Is slavery bad?

Can slavery be Constitutionally be brought back again?
I, at least, Am going to forward petitions to Trump, signed by my fellow men, asking to reintroduce race-based chattel slavery in the USA.
let's discuss why thats a good idea.

Other urls found in this thread:

radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/slavery-reconsidered/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Consider Leviticus 25:44-46:
“And as for thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, whom thou shalt have; of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your lands: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall ye take your bondmen forever: but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigor.”
How much clearer can it get?

God told the children of Israel they could keep ethnic “others” as slaves, pass them down as possessions to their children, and buy and sell them. God’s established slavery sounds exactly like American slavery. God not only endorsed and established slavery, he endorsed ethnicity based chattel slavery.

Any honest person will concede that God allowed for slavery in the Old Testament. The real question, some argue, is whether Christians are able to own slaves under the New Testament.

It's important to remember that the first-century Roman world was packed with slaves. Slavery was a booming business. In fact, it might have been the biggest business there was. In Italy, slaves constituted 30 to 40% of the population, and around 15% of the entire Empire's population. [1] In 1860, slaves were about 13% of the inhabitants of the United States.’ [2]

In other words, first century Mediterranean slavery was bigger than nineteenth century American slavery. If there was ever a time for outrage against institutionalized slavery the Early Church was right in the middle of it.

And yet… nothing.

The early Church, so courageous in condemning the abominations of Roman idolatry and first-century immorality, had absolutely nothing negative to say about slavery. The apostle Paul even compared Christ to a slave holder in Colossians 4:1.

The book of Philemon was written about Paul sending a slave back to his master because it was immoral for the slave to run away in the first place (Underground Railroad?). Nowhere in the epistle did Paul tell Philemon (the master) to liberate Onesimus (the slave).

In Ephesians 6:9 masters are instructed to treat their slaves well because they too have a master in heaven.

We find the Old and New Testament consistent with the early Church tradition. Christianity was in near unanimous support of slavery well over a thousand years after the founding of the Church. At the Synod of Gangra (300 years after Pentecost) the Church condemned the heretical Manicheans for encouraging slaves to liberate themselves

Believing that they had replaced the Jews as God's chosen people, Christians deduced that they were free to persecute and extirpate non-Christian peoples, and even that they were under a moral obligation to do so. When the Jews and Moors were expelled from Spain towards the end of the fifteenth century, racial legislation was passed to 'purify' the blood of the upper classes. Anyone with Jewish or Moorish blood was suspect and penalised. Under statutes of limpieza de sangre, the descendants of Jews and Moors, even though they were Christians, were debarred from universities, religious orders, military orders, and public office. In theory anyone who had any Jewish or Moorish ancester, however remote, was of "impure blood" and suffered accordingly. Such people were second class citizens. Moreover they were second class citizens for racial, not religious, reasons. There was no question about it: according to the rules even the most devout Christian should be punished for having even a single distant ancestor of the wrong race. In some places these second class citizens were obliged to intermarry well into the nineteenth century because the eclesiastical authorities refused licences for mixed mariages. Every candidate for the priesthood had to show purity of blood going back four generations. The last limpieza de sangre laws were repealed on 16th May 1865.

Yes.

Not likely.

Please don't.

Its not.

Slavery is grotesque.

You are the equivalent of someone arguing for abortion on the basis of pest control, while ignoring the deeper evil and alternative approaches to handling the problem.

In both cases, however, the same answer is warranted: There is a moral evil in what you are trying to promote, that will do more harm than good to your people.

What is more, it maintains the presence of subhuman filth in your lands.

Why would I want slavery instead of deportation?
Why would anyone?

Its a foolish notion.

slavery is LESS inhumane than the federal prison system.
negroe slaves under white maters live better than 80% of free negroes under negroe rulers

Nope, nope, nu-uh, noe-up.

The final solution to the nigger problem is fine, fine, German engineering.

Imagine one of these puppies scaled up and put on tracks, then set loose on every sprawling inner city slum, the world over. Hell, they can beta test smaller versions of it on refugee camps all over the 4th Reich.


Damn right I am. Time to go touch myself.

1. It is a terrible idea.

2. All nonwhites must go.

Slavery actively retards scientific progress, social advancement, and greatly increases civil service infrastructure costs.

It's also slow and expensive unless you're willing to work your slaves to death. Slaves are an expensive investment, so you won't do that. Slave labor itself is slow and of poor quality- it requires a great deal of oversight, any tools used must be heavy and unbreakable, and you aren't going to spend time educating them.

I like the way you think user.

Chattel slavery is better than debt slavery but worse than freedom.

Basically kill yourself. We already give niggers everything that slavery gave them and fucking more. Deport them all or kill them all.

...

who hasn't imagined forcing the unemployed to work?

This is the gold standard for a "slavery redpill."

radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/slavery-reconsidered/

The only thing bad about it is the fact that it drove down prices of goods, which fucked over the independent white man yeoman farmer. The biggest slave owners also had the most sway in the southern state legislatures, led the drive to secession, and thus played a large role in starting the war (much bigger role in Lincoln's decision not to relinquish Federal forts, keep Anderson in Sumter, call up troops afterward, and not let the South secede, of course), leading several of those former fucked-over independent farmers to fight on behalf of the people who'd been screwing them, against a bunch of unwitting northern dupes for the abolitionists who unleashed niggerdom on America afterward, when they said they wouldn't.

In terms of harming the blacks, it was overwhelmingly superior to their own shit-tier lives of cannibalism, superstition, rape and murder in Africa, then and now. Muhammad Ali was completely right when he said "thank god mah grandaddy got on that boat" after seeing Zaire.

If you look in Leviticus, you will see that slavery in the bible is much more similar to indentured servitude, something people went into when they couldn't pay their debts. Hence "bondmen." If they were beaten they were considered to be free, their status was non-hereditary, and they could only be servants for a maximum of 7 years. Forcibly enslaving someone was a capital offense.

Yes slavery is bad if you don't agree gas yourself.

Slavery depends on having subhumans to enslave, they should either be relocated or (preferably) sterilized and their population decreased until it diminishes completely.

Why don't you try it for yourself and find out? Holla Forums can crowdfund a one-way ticket to Qatar for you.

If you look in Leviticus, you will see that slavery in the bible is much more similar to indentured servitude, something people went into when they couldn't pay their debts. Hence "bondmen." If they were beaten they were considered to be free, their status was non-hereditary, and they could only be servants for a maximum of 7 years. Forcibly enslaving someone was a capital offense.

That only applies to male slaves who were members of the tribes of Israel. They were freed during the jubilee year, so they really were just debt slaves. But foreign (non-Israelite) slaves were never freed, and girls were sold for life


But you agree enslavement is preferable to what we have now?

slavery was a jewish institution
sage

...

Slavery is a crime against your children, not in some faggy moral sense, but in the sense that if you have a bunch of laborers that you don't have to pay, you can afford to keep doing work in inefficient ways, rather than inventing/funding the research or construction of better technology. There's a reason poor brown countries are still doing it.

Someone explain to me why captured illegal immigrants aren't made U.S. slaves.

Yes. Some of you fuckers will start raping them again, raising their iqs a little and making them more destructive.

It gives the idle something productive to do and they're provided with food, housing, healthcare and retirement. Without slavery they would be a criminal menace, burden or worse die from their idleness. Slavery protects the weak from being mistreated by the strong. A good slave is healthy and content. Slavery promotes a happy and social work place environment; with hired employees the range of their employment is anywhere from a day to decades, preventing any meaningful bonds to be made.

A slave's life is worse should he not be a slave. Some people are meant to be slaves and are unable to take care of themselves. Keep in mind that there's over a billion people that live on welfare or subsidy. They shouldn't be getting a free ride for something they didn't earn. But that doesn't mean that they have to die once the welfare gets cut off. Slavery would give those people a chance in life. It's more dignified than welfare dependence. It's better than the current situation where productive people serve the slaves.

slavery is bad not because of the oppression of slaves but rather do to the inevitable collection of economic power that arises by having one man take of the fruit of the labor of another man. the collapse of the roman society as few men bought out the majority of land from under the middle class. then bringing in slaves to work the fields of rome not only where they robed of their inheritance but they where also robed of any way of honorably making one for their sons. the same reason why it is insane to allow immigration "to do the jobs americans don't want" while there is massive unemployment. all it serves to do is to destabilize the middle and lower classes. giving rise to the bread and circus, and the collection of economic and therefore political power to the hands of the few.

Yes. It fucks up innovation and moving forward with technology. No one wants to invest in better methods of cheap labour if they already wasted their money on the existing cheap labour force so it halts progress. The Greeks and Romans may have industrialized a bit more if they didn't already have so many slaves that they didn't want to lose money on replacing. You don't buy a horse and then invest in the invention of the car.

I think slavery should be an alternative to prison in a lot of cases. For example, instead of sending a thief to prison and wasting taxpayer dollars, the thief will be enslaved to his victim for a certain period of time.

Not necessarily, niggers are stupid enough to where they actually benefit from it. Though if you're stupid enough to be enslaved chattel-tier style for hundreds of years, by your own people up to the present day, you should probably be exterminated.

What is the basis of your morality, faggot? Your feels? All major religions allow slavery becuase slavery is a good and traditional institution. You sound like some liberal cuck who thinks it is a "moral evil" if women are kept on a lower level than their husbands. That is just sentimentalism, not morality.

and what of the free man who suffers the loss of his income and dignity of labor? making a vandal repair property is one thing a thif to repay sure fine but that is not the damage that these men do to a society. it is not the cost of medical bills or the cost of damages the real cost of crime is the destruction of social trust. that is why they are punished and they cannot work that away. if a man in chains and a gun at the back of his head apologizes to you does that make you trust him? if he is likewise forced into labor can he honestly pay you back? would not such a system create the possibility that it would be used for the extraction of labor for the benefit of the corrupt?

In a functioning economy, this would not be an issue.

did slavery save romes economy after the second punic war?

That is nothing like the situation I outlined. And it was not a functioning economy.

A slave as I outlined would either be working menial tasks around the house for his master or within his personal skill set, the same as he would be if he were free, so it would not at all change the labor pool. The only difference would be that all his income would go to his victim and he would not have any freedom of his own to do what he wanted.

No,I hate niggers/spics just as much as your average user but I don't agree with slavery.
Just because I don't want to see the shoe on the other foot.
Just send them ALL back to where they fucking came from.

It's easier just to kill them all, that way we won't have to do it later. Think in the long-term, not with your feelings.

Nog slaves lived like kangz and kweenz when they were slaves releative to how they live now.

So no, for nogs it's good.


Yes.

letting criminals into your home? letting them into your business? you deserve what is coming to you.

From old Sumer times of Babylon to todays US and Sweden.
You fuckheads are always dumb to fall for the sly whispers of jew going around saying "hey buddy, these slaves are cheap and easy to manage, let them in your perfect society" and then couple of generations later we see same shit over and over again.
You dumb goys become sympathetic to these monkeys and let them stand next to you thinking you're equal to them, ultimately destroying your country entirely.

Anyone who wants to enslave an entire racial group, wants to risk losing their own race to blending in the future.


In your opinion.

It's really embarassing. It's also why the North American model for settlement, in the Northern U.S. and Canada is the best way. Move the coloured races away from where you are going to have whites live and don't allow large scale slave trading.

I've heard it argued its pretty much the reason the ancient Mediterranean societies stagnated, they had no reason to innovate because slaves did everything menial that slavery abolishing civilizations automated.

As far as I can tell mid Roman Empire wasn't that hugely different technologically from England at the time it banned slavery.

Slavery has been the base standard of human civilization for time immemorial

It is as natural an element of empire - regardless of culture - as patriarchy. From the perspective of history, modern abolitionism is a mere curiosity, the direct result of the same French Revolution cancer that brought us all the wonders of liberalism.

Any detached analysis would start from the assumption that slavery is good and natural, and come up with an argument for why it is not. If you can't first understand reasons why it is good, then apply Chesterton's Fence and learn up on the subject from its defenders.

And then there still rests the question of defining slavery. Have we actually ridden ourselves of it?
Robert Nozick's The Tale of the Slave

Slavery is bad because all those shit skins will get rights in your country and ruin it.

At least they imported slaves from adjacent areas, user. Many cuckfederates are interested in the Northern European (British) slavemasters and sub-Saharan African slaves, which is especially demeaning to the culture and nation since the two races are so distant. Probably, there are a few Latin American would-be slavemasters who would like to have a similar "working relationship" with their former slaves, as in days of yore, but the old Spanish colonials have mostly already blended together with their former slaves, at behest of their heretical church.

Boring as Hell… Most Holla Forumsiticians are for deportation for reasons that cuckolds (or cuckolders) like yourself never, ever address.

fuck off kike

No.
Why?

It's just not economical. Pic related, Victoria 2 has a good rundown on it.
The only way that it would seem logical is in mining on some far off asteroid/planet as a part of penal colonies. Doing stuff that is not economical/impossible for robots.

But if you're a sadist fuck then nothing's off the table for you.

They belong in Liberia. We can pick our own damned cotton.

:^) Holla Forums puts the wind in my sails.

O.P…. Status:
wrecked.

...

indentured servitude yes slavery no but it is a bad idea because h'whites could get indentured servitude if niggers ever got ahold of any large amount of territory.

Slavery is bad for this reasons:
You do not slave your own folk
You do not want an alien mob living among your people
Everytime in history it resulted, sooner or later, in social chaos
It is economically disfunctional

what about gender-based "slavery" where women still have some rights but have to have a man responsible for them?

You're just gonna get yourself put on a watch list if you write a dumbass letter like this to government. I think you might be fantasizing that Trump is a white nationalist like you, but being anti immigration doesn't make him pro race based slavery at all. Get a grip lad.

OP, I understand where you're coming from, but we should not be reliant on other races for our livelihood and survival. We must strive to be self-sufficient and strong, by virtue of our own might and intellect.

Sounds good man

What about being competent enough to attract women?

Yes, it is. Being too lazy to pick your own damn cotton because Shlomo convinced the rich that all those slaves he ferried in from West Africa are quite good workers, after of course reminding them to remember the pogroms, is the reason you have so many damn niggers in the first place. We as whites ended slavery because we have realized that it's a savage practice only Mehmet and Mordecai participate in today.

Why? Slavery was utilized for manual labour for low skill projects, such as agricultural work, due to it being somewhat grueling and largely cheaper as a long term investment.

However mechanization allowed for both a far more efficient way of harvesting, and being cheaper to maintain. This also applies to other fields where slavery was used, but eventually replaced with machinery and professionals who be far less likely to fuck something up.

Simply put, why would anyone in their right mind go back to a method of labour which is far more expensive and even more ineffecient compared to modern methods?

i'm not into women. so what about giving women reduced rights and duties under male oversight?

Now I'm with Holla Forums on how slavery was bad because it gave us a bunch of niggers to deal with forever afterwards, but does anyone know what the effect on the economy of the early independence would have been like without slavery?

Race-based slavery began in the first place because Bacon's Rebellion proved that whites were too rebellious to be enslaved, so we know that without the cost-effectiveness of race-based slavery of blacks, it's unlikely that we would have achieved the same level of output of raw materials that we had in the early years of independence, and these exports were vital to the American economy at the time.