Intergalactic Summit

While I applaud the efforts and integrity of those like Pilots Draconis and Barraca to put a more humane face on the abhorrent institution of slavery I must again take issue with the institution.

Slavery, no matter whether practiced by a moral holder or an Angel Cartel thug, strips away a person's most fundamental right of self-determination, subjugating them to the arbitrary whims of another. The slave has no rights, no means to address wrongs, there are no laws to protect the slave as in the eyes of the law the slave is merely property. It's certainly not illegal or immoral for me to abuse or destroy a starship that I purchased legally is it?

This is my main argument against slavery. However, if people wish to voluntarily and knowingly subject themselves to this life after being converted by Amarrian evangelicals, I'd have much less of a problem with it. However, slaves are never given the choice.

I agree with Naomi, had my parents had a caretaker such as yourself, who cared for those under his charge we would be part of the Empire still. I commend you for following the true spirit of your Faith. I believe that God smiles upon those who are a paragon of what Faith is. I am sure that your charges are grateful for your guidance, and I am grateful that you share your personal experience as an example of what a Holder should be.

I can see your point. There is less allowance for self-determination, and freedoms in the Amarrian slave/master relationship. This can lead to abuse of power by the Holder. Amarr Scripture teaches that those who are slaves, are indeed lost souls, and this may or may not be true, but the slave is not usually given a choice in the matter. This leads to the contention we have now. Those who need guidance should be able to volunteer themselves, but that is a choice the person in question should make for themselves.

Thank you Blaise. I appreciate that.

And I did give them a choice, after having a rather heated discussion with a Minmatar capsuleer. They collectively decided that currently, their situation is positive and they want to work their way towards freedom. The only difference between them being slaves and them being servants is that they have legal protection as my property. Whereas an employee will not gain as much legal support by their boss, no matter how much they wish to give. And no, I had no influence on their decision. I brought in a few CONCORD lawyers to help mediate. They used logical reasoning to come to their decision.

Rella and Hakatain-haan effectively raise what I would consider my aforementioned, but undefined before now, moral views on slavery. Just to clarify. My own existence started as an indentured agreement that effectively read; "Property of Kaalakiota" before I bought out my own contract (The influence of being a capsuleer... So nice), so I've never been too keen on the idea of ownership. One could argue that it wasn't legally slavery... And they'd be right, technically, since slavery is illegal in the State, and the contract was perfectly legal in its wording... But read a copy of this thing, and it becomes hard to tell the difference.

Don't get up in arms at me over the mention, by the way. I won't claim the experiences were the same, or even similar, but the fundamental sense of being property did stick with me, and colors my views on the matter.

Both Cpt. Rella's and Cpt. Hakatain's views on slavery in the Empire rise from being uneducated about what that really means which borders on wilful ignorance.

For example Cpt. Realla claims that "The slave has no rights, no means to address wrongs, there are no laws to protect the slave as in the eyes of the law the slave is merely property. It's certainly not illegal or immoral for me to abuse or destroy a starship that I purchased legally is it?"

So, there is a simple answer to it: Of course it is immoral to abuse a starship that she legally purchased. The question is what qualifies as abuse. Is it immoral to destroy it? Not if no one is on board. If she's self destructing it while there are innocent people on board then of course it is morally wrong and against the law and she is not at liberty to do so, even though it is her ship. The idea that simply because something is property there are no laws that regulate what is allowed to be done with said property and what not is simply ludicrous and something that not even is the case in the Republic.

For example in all civilized Nations there are laws in place that regulate the ways in which we may use guns. Nowhere civilized is it allowed to run onto the street and shoot people over, because we own a gun. thus abuse of property is usually regulated and outlawed. If we talk about living beings, there are usually laws in place that protect those living beings, that can be property. Many member states of the Federation for example outlaw needles cruelty to animals, even - and especially so - if they are owned as property.

The idea that something can't be protected by laws and that the way we use or abuse property we have can't be regulated by law or outright outlawed is thus really something that only the most barbaric of people can think of and really mean it.

De facto as slave in the Empire has rights (even though they are usually formulated as obligations, duties and responsibilities of the Holder), there are means to address if they are wronged and there are laws to protect the slave, regardless of it being property in the eyes of the law.

The problem of Cpt. Rella is - and that's why she's denying these facts - that if she would accept those things as they are, she'd be forced to make concessions and stop her baseless fundamental critique of slavery in the Empire and would have to debate rather the implementation of those laws, rights etc. and how well these are done. That's something she doesn't appear to be prepared to do.

Therefore I think her wilful ignorance of the rights a slave has in the Empire and her unfounded claim that one can do with property as the owner likes. I think she's not as uncivilized to seriously make those abject claims: It's polemics.

The same goes for Cpt. Stitchers claim of 'condescension'. I'm quite sure all parents send their children to school and if they don't want to go make them anyway, thinking something along the lines of his "they're wayward souls! It's all for their own good, the poor misguided things." Whether this is condescension or honest concern is certainly up to debate, but I don't think that Cpt. Stiticher has any real basis to claim that the latter is true in the case of all Holders. The same goes for treatment of prisoners. I'm quite sure they aren't free to do as they want in any civilized society. So, given his argument imprisonment should be abolished, all criminals should be free to decide whether they want to go through re-education.

Of course, not all slaves in Amarr are penal slaves - but if Cpt. Stitcher would acknowledge that some are he would be likewise forced to make concessions: He'd have to question in which cases his 'condescension' is justified and in which not. So he couldn't go on with his fundamental critique of slavery either if he recognized the realities of Amarr penal slavery.

This is not saying that their concerns might not be valid for some forms of slavery in the Empire, but if one wants to uphold them reasonably and not just out of ideological blindness and dogmatism, one has to be prepared to single those forms of slavery out on which they actually do apply.

Again, Cpt. Hakatain is not only misinformed but doesn't even strive to inform himself but keeps on misinforming: A slave is not to be freed out of gratitude for the slave's years of loyal service, but when he learned to live as a free citizen of Amarr. Years of loyal service are of course an indicator for that, but they aren't the reason. And just as in other nations you have an influence on whether you get naturalized or are rehabilitated from being a criminal, you do have so as a slave in the Empire.

So, then imprisonment for crimes in the State is also inherently arrogant? Because the criminal entering prison for re-education is being imprisoned and re-educated in the State for the exact same reasons as most slaves that are entering freshly into that condition nowadays in the Empire. Or can the ailment e proven to exist in the State, but not in the Empire for some miraculous reasons?

If so - and it appears there is little room left for you to say otherwise - clean your own house first, before you complain about other's.

Cpt. Otsitso, your show of a level of ignorance that is so much greater than Cpt. Hakatain's is astounding.