undefined

points

[-]

> In war, people who tolerate military conscription and discipline will conquer those who're slaves to pigheaded "you're not the boss of ME!" individualism.

Sure, right up until it leads to fragging. During the Vietnam War about a thousand superiors were killed by their subjects. You can't give someone weapons, try to force them into a suicidal mission, and not expect them to use it to stop the mission. Give someone only a hammer and everything looks like a nail...

by dctoedt2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Yes, that's an edge case — my comment to which you responded was not meant as a complete statement of Reality.

by cucumber37328428 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

That doesn't make it not forced though.

Most of this sub thread people who are unwilling to say "yeah it's forced labor and that's fine considering the details" doing mental gymnastics to make it not forced.

by derektank8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Just because something is forced, doesn’t make it slavery. I’m forced to pay taxes; that doesn’t make me a slave. Nor was a tenant farmer in the Middle Ages when required to provide corvée. I think the primary objection in this thread is to the use of the word slavery, which is simply not the same thing.

by bloomingeek7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I agree with your account, the problem is how many perceive slavery. Here in the south (USA) many still think the slaves before the Civil War were "happy". They obviously weren't slaves. Until ALL mankind looks slavery fully in the eye for understanding, we will continue to undervalue those other then ourselves.

by cwmoore7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I don’t think there can be a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable coercion of liberties.

by throw7348484 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I remember story how Irish migrants were used to digg deep holes. Walls could collapse any moment, and bury the crew alive. Slaves were deemed too valuable to risk in such jobs!

by p-e-w6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> Nor was a tenant farmer in the Middle Ages when required to provide corvée.

Many historians now concede that there is little to no meaningful difference between various forms of feudal servitude and slavery.

Slaves in the later Roman Empire also had certain rights, including the right to buy their own freedom in many cases. That doesn’t mean they weren’t slaves.

by derektank4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I will have to disagree with these historians. There is a fundamental difference between having legal personhood and being chattel. To be bound is not the same thing as to be owned.

by p-e-w3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Many, if not most, historical institutions that are universally recognized as slavery didn’t permit slave owners to dispose of their slaves like arbitrary property they owned. If that’s the definition of slavery, it’s an unusually restrictive one.