being in nature what it is which is a control of freedom and obligation.

The opposing side slipped with this acknowledgement while still trying to argue likelihood and possibility as being the same as inherent nature.

"In practical terms in slavery we see this manifest in violence like whipping or beatings, rape of female slaves, and psychological abuse like degradation or humiliation. Ask yourself if you’d like that to be done to you or your mother. It’s clearly wrong and violates the non-aggression principle even further than forced labor."

You can enslave me minus all those other things that actually DON'T CONSTITUTE SLAVERY..... ACCORDING....TO.... YOUR.... DEFINITION....and if you enslave me to be a law abiding citizen and I'm forced to not commit crimes, I volunteer enslavement to that.

"Slavery is not neutral. It is a bad tree that bears bad fruit. It is inherently coercive in and of itself and it creates further abuses, violence, and generational trauma."

Exception and not the rule.

I yield.

.

I rest my case.

I rest my case.

And case closed. These sites are dead.