Subject:
|
Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 May 1999 10:19:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1122 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 May 1999 13:17:11 GMT, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net>
wrote:
> Except for the slavery bit. Slavery is evil. But when we're comparing
> "kinds", early Roman slavery was a bit better than some. Still evil, but
> it did have the following positive merits:
>
> - slaves were captured as a side effect of war, not via deliberate
> slaving expeditions.
> - many masters manumitted quite frequently for good service... took 20
> years, but...
> - many masters did not let slavery cross generations. if you were born
> to a slave, you were free.
Not to mention that most of the masters treated their slaves well.
During the Saturnalia, for 10 days each year, the roles of master and
slave were reversed - quid pro quo _will_ be offered at such a time,
of course.
Arguably, you could say that wage slave labor isn't much better than
straightout slavery - take for example early indusdtrial society in
England and France. The workers were _required_ to buy in the
companies' (inferior) stores. They, quite literally, often did not get
any net pay after substracting the maggot-infested housing and the
moldy bread and water. I don't know whether I'd prefer being a Roman
slave or such an unfortunate creature. IIRC, the Roman slaves had
working days, days off, nights off...
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
| (...) Except for the slavery bit. Slavery is evil. But when we're comparing "kinds", early Roman slavery was a bit better than some. Still evil, but it did have the following positive merits: - slaves were captured as a side effect of war, not via (...) (25 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
150 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
