Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

As they purchased the TV, they worked to possess the TV. If it is stolen, they worked for someone else to possess it. If they hadn't purchased it it couldn't be stolen. Since it was stolen and not given, this was still a form of expropriating their value against their will, even as if the thief towered over them with a whip.

 

[Einherjar86]

Interesting; but they were not enslaved while working for it. If they had been, they would not have possessed the choice of whether or not to work.

I'm not denying that something is taken, as per Jimmy's formula above; I'm merely skeptical as to whether or not slavery can be constituted retroactively. In my mind, slavery requires the denial of the choice of whether or not to produce.

 

[Dak]

Interesting; but they were not enslaved while working for it. If they had been, they would not have possessed the choice of whether or not to work.

I'm not denying that something is taken, as per Jimmy's formula above; I'm merely skeptical as to whether or not slavery can be constituted retroactively. In my mind, slavery requires the denial of the choice of whether or not to produce.

Well if you want to get hyper specific you could label it "retroactive" or some such thing. The end result is they had no choice in the end result. Which is work done for the exclusive benefit of another against their will. AKA slavery.

 

[Einherjar86]

Not exclusive, though; I'm assuming that, if the television was in their home before it was stolen, they were able to voluntarily enjoy at least a few wholesome family shows.

 

[Dak]

And a traditional slave is usually fed and housed in a minimal fashion, so obviously some portion of their production is returned to them. But they have no control as to it's limits and quantity. Those are determined by the master. Or the thief.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Also, do you deserve to be put in prison for not doing something? (not paying your taxes)

Is Wesley Snipes' three-year prison sentence for misdemeanor failure to file U.S. federal income tax returns justified?

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

Nope. The prison system is a really frightening thing, especially in the US.

 

[Matt]

I think not paying taxes is a much more serious offense than any kind of minor drug crime. Enjoying the benefits offered by the government (tax-payer funded services - roads, police, etc etc) and not paying for them is horrible. Especially if you're very well off financially. So yes, jail the serious offenders and stop jailing people who smoke pot.

White collar crimes need to punished much more severely than they currently are. The imbalance is absurd.

 

[Prismatic Sphere]

 

[Dak]

I think not paying taxes is a much more serious offense than any kind of minor drug crime. Enjoying the benefits offered by the government (tax-payer funded services - roads, police, etc etc) and not paying for them is horrible. Especially if you're very well off financially. So yes, jail the serious offenders and stop jailing people who smoke pot.

White collar crimes need to punished much more severely than they currently are. The imbalance is absurd.

Income taxes don't pay for roads and police. Even if someone doesn't file income taxes they still pay for roads when they gas up their vehicle and pay for police via things like property and sales taxes.

Secondly, why should you be forced to both use and pay for services without choice of competition? Government is like the corner "window washer" on the service provider level.

Thirdly: What the fuck sense does jail make on any level? Prison has to be one of the dumbest things ever conceived by the mind of men. But lets say we have prison. Here's your white collar criminals:

 

[Einherjar86]

And a traditional slave is usually fed and housed in a minimal fashion, so obviously some portion of their production is returned to them. But they have no control as to it's limits and quantity. Those are determined by the master. Or the thief.

But the individual who purchased a television had the freedom to choose the limits of his or her own production value; they valued it at the cost of a television set. The thief stealing the television did not deny the individual the choice to purchase the television; that individual constituted the worth of their own labor.

 

[Dak]

But the individual who purchased a television had the freedom to choose the limits of his or her own production value; they valued it at the cost of a television set. The thief stealing the television did not deny the individual the choice to purchase the television; that individual constituted the worth of their own labor.

So it'd be like the Master asking the slave what new suit he should buy for himself with the value created by the slave. That choice is of little consequence to the slave. The choice, or lack thereof, of import was in the value creation and expropriation.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't at all see how that explains the situation. The relationship of the master and slave exists prior to the production of value; this is not the case with a thief who steals a television.

 

[Dak]

I don't at all see how that explains the situation. The relationship of the master and slave exists prior to the production of value; this is not the case with a thief who steals a television.

Why does the prior existence of the relationship to the transfer have any bearing when the end result is the same: Value transferred/a person used against their will?

 

[Einherjar86]

I should say: the relationship exists prior, and exceeds beyond. Slaves are perpetually bound, and their labor is perpetually and immediately appropriated under the logic of bondage.

While thieves may exploit the value possessed by their victims, this exploitation does not extend to the victims' labor. The victims return to work of their own volition, and they do not produce the value of their labor under duress. Labor value does not magnificently inhere in money, as of course you know; but I make the point to stress that it is not the individual's labor that is being exploited when money and/or products are stolen. The institution of slavery is an active and perpetual exploitation of human activity as it takes place.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I think if someone steals my property they also steal my time and effort. I'm not sure if I'm willing to say it makes me a slave to them though.

As far as the state goes I think that taxation is a form of slavery. I'm forced to pay it or I'm forced into prison.

 

[Einherjar86]

They might steal something you produced with your effort, which is thus something you equate with your effort... but you undertook the effort to produce the value of your own volition.

And taxation is definitely a whole other matter, something which I would grant is more akin (in its strictly non-evaluative, logical form) to something like slavery.

 

[Dak]

They might steal something you produced with your effort, which is thus something you equate with your effort... but you undertook the effort to produce the value of your own volition.

And taxation is definitely a whole other matter, something which I would grant is more akin (in its strictly non-evaluative, logical form) to something like slavery.

If that's the limit of your definition then obviously theft is not akin to slavery. I'm not limiting my definition to a prior or ongoing situation though, especially given the fact that a person may not always have been a slave and it could be a temporary situation (even if long) even within the normal understanding. Sharecroppers/fuedal peasants kept a portion of their earnings, and theoretically some sharecroppers could earn the land for themselves eventually. Yet we still consider both of those situations a form of slavery.

 

[Einherjar86]

Is the aspect of slaves as property not a consideration for you?

 

[Dak]

Is the aspect of slaves as property not a consideration for you?

I don't see what difference it makes in this context.

"You're not my property but whatever you produce that I randomly require is mine".

Well at least I'm not your're property amirite?