Meta: Abolitionists and Slaves

[telesilla.livejournal.com]

So, I have a bit of a meta question....

We've seen people like Jeff, Dylan and even the Catholic Church, argue that, given the state of things in the USNA, keeping slaves and treating them well is the right/humane thing to do.

Then there's the argument that keeping slaves at all is wrong, and that it's better to either pay the fines and remove yourself from society (Cate Blanchett is a good example) or to deliberately live poor so that you don't have to own slaves (although we haven't gone into this much yet, David Hewlett's mother and his sister Kate live like this).

I'm kind of curious as to what people here think: which way makes more sense in the context of the AKB verse and which way is more ethical in that same context?

PS: There may be other examples of both sides, I'm kind of behind on the more recent additions to the 'verse.

Comments

[dragovianknight.livejournal.com]

I don't understand it, but I think we see a reflection of it in our own world, among the people who think the poor "deserve" it, because clearly poverty is caused by some character flaw.

[angels3.livejournal.com]

Yes of course because it's always easy to blame someone else.

I think sometimes we look at the very few people who don't care and want the handout and say okay everyone does. I had a girl working for me that wanted to work but she had two kids and if she wanted to keep her insurance through the social services she couldn't work but so many hours and of course with kids you couldn't afford not to have insurance so she wound up having to quit.

We make it almost impossible for people to better themselves it's very frustrating to wittness much less live.