|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> No, this argument rests on the moral premise that it is immoral to enslave
> others, whether it's for the common good or for the pleasure of a politburo.
I agree, but are you equating Communism-- that is to say the essential
notion or theory of Communism/Socialism, not the current or former attempts
at it-- with slavery?
Slavery is the anti-thesis of Communism (and even Democracy) and therefore
shouldn't equate with either. I would say any state that engages in slavery
is pretending to be Communist, or Democratic. I would argue that America
wasn't completely a Democracy until the 20th century, after the Civil
Rights/Equal Rights movements and subsequent changes in our laws to honor
equality and opportunity among the races and sexes.
Several states in America still use prisoners for labor and one could argue
that's a form of slavery and exploitation, since the prisoners receive no
compensation. I would argue that they are paying their debt to society in a
positive way, so long as the law doesn't bend the rules on worker's rights.
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply: | | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) Not to speak for Lar, but I think the association for him was insofar as in communist governments that have existed, there is always a central dictating body which applies "equality" to the citizens (theoretically themselves too, one could (...) (23 years ago, 31-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Cuba
|
| (...) But I'm not using utilitarian morality (were there such a thing, which there isn't) here. My argument has several legs, each should be evaluated independently. The utilitarian argument (which makes no reference to morality) is entirely (...) (23 years ago, 30-Aug-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|