Sat. 12/07/14 19:53 EDT
.post #223
Also, note that a man who is forced to work but allowed to keep 100% of his product also qualifies as “slave,” according to your definition.
With respect to this question, for me, there isn’t any meaningful difference between forcing a man to work and then robbing him of his product, and allowing a man to work and then robbing him of his product.
Both methods of acquiring wealth employ “the political means”: “the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others for the benefit of the dominating class”; both are immoral/unethical.
Forcing a man to work and letting him keep his product is also immoral/unethical.
Your question addresses one of four possible combinations, namely:
- Allowed to work/allowed to keep his product. (freedom)
- Forced to work/allowed to keep his product. (slavery 1)
- Forced to work/forced to surrender his product. (slavery 2)
- Allowed to work/forced to surrender his product. (slavery 3, also called “taxation”)
So, I reiterate my earlier request. Could you please show:
-
How and why the two categories of slavery (i.e. slavery 2 and slavery 3) created by this point are meaningfully different, and more specifically,
-
Why the question is only asked with respect to one category (i.e. slavery 2), and not the other(s).
The thing I’m trying to get you to think about here is that the name you give to any non-freedom category is irrelevant with respect to your question. What is relevant is that it’s a non-freedom category. Why should engaging in trade of goods produced from one non-freedom category be any more or less “moral” than engaging in trade of goods produced from another non-freedom category?
Your question is essentially this:
Is it moral to knowingly buy stolen goods?