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

I'm sorry this is so long!

[dairwendan.livejournal.com]

As I see it, the ethical problems in the AKB universe are these -

If a large enough movement of people obligated to own slaves pay the fines instead until there is no demasnd for slaves, then eventually the practice will stop. The final denominator is always money and eventually when Commerce finds that they are paying for slaves but cannot sell them, the practice would stop.

The same would happen if a large enough movement decided to live poor.

However, in the time it takes for this to come about, probably years, there are still many people stuck in the slave system. And, as the demand lessens, the overpopulation of slaves in the system would cause them to be treated even worse that previously. Less space, less food, less care, etc.

Also, once the slave system was abolished, there would be huge numbers of slaves like Jensen, who wouldn't know how to do anything else. Where would they go? Would they live on the street? They have nothing, no families, no friends, no possessions, not even clothing. How would they survive? If they were taken in by abolitionists or former masters, and they continued to perform their former duties for room and board, or even a little pay, wouldn't they basically still be slaves?

There would be enormous unresolved debt once the option of selling someone to get out of debt was removed and most likely there would be a resulting depression, leaving even fewer people who migt have the resources to pay a slave for their services.

Commerce and any other slave related institutions or companies would no longer have a reason to exist, so that would be another large number of unemployed people, dragging the economy down further.

It would take a toll on the entire population, and the ultimate outcome would be unknown. Undoubtedly though there would be much suffereing, and probably death from starvation, neglect, health problems going untreated, suicide and murder.

Could society survive such an upheaval?

Or is it better to own as many slaves as one can afford and treat them with dignity and respect, doing your best to influence others to do the same, and hope that eventually enough of those obligated to own slaves would come to see them as people and admit the immorality of the system, and dismantle it is a slower, more controlled way. First strengtheing the adherence to laws concerning the treatment of slaves and removing them from abuse. Passing manumission laws so that slaves can be given their freedom. Setting the amount of debt that a human being can be sold for very high, forcing a portion of the public to find another way to deal with debt. Establishing training programs and living communities for former slaves. And eventually easing everyone out of the system without crashing the economy.

But this of course is based on a hope that people who have been raised to see slaves as property will be willing or able to change their thought processes and their comfortable way of life. And that this would happen before all of the humane masters are either arrested, or fined to the point that they can no longer keep slaves.

In one way Kate and Jeff, though they seem to be working for the same thing, are somewhat working againt one another because I don't think that both resolutions can bring about the end of slavery in combination.

I'm writing a fic right now in which a person who finds slavery abhorrent sees slaves for sale and finds himself compelled to give one a home. He accepts the hated position of 'slave owner' in order to save one person. He is propagating slavery by participating in the system, but he is doing it to save one person from a life of slavery.

That is his decision. Until enough people are able to join together in one movement or another, each person has to make the decision on his or her own, according to his or her conscience. But does that help the slaves?

Re: I'm sorry this is so long!

[lj_stowaway]

Yes, what you said. This is very like what's been going through my head as I ponder this 'verse but I could never had laid it out so clearly.

Thank you!

Re: I'm sorry this is so long!

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

If a large enough movement of people obligated to own slaves pay the fines instead until there is no demasnd for slaves, then eventually the practice will stop.

The stories are about body slaves, but there's no reason to think the economic force of any slaveowning system has much to do with body slaves. There are a lot more people working in sweatshops, or doing service work for businesses or government agencies, than there are selling their bodies for sex. (Do you know the Dar Williams song, Buzzer? "Tell me who made your clothes, was it children or men?")

Re: I'm sorry this is so long!

[dairwendan.livejournal.com]

Jensen is a body slave, and I believe most of the other fics contain body slaves, but the AKB universe includes slaves of all types: slaves who do manual labor, slaves who do clerical work, slaves who do dangerous work such as cleaning up toxic waste, educated slaves, uneducated slaves, slaves of all types. Individuals of a certain economic class or tax bracket are obligated to use an amount of their income to support slaves, but companies and corporations also have slaves, so I assume they are under the same obligation.

I don't know that slave owning is limited to those obligated to own them.

Are there non-slave sweatshops? I think that is a question left open by the FAQ so that each writer can answer depending upon how he or she views the universe.