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

Re: Amen!

[guard-the-cards.livejournal.com]

Its always the group in power, could be brute strength (as US settelers over Native Americans) could be economic (The way we keep people in the ghettos) could be a system that is formed by only those who can afford it being in there, and thus not arguing for the rights fo the people who elect them, but instead for those who give them the money to be elected (The US government)

Heck it could even be because some watery tart threw a sword at you. Just so long as others belive you are in power, or you have the means to back that power, which normally means might, economic status and some sort of body other then yourself that claims you have the right to do so.