tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote:
Yes, he owned slaves. Makes me rethink my position on slave-owning....
Many perfectly good social models have been trashed by the excesses of history. Eugenics will most certainly always be associated in the public mind with anti-Semitism, and slavery with racism against Blacks. Modern slavery, if there were such a thing, would probably be pretty benevolent. Anyone would be able to sell themselves into slavery, and anyone would be able to buy their way out of it. Slave owners would be responsible for a slave's health care, education, recreation, pocket money, retirement income, and would not be able to hit, verbally abuse, or work their slaves more than a certain number of hours a day. They would also not be able to break up families. Slaves would undoubtedly be able to vote, have their own powerful union, and a track record for suing owners who didn't toe the line. Slavery would be a popular with homeless people, and with young people forced to live in toxic home environments. No parent would want the public shame of having their child choose slavery over living at home. Many people might even prefer the lifestyle, with a guaranteed standard of living absent any worries about job security, money, or competition. Just get up and put in an honest day's work, and all your needs are taken care of. The expense of downtime is the owner's problem. There would be certain vocations, like Cobol programming, which would be especially suited to being performed by slaves. Microsoft would probably own thousands of contented slaves, who would sing happily as they wrote code. "Manufactured 100% by slave labor" would be a cherished label, and the people who bought such products would know that their money was going to help eliminate many social ills, like homelessness, unemployment, foster care, and revenues for the public school system. Kathie Lee Gifford would have to defend herself for not owning enough slaves to make her proper contribution to the community. But I digress... :)