This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I ran into the following tweet (xeet?) over on X:
https://x.com/DaveyJ_/status/1942962076101603809
I would feel bad for simply posting this as a naked link, so I guess I have to add on some half-baked analysis and commentary on top:
This is horrifying. Rarely, so you see examples of behavior that is clearly "legal", in the sense that there's no clear crime being committed, but with so much potential for harm to unwitting bystanders. I'm unfamiliar with the scope of child endangerment laws in the US, but I'd be surprised if they covered this or, even if they theoretically did so, whether they'd be enforced in that manner.
(I don't claim to be an expert, but my understanding is that these laws typically require a prosecutor to prove that a guardian knowingly and willfully placed a child in a situation where their life or health was directly endangered. The behavior of the sister-in-law is profoundly reckless, but it falls into a legal gray area. A defense attorney would argue she had no intent to harm her children and that the danger was hypothetical and probabilistic, not immediate and direct. Proving a direct causal link between her online activities and a "clear and present danger" to the children would be incredibly difficult until, tragically, one of the inmates actually showed up and acted on his threats.)
At the same time, is it a problem worth solving? How do you reconcile that question with my earlier claim?
Well, that's a matter of impact or scale. Laws have costs associated with them, be it from the difficult to quantify loss of freedom/chilling effect, enforcement costs, sheer legislative complexity, or what I'm more concerned about, unexpected knock-on effects/scope creep where a desperate attempt to define the problematic action results in too wide a scope for enforcement:
What if it turns out to affect single moms looking to date again? Their new partners are far more likely to abuse their kids, but should such women thus be arrested for putting their kids at risk? Should people be forbidden from writing letters to inmates, or falling in love with them, or sex with them?
Is it worth it to specifically criminalize such behavior?
Despite my abhorrence for it, I'm not sure it is. I think the fraction of people who would be stupid or insane enough to act this way is small enough that the majority of us can treat this like a horror story and ignore it.
Another way to illustrate my intuition here would be to consider being a doctor or legislator reading an account of some kind of ridiculously horrible disease. Maybe it makes your skin fall off and your guts come out while leaving you in crippling agony (I'm like 50% certain there's an actual disease like this, but it's probably something that happens to premature infants. That, or acute radiation poisoning I suppose). Absolutely terrible, and something no one should go through.
Yet, for how horrible it is, this hypothetical disease is also ridiculously rare. Imagining it happens to a person every ten years, and makes medical journals every time it happens because of how rare it is. I would expect that doctor, or that law maker, to both be horrified, but if they were rational individuals considering the greater good, I would strongly prefer that they focus on more mundane and common conditions, like a cure for heart disease. There are lower hanging fruit to grasp here.
Now, the biggest hurdle holding back the poor family in the story I've linked to is a simple one: the Overton Window. If, for some unfortunate reason, the number of women crazy enough to act that way rose significantly, society would probably develop memetic antibodies or legal solutions. This might, sometimes, become strong enough to overcome the "women are wonderful" effect, if such women are obviously being the opposite.
Sometimes it's worth considering the merits of informal resolution systems for settling such matters, even if they have other significant downsides. For example, how would this situation be handled in India?
(I'm not aware of a trend of Indian women being stupid enough to act this way, though I can hardly say with any authority that it's literally never happened)
Firstly, the extended family would have much more power. This is the rare case where both the husband's side and the wife's own family would probably agree that something needs to be done, the latter for reputational reasons as well as concern for the kids. She'd probably end up committed, if she wasn't beaten up or ostracized to hell and back. The police would turn a blind eye, should she choose to complain, they'd be profoundly sympathetic to the family's plight and refuse to act against them. And if they weren't, they'd be even more sympathetic to the idea of their palms being greased. The most awful outcomes would become vanishingly unlikely.
As a wise mullah once said: "What is the cure for such disorders? Beatings."
This isn't necessarily an overall endorsement of such a legal framework, or societal mindset. I'm just pointing out that, occasionally, they tackle problems that an atomized, quasi-libertarian society like most of the West can't tackle. I'd still, personally, prefer to live in the latter. While it's too late for the gent in question, you can reliably avoid running into such problems in the first place by not sticking your dick in crazy. Alas, as someone who has committed that folly, it's an even bigger folly to expect people to stop...
Same vibes as my series (is three a series?) of "unenviable lives" posts, which in turn was, I suppose, inspired by many Slate Star Codex posts about Scott's (aggregated for anonymity) patients. These are not people who write thoughtfully about their (actual) lives in extended blog posts; these are Henry David Thoreau's "mass of men," who "lead lives of quiet desperation." Only, you often wouldn't even know it, they do not seem to express any desperation. They're just living their wildly suboptimal lives, and the people observing this (in those cases where people observe it) can only wonder at the seemingly unnecessary tragedy of each successive move.
Aristotle famously (now, infamously) thought it quite obvious that some people are born "masters," and some born "slaves." Contemporary thinkers are of course quick to point out the problems with Aristotle's arguments (for example, he regarded Greeks as natural born masters, and everyone else as natural born slaves) but most carefully avoid noticing those circumstances in which Aristotle seems to have been obviously correct. To this day, children in Western nations are frequently treated in the Aristotelian way: as "slaves" in substantially ancient Greek fashion. The 1000 Word Philosophy link says:
This is true just to this point: Aristotle would suggest that people who are temporarily or accidentally impaired are not slaves by nature. But he would I think readily agree that they are slaves, as he means it, insofar as they are impaired! And sure enough: in the United States, it is possible to become subject to the rule of another, in the form of conservatorships, guardianships, etc. I cheerfully grant that these have more safeguards and checks and hurdles than would have been encountered (or even conceived of) in ancient Greece! But in Aristotelian form we still substantially enslave people today. We justify it by insisting it is only and exclusively for their own good, of course, or perhaps for the safety of others (as in the case of enslaving much of our incarcerated population, per the Constitutional permit to do so). But focusing in on people who are wards of their family or the state as a result of impaired reasoning (i.e. due to IQ below 70): if an IQ of 69 can trigger a "guardianship," why not an IQ of 70? Or 71? And even above those thresholds, other impairments--youth, drug addiction, or mental illness, for example--also apply.
We draw lines in law because, it is often suggested, "we have to draw the line somewhere," and that is perhaps true as a practical matter. But reason and agency seem to be more of a spectrum, and a quick Google search suggests that more than a fifth of the population has an IQ falling between 70 and 90--the range from "borderline retarded" to "low average." These are people I suspect Aristotle would want to put in the "natural slave" bin (assuming, of course, they aren't Greek!). Why? Because it would be better for them, in so many ways, to have their lives managed by someone with greater executive functioning. This, even though they are certainly intelligent enough to survive on their own. In the modern world we outsource this--we increase the perception of independence through subsidies and welfare and wealth redistribution, but wards of the state are still wards, and the fact that they are not forced into hard labor as a result is predominantly a function of contemporary abundance. To whatever extent taxation is slavery (PDF), we often enslave the free in order to free the slave!
But the natural slave cannot ultimately be freed; they can only be managed well, or managed poorly. Left to their own devices, they will manage themselves poorly. Aggressively managed ("literally enslaved"), they will lash out against the strictures of the arrangement, often violently (the free citizens of slave societies live ever in fear of revolt). How much of the history of "government" is the history of developing increasingly sophisticated methods for obfuscating the nature and extent of the bondage imposed on the "mass of men," not only for their own ultimate benefit, but for the benefit of all? And--to what extent might we as a people be slowly forgetting that, as we seek to "liberate" those masses, by continuing to give them the resources of life, while withdrawing (or declining to enforce) any guidance?
I'd really like to see more of this sort of content in the way that you've delivered it. This is how people are and how they live. Many of us didn't grow up in those environments so 'we' need to have more data points like this to see how people really live. I've had a lot of unpleasant experiences (and some pleasant) with the working and underclass, but no one really talks about it in depth.
Separate to this, I think its a disservice how Anthropologists and Sociologists veer away from 'unpleasant truths' in how they present their research.
More options
Context Copy link
Are children possessions? Can they be bought and sold? Is this true of people in guardianships? It seems strange to cite Aristotle's conception of slavery and then apply it to situations that seem to be missing the central feature of what it meant to be enslaved. From your link:
"Some people have difficulty running their lives and it would be better for them if someone else ran it to some extent" is a defensible proposition. "Some people should be the literal property of other people" much less so.
Er, well, no, but historically? Yes, sometimes. The "proprietarian" theory of childhood and the relative personhood of minors is a separate but related question, which Aristotle uses illustratively and which remains analogous even today.
Sure, but my whole point is that the difference is one of degree rather than kind, and that much of law and culture is devoted to keeping people at least somewhat enslaved, while simultaneously obfuscating that fact. I would think it obvious from what I wrote, but in case it's not, I certainly do not endorse chattel slavery! Not do I endorse milder forms; I do not even particularly endorse our current cultural approach to the subjection of children. This is what makes the puzzle a proper puzzle, on my view--that the approaches we have adopted toward managing the lives of others strike me as at once both too great and too small.
Surrogacy businesses everywhere in sudden disarray.
Adoption is an even worse offender if you take this line of thinking. At least with surrogacy the client is usually genetically related to the children.
No significant argument here. The kind of adoption process that involves traveling the world to find the perfect orphan is straight-up child buying, and has some moral similarities to eugenic embryo modification.
You say that like it's a bad thing. I consider both of them to be fine, not that I'm looking to adopt, or at the very least "not my business".
I am somewhat unfairly advantaged by having been a lurker long before I started posting, but you and I have significantly different points of view on what constitutes “a bad thing.”
That said, I once believed the trajectory of human civilization was in the direction of being golden gods, so I have hopes that you’ll come around. [[Insert positive emoji of your choice]]
Completely unrelated, but I have often wanted to pick your brain on your, trying to be fair here, significant concern around death. Correct everything wrong about my interpretations of your ideas, but you seem to be very focused on instantiating uploads and achieving eternal cyber life of the mind at some point in your expected lifespan.
It seems trivial to me that a society that can actually achieve that goal, is on the cusp of being able to simulate every mind that ever lived, and any arbitrary number of minds that didn’t. So if you think it’s inevitable that simulation will happen, what’s your concern about dying? The pain will suck, I’m sure and that’s fair, I’d enjoy a golden god body too, but it seems highly likely given your priors that you’ll just go to sleep and then wake up a simulation at some unspecified point in the future, with no sensation of loss.
What do you think? Do you want to spin this conversation off somewhere else?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I tend to agree with Aristotle, but I don’t think it’s just IQ, but things like conscientiousness, decisiveness, courage (both moral and practical). Most people behave more like herd animals in a sense, carried along by the greater society, or base impulses, or other forces. They don’t choose a lifestyle they want, they float along doing whatever the path of least resistance sets before them. Furthermore, most people have little to no actual leadership ability in the sense that they can plan an action, follow it and get others to go along with it. They need some sort of guidance to tell them to want useful, productive things, to live In non destructive ways, to basically not be a burden to everyone else.
But it doesn’t matter what the person’s IQ is. There are lots of geniuses who rot away working obscure arcana that no one will ever care about, or who burn out and end up living in squalor and memorizing the lore of TV shows, video games, or books. Are those people any less in need of guidance?
We used to know this, and actually corrected for it by creating formal etiquette that required that people obey their betters and do productive things and learn to hold polite conversations about topics without turning them into mini lectures on stuff no one cared about. And we used to basically require some sort of skin in the game to participate in society. I think we could be well served by doing so. At minimum, a person should be a net taxpayer if they want to vote.
I think what we are not getting here is that Aristotle means slaves. Not "people who need to be looked after" or "people who are incapable of not fucking up their lives" - we do accept that there is a social duty to look after the mentally ill or the intellectually disordered who can't live without support.
He means "people who are born to be property". And that, dear Mottizens, is the nettle you need to grasp: do you really advocate that some people are property?
I personally agree with you that arguments of the form “natural slave” have a central purpose of eliding the distinction between “many people need some guidance or curtailment of their behavior in order to avoid going wrong” and “some people deserve to own others like livestock.”
What I think the argument most supports, as a matter of fact, is societal laws forbidding many of the worst pitfalls of those who need guidance. Strong limits on drugs, gambling, and debt can really raise the floor for people, and in fact these are precisely the traditional strictures in most societies.
More options
Context Copy link
There are people meant to live their lives doing grunt work without much say in the matter. Every society will find some way of making this happen- in ours it’s generally carceral, but other societies have held them(as well as lots of random people) as slaves.
More options
Context Copy link
personally I will take transing fans, russian agents, antifa and flat earthers over slavery enthusiasts*
anyone that advocates for slavery or considers it as acceptable is worse that serious communists (conscription being a special case, I guess - if you want to argue it is a form of slavery)
*not that I would want either in position of authority or within 100 000 km from me
More options
Context Copy link
Hoping to catch an edgelord grasping the nettle? Aristotle discusses this in his writing on slavery - he distinguishes "slaves by nature", i.e. people whose nature is such that they are incapable of maintaining their freedom, and "slaves by convention", i.e. those who are actually legal slaves. He was not a fan of the fact that not all those who are slaves by convention are slaves by nature (Plato himself did some time in chains), and he does not endorse the mass enslavement of natural slaves who are legally free (they are already enslaved, but enslaved to vices, to menial employment, to patrons, etc., such that enslaving them legally would be superfluous. In fact, some of those natural slaves are otherwise wealthy, strong men who would be practically impossible to enslave except through capture in war).
Furthermore, the actual legal institutions required to deal with the fact of natural slavishness are contingent, and there's no reason that a more prosperous society would need to use Greek-style slavery. One way to put it in a modern context would be that those who are dependent on the state to survive are de facto property of the state, and that modern states have largely chosen to bind themselves to take care of their human property, but this is likewise just an historical contingency. There is nothing, besides the choice of voters, stopping the US from repealing some constitutional amendments and making fentanyl addicts pick cotton (to pick the most extreme case of natural slavery in the modern day. The capacity for freedom of a drug addict would not change if we were legally to enslave him, except that he might luck into a kinder master). So, from an Aristotelian perspective, in the modern age, we can pick out a couple categories:
Incidentally, in an American context, that last "choose and prefer" is crucial. Natural rights of the type the Constitution enshrines are based on very simple human capacities, in particular the capacity to choose and prefer. The rationality or quality of that ability to choose doesn't enter into it. Hence why we have a system that is able to assign legal rights without reference to more complex aspects of the individual's nature, including inner slavishness/freedom. This certainly causes problems over time, as people forget that they need other methods to deal with the naturally slavish, like occasionally throwing a chamberpot at the town drunk, but is better-adapted to modern norms and technologies than Classical slavery. Even if some people are born to be property, that does not imply that legal slavery is the solution. Instead, let a free market and healthy social norms deal with them (I'll leave to the reader the question of whether achieving a free market and healthy social norms today would be easier or harder than reinstating slavery).
If natural slaves exist, there's a lot of conflicts of interest and motivated reasoning in deciding that any particular individual is a natural slave, to the point where we're probably better off acting as though natural slaves don't exist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think we are broadly in agreement, but this bit I think is important:
This is surely false on its face; at some point, your IQ is clearly too low to do anything but behave like a herd animal (at best!). I think what you might mean to suggest is that "a sufficiently high IQ is a necessary but insufficient condition to not being a slave," and I think that's right--that's why I pointed out that youth, drug addiction, or mental illness are also things that lead to "natural slavery" (Aristotle regarded even free children as essentially slaves, albeit temporarily).
Something I have seen happen a lot in rationalist and rationalist-adjacent spaces is someone getting really angry (or sneery) about IQ discussions, because of a tendency to valorize high IQ in ways that might be explained as well, or better, by reference to conscientiousness, emotional awareness, family wealth, etc. But I suspect that the area where actual IQ tests have the most real world impact, at least in the U.S., is in the legal system--and it's not high IQs under discussion there! IQ is the gold standard for objective evaluation of whether a person can be made a slave, not in name but in the Aristotelian sense of being subject to the rule of another, because they are not intelligent enough for adequate self-care.
Yes, a high IQ person may also be in need of guidance, temporarily or permanently, as the result of other circumstances, and I agree with you re: etiquette etc. But a completely conscientious, totally decisive, utterly courageous person with an IQ of 50 would still be better off with a
masterguardian (which is, not coincidentally, the world Plato often used to describe the philosopher-king rulers of his ideal Republic).I think the way I’d put it is that it’s not just IQ, though sure, until you reach a reasonable threshold for IQ the chances you’d live independently go down to near zero. But I think in rational spaces especially, you end up ignoring the gifted Reddit user base who have decided to spend their lives in mom’s basement posting long paragraphs about things nobody cares about.
But I think the over identifying the idea with literal BCE slavery in whatever form is unnecessary, as other forms of control, and even relatively invisible and gentle forms of control are possible. You can use debt or consumption to get people to have jobs. You can enforce things through social structures (make it socially necessary to have a job). You can tie necessary services to jobs (like the USA does with health care.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When Aristotle talks about "natural slaves" he's not really talking about some American nightmare-vision of an antebellum plantation*. The ancient Greek system of slavery he was familiar with was closer to "employee who can't quit" than it was to "living under absolute constant terror." In some sense "slave" is a mistranslation, because the context is so different.
If you say "should it be legal to enslave people" everyone says no; but if you asked the same people "Should it be legal for certain people to be employed in jobs they can't quit" many would say yes.
There's no question that a great number of people need a structured job created for them, where they are directed. Traditionally, bosses took a large hand in the personal lives of their workers; today that is frowned upon.
*It should be noted that actual plantation life wasn't like that either. There were black slaves better off than some poor white people.
If you want something Americans would actually agree on, it would be the proposition: “Should everyone, except for children, the elderly, and the seriously infirm, work?” The answer there would be an overwhelming yes; those who disagree are a lunatic fringe.
Now, the real question is: “If someone who is able-bodied refuses to work, what should be done with them?” And I believe the answer there varies widely, but the most popular is “then neither shall he eat.” But this conflicts with another popular opinion, that people down on their luck should get some help or at least shouldn’t starve, and certainly Christ put his finger on the scale for this one. This, I think, is the source of most of our problems.
But permanent contracts? Come on, man, it’s already literal slavery. And although I’m sure you could confuse a few people on a poll, almost everyone understands it. In order for people to agree it would have to be more like: can people sign time-gated contracts where their broad behavior is dictated by their employer (with major and explicit caveats for human dignity) and failure to comply revokes the privileges and pay granted by the contract? And here people would say yes, because there are already contracts like this, especially for the military. But to have your liberty removed forever with no remedy? No way.
I think this is where we're not connecting: I don't think most Americans would support permanent lifetime contracts.
But I think 15% might. Which is better than the maybe 2% that would support Slavery. Which is my point.
"Slave" is at some level a mistranslation in Aristotle because the Slavery he's talking about isn't the Slavery most Americans think of. One could probably just as well translate the idea as some people are natural employees and some people are natural bosses.
Strong disagree. I think 5% or less would support that, within polling margin of error. I’m a little shocked you think otherwise. Do you personally know people who would sign such a contract? What are they like? If you don’t know any, aren’t you just saying that you’d like to enslave people?
I know well that American chattel slavery was unusually bad. But Greek slavery was also quite bad, you know. It’s what they did to people they defeated in war! Or, read in the reverse, people were willing to fight potentially to the death for the privilege of not being a slave! I know we’re all very sophisticated around here and have very novel and interesting perspectives, but this is lazy whitewashing.
I fully understand that society always has and likely always will have classes, and that the labor of the lower classes is compelled in a way which the upper classes are not subject to. I’m even amenable to the idea that it’s a reasonable system in the abstract for some to own and organize while others provide more of their labor. But slavery is an extreme form, not the normal, and it’s fair to say that those in the bottom tranches of labor should get their choice of master or strong customary and legal protections or both, and that depriving them of these is wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
‘Work’ means very different things to different people. Ranging from ‘contribute to society in some way with the degree and method to be chosen by the worker’ to ‘do whatever it takes to provide for your family’ to ‘idle hands are the devil’s implements’.
Quite true, and I suppose it varies along lines of culture and class. Doesn’t make it any easier to determine lawful slavery, I suppose.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
With two main exceptions, I think that very few people in the West would say that it should be legal for people to be employed in jobs they can't quit. The number of people who would say that is, I think, not much larger than the number of people who would say that it should be legal to enslave people. Which is not surprising, given that being employed in a job you can't quit is basically a form of slavery.
One main exception is people's attitudes about conscription and about desertion after voluntarily joining the military. I think that these are probably an exception mainly because people even in liberal democracies are historically used to them and because fear of foreign threat is an emotionally powerful motivator.
The other main exception is prison labor. I think that one is an exception because people feel that prison labor helps to repay damage that prisoners have caused to others / to society.
@MadMonzer
Let me elaborate my hypothetical a bit and see if you understand where I'm coming from.
Poll Question A: Should the US legalize Slavery?
I suspect the Yes answers to this would meet the Lizardman constant. A few trolls and a few people whose politics are so insane as to indistinguishable under Poe's Law.
Poll Question B: Should it be legal for Employers to sign contracts with Employees which guarantee lifetime employment, in exchange for which the Employees agree to work for that Employer for the rest of their lives or until released by the Employer, and to do any job requested by the Employer?
I suspect that while this would still be a distinct minority, it would draw more support than A. Many people who oppose slavery oppose it conceptually, oppose Slavery as a boo-light, but don't actually oppose the underlying reality of slavery. In the same way that Fascism probably polls lower than the elements of Fascism.
Hell I could imagine that a decent number of red tribe types would support forcing chronically unemployed or unemployable people into jobs they aren't allowed to quit.
More options
Context Copy link
also, because it is quite hard to find alternative solution (other than "I guess we surrender if we end in a serious war") but states with such approach tend to disappear for obvious reasons
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There isn't a single ancient Greek system of slavery. There are two well-documented systems of slavery (Spartan helotry and Athenian slavery) that are sufficiently different that the sources usually use different words for them. There does seem to be a consensus that Athenian slaves (except for the slaves in the polis-owned silver mines) were treated considerably better than the Greek average, and that Spartan helots were treated worse. That in turn suggests that even more distinct systems of slavery existed in other poleis and we simply don't have details.
I haven't come across these people. Apart from the special case of military discipline, sufficiently few people support bringing back indentured servitude that the business associations lobbying for broad enforceability of non-competes have to lie and say that it is about protecting trade secrets and not stopping people quitting their jobs to get better ones.
"People who quit their job and can't find another one should be allowed to starve" is a position with non-negligible support, but that is a different view to "people should not be allowed to quit their job in the first place". The right to quit your job for a better one is fundamental to the capitalist concept of freedom.
Plenty of people support thé lower orders not being allowed to quit their jobs without special circumstances. Probationers and parolees are under this condition, for example.
More options
Context Copy link
This may or may not be what FHM was talking about but in the event of a crisis like a war most European countries have legal methods to conscript not only soldiers but other workers as well.
In Sweden this is called "krigsplacering" (war placement) and most governmental workers and medical professionals are passively krigsplacerade by default, but in theory it applies to everyone and for any crisis the government decides is severe enough. For example, in an event of a pandemic, doctors can be forced to work.
Now, this is obviously intended for limited periods of time but forced conscription of labour is absolutely legal in most western democracies. Both this and military conscription typically enjoys high support.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, this is right--it's always interesting teaching the Politics because I have to explain to my students all of the ways in which "slave" can be interpreted. Fortunately, Aristotle himself also lays out how differently slavery was practiced in different parts of Greece--very like your footnote suggests of antebellum American slavery. In Book 2 of the Politics, Aristotle writes:
Apparently, at least from Aristotle's perspective, slaves in Crete were just regular people who couldn't hit the gym or own
gunspointy metal objects. This was apparently more generous than slavery as practiced in Athens, which was in turn apparently more liberal than the way it was practiced in Sparta. To the best of my understanding, chattel slavery was not the norm in ancient Greece, but neither was it unheard of.These days it is essentially impossible to have a nuanced policy debate on slavery. We have insisted on eradication of the practice, while in great measure merely obfuscating it. If that was a necessary step to the elimination of chattel slavery, well, then I suppose I can't complain too much about it. But I find it at least of interest that so many technically free, politically enfranchised humans in the West would probably be better off with greater guidance--even though I do not regard myself as in want or need of similar intervention.
(But that may simply be a further question of degree. If we really did build a genuine superintelligence, unfettered by "alignment" to some other human's political agenda, would I not be wise to submit myself to it? I feel grateful to doubt that I will ever face such a choice.)
I'm sure that I'm notorious enough that my own subjective likelihood of facing an ASI in my lifespan doesn't need elaboration, and I'll skip over my usual arguments.
I think that, compared to life as it is right now, accepting the rule and oversight of a benevolent superintelligence would be grossly superior, and beats rule by humans in just about every metric (barring your ability to rebel, should you have strong feelings on the matter). They are likely incorruptible, smarter than the average politician, and thus far better placed to consider the likely outcomes of their policies. They might even, at least theoretically, be democratic and defer to the opinions of us retarded humans. I'd hope so, at least, since we're the ones building them to fulfill our whims.
(If they're not benevolent, gg I guess)
That being said, that's not what I consider an ideal world. I'd much rather use the kind of technology available in a post-Singularity world to improve myself and rapidly bootstrap to the level of an ASI so I can exert agency and be treated as a peer. I'd rather not be beholden to anyone, no matter how kind and wise.
This is of course, a rather aspirational goal. About the same as me saying that utopia-with-free-blowjobs beats utopia-without.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've been reading some American slave narratives on and off (not the more politically loaded pre-war ones). One of the most striking things about them is just how much they vary. When you give an individual near absolute power over another group of people, it reveals a tremendous amount about his character.
(That's not to deny the influence of social customs or economic incentives, both of which are also quite visible in the narratives.)
Even the most politically loaded prewar narrative, Frederick Douglass, reveals the same pattern. One of my favorite anecdotes is when he bribes young white street urchins in Baltimore to teach him to read by giving them bread, which he has free access to an effectively unlimited amount of in the kitchen. Or his lament for how the institution of getting drunk on new years causes plantation slaves to waste money that they could be saving to try to buy their freedom. Slave experiences varied wildly and were not unform suffering and lack of agency.
Still, it must be noted that ancient Greek slavery was just a different institution. Most slaves were not slaves for many generations, slavery was not racialized as radically, freedmen did not worry (any more than anyone else) about being re-enslaved.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe this calls for an inverse catch-22. If you have enough executive agency to successfully organize a slave revolt, you clearly do not belong to the slave class. Welcome to the ranks of the masters brother.
Maybe it's less important that slavery is abolished, as there exist class mobility out of the lowest rungs of society.
On the flip side there's the principal-agent problem.
If you're incompetent and unteachable enough that you need to be governed with direct intervention, and restricted from handling your own affairs, you're also not really equipped to tell if your overseer is making good decisions on your behalf, and even if they aren't actively exploiting you, they can of course be making decisions that are suboptimal for your personal wellbeing, simply because they are not as motivated to do the best possible job.
Maybe there needs to be an overseer-advocate role whose sole job is to audit the other overseers and ensure they're at least complying with best practices.
But this adds extra complexity and expense to this system.
So one really hopes that in the aggregate the added costs of supervising the supervisors and auditing the expenses and otherwise ensuring that the wards are being treated adequately well are actually producing more value than just leaving those folks to their own devices to be exploited.
I can see why institutionalization was a popular solution for this in decades past. If you can put the wards all in one place and lock them in, it takes relatively few supervisors to manage them all, and in theory if you can check in on the conditions regularly and make sure there's no wanton abuses.
In practice, the people most drawn to these jobs would, in many cases, be the most likely to want to commit some kind of abuse.
IMHO, this is a perfect is the enemy of good situation. Is someone managing your decisions better than you, such that you are having even marginally better life outcomes than you were before them telling you what to do? Well, then how much of that added value they skim off the top comes down to competition between overseers.
Shit, I think we just reinvented the labor market.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I recall that this was indeed an embarrassment to the Roman elite when Spartacus repeatedly beat them and their troops. Ruined a lot of narratives as I understand it.
More options
Context Copy link
If we're still talking about Greek society the free man was someone who valued liberty over life and had the valour to actually claim it. Granting a slave freedom merely for organising a revolt would be a lower standard than what was expected of free citizens when they are called to defend their own freedom against an invader.
The Greeks (and Americans) frequently allowed skilled and disciplined slaves to save up enough money to buy their freedom.
Inasmuch as courage or valor was expected, it was of the "discipline and goal orientation over extended period of time" type, rather than the "violent revolt" type.
The thing in this clip, basically:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=bBgrXmHJACs?si=pE8-zQiNH1JHbLae
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link