Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
395
debates
43.8%
won
Topic
#5559
The 9-5 is modern day slavery .
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
3
debates
33.33%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
Basically the 9-5 wage labor industry is a system in which some cases occupies the lives of individuals in the overtime sector.
Taking more control of individual lives mandating work as without this obligation, you cannot fulfill your obligation to the monetary prison system that enables you to live.
That's why it's called "work for a living". You have to work, be obligated , enslaved to work to live.
If you don't work, you don't eat as the biblical scripture teaches. If you don't work, you don't live.
So you are obligated to work to live. That's all slavery is in nature. Obligation. You have debt slavery, monetary enslavement and slave labor.
Now there are those that have apparently broken out of this prison in route to the wilderness.
They too have to still work to eat. They have managed to escape the monetary prison. But their obligations to utilize resources more so than back when they first started a 9 to 5 is the reality.
Basically in a nutshell how the 9 to 5 is modern day slavery.
Common objections :
I can just quit a 9 to 5 job.
How am I enslaved to it?
There's no penalty or consequence for refusing to work.
I have the "freedom" to refuse to work.
What about when the time comes to get off work, quitting time as they say?
How about vacation, holiday time and "requested" time off?
How about a leave of absence or calling off?
Aren't I free then?
Don't I have freedom period?
Nobody owns me.
Maybe uncommon objections:
Who is my master?
What is my master?
A slave is in chains and shackles.
I'm not a prisoner.
I could go on and on perhaps. The rebuttals will be coming. That's all for now. This is just an introduction.
When you really see things for what they are on a grand scale in which you have to think outside the box, you'll see what I'm talking about.
Thank you Pro for accepting me as your opponent in this debate. I do hope to accomplish either of the goals set in your description, to learn something and enrichen my wisdom from your points. Or to provide constructive enough counter-points that somebody might benefit from mine. Preferably both even.
The definition of slavery
To start I wish to define what slavery is, however with me Contender to this debate, the contender to The 9-5 is modern day slavery , I believe it would be most fitting if the instigator were the first (and preferably the only one) to give a definition for what Slavery is. I believe that debating my opponent on the grounds of what he defines as slavery, rather than going to a source like oxford dictionary, should result in my counter-points properly addressing the spirit of his arguments, rather than going around them and missing the point due to technicalities.
That is not to say that I will unquestionably accept Pro's definition no matter what it is. Hopefully it does not come to that, but either way I feel an important core question for my opponent to answer is "What is your definition of slavery?"
Addressing the current points
That said my opponent has already provided arguments, so for the time being I'll address those, and attempt to address the intended spirit of them to the best of my abilities and understanding.
Basically the 9-5 wage labor industry is a system in which some cases occupies the lives of individuals in the overtime sector.
I do appreciate the careful use of wording here. Assuming that what Pro means by this is that "in some cases, but not all of them, of the 9-5 wage labor contract, the employee is practically forced to perform overtime"
That said though, shouldn't this also be an acknowledgement that such an occurrence, forced overtime, is not an inherent, or at the very least, not a necessary feature of the 9-5 work contract? In an argument labeled The 9-5 is modern day slavery I would normally think that this would imply the mentioned slave-like features always (or at the very least, in an extreme majority) exist with it. For example if I were to say Stabbing someone accurately in the heart will kill them , the argument would be that stabbing someone accurately in the heart will result in their death in all cases, or in almost all cases. Not in what would be qualified as sometimes, or often, or even mostly.
Now that is not to say that such a remark has no place in this argument. However, if something that sometimes happens in the 9-5 work contract and sometimes doesn't (in this case, forced overtime) is at the very least a supporting point to your argument, I would like you to elaborate on how it is.
Taking more control of individual lives mandating work as without this obligation, you cannot fulfill your obligation to the monetary prison system that enables you to live.That's why it's called "work for a living". You have to work, be obligated , enslaved to work to live.If you don't work, you don't eat as the biblical scripture teaches. If you don't work, you don't live.So you are obligated to work to live. That's all slavery is in nature. Obligation. You have debt slavery, monetary enslavement and slave labor.
While I would agree that in a situation where you "Do xyz or else you will die", you are indeed de facto forced to do xyz against your will. The question is "forced by who?" though. Because while the immediate suspect would be the other party of the work contract, the employer, the chain of obligation you yourself outlined traces it back to human biological necessities, among which is one such example you have mentioned, the necessity to eat. Indeed in most situations if you don't have money, you can't buy food. And if you can't get food, you will die. The line of logic naturally follows that, "in most situations, if you don't have money you will die" leading to "you are forced to have money", or more accurately to have an income in some form or another.
I have many questions in response to this though:
- If your natural follow up is "therefor the employer is forcing you to work?" because "therefor the employer is forcing you to work to supply you with an income of money". What is the connection that leads to this follow up? What is the detailed elaboration on why "You must have an income" leads to "the employer is forcing you to work for income"?
- If the chain of obligation leads back to our biological necessities, but the employer is not the cause of it, why is he to blame for our situation. And if he is not. What role does pointing out our necessities have in establishing the employer's culpability?
- Are we entitled to having our biological necessities fulfilled without work.(provided we're work capable) If the answer is yes, who is responsible for it and why them specifically? And if the answer is not, are we instead entitled to the opportunity of earning our keep? and that that should not be under such unreasonable conditions as a work routine that lasts form 9 to 5?
In addition to this, I wish to ask a question outside of the scenario in order to get a better grasp on what you consider and don't consider slavery. If there was a person, lets call him Mark, who needed an immediate home to shelter in, and that if I refused him he would die. If under such a situation I agreed to shelter him but only under the condition that he always cleans up after himself. All of his trash he discards properly in the trash bin, any plates or other kitchen ware he uses he must clean after, the clothes and bedsheets he uses he must clean when they smell. That if he regularly fails to fulfil these conditions intentionally he will be kicked out. Mark here is technically in a situation where "he must have shelter or else he will die" and "I will provide shelter for him only if he does xyz" and also "xyz is technically labor". Leading to "If mark does not do labor he will die". In this situation, does it qualify to accurately and confidently say the statement that "I am forcing Mark to perform labor"? and, does it qualify to accurately and confidently say that Mark is my slave, or that he is performing slave labor, and/or that Mark is a slave to the system?
Now there are those that have apparently broken out of this prison in route to the wilderness.They too have to still work to eat. They have managed to escape the monetary prison. But their obligations to utilize resources more so than back when they first started a 9 to 5 is the reality.
I do appreciate the sober acknowledgment of this existing exception here, that there are those who can make ends meet without using money. Without participating in what you'd call the monetary prison system. And to the best of my ability to understand you, I am guessing that the intention from conveying this is that leaving the monetary prison system is no real alternative, as the labor cost of survival is even higher and the resource acquisition less efficient than it usually is in a 9-5 contract. (Or at least, that is my understanding of "more so than back when they first started a 9 to 5 is the reality")
What confuses me however is that, once again, if the chain of obligation traces back to the human biological necessities for survival. How does this follow into framing the 9-5 as at fault? As being responsible for this obligation?
I suppose another way I could frame the question as, if there can be a situation where the monetary prison system did not exist, (and indeed, long enough ago it didn't) but the obligation to fulfil our survival necessities still existed. How would the monetary prison system be responsible, accountable, for our human necessities. And if it is not, what is the elaboration that makes it so that the connection between the monetary prison system and human necessities supports your argument?
Additionally, if labor for money (at least, up to the point where you work from 9 to 5) is slave labor. But prior to the existence of the monetary prison system (and by extension, the 9-5 contract you'd form with an employer) labor for resources is a survival necessity. Is your position that 9-5 is slave labor but labor for resources isn't slave labor? Or is your position that both of those are slave labor? Or is it a different more nuanced answer? And in any of the three cases why is that the case?
My own objections
Here I will lay out, instead of counter questions, some of my own arguments as to why the 9-5 contract model is not slave labor. Or at the very least, that it is not necessarily one. That it is incorrect to say that it is always slave labor in all situations, or that it is almost always slave labor in the grand majority of situations.
1.Disposable income
Not everyone who works or is employed works out of necessity. Sometimes people work simply in order to buy nice things, pretty clothes, a new car, a high end computer, any of the many items or services that would qualify under the term of "luxury purchases". Such people, who most of if not sometimes all of their work income falls under disposable income, are not forced to work in order to make ends meet. And such people exist in no small number, although the percentage of them varies depending on country.
I am such a person. Even though I live in Egypt, not usually a charitable country to its citizens, I am in the exact situation that makes it so that I never need to work to put food on the table. I own my apartment and don't need to pay rent other than 100 EGP (2 USD) to the building owner. As a result of being diagnosed with autism, I have an early pension of 6000 EGP (125 USD) a month.(and of which I give half of to my cousin's education) My medical necessities are covered by the nearby military hospital as a result of my father being a veteran. Of which currently I get a free supply of Insulin as a result of my diabetes. My current savings are at 200,000 EGP of which give me from the bank a little under 2000 EGP monthly.
As a result of this, I do not need to work an hour in my entire life to make ends meet. Or even to afford a few luxuries such as this pretty decent-ish gaming computer. And yet, for the simple reason that I wish I had more money to buy or do more things with, I perform labor anyway.
Granted I will admit that my labor is far less time committal than a 9-5 work contract. However it comes to reason that I still could enter a 9-5 contract provided I found an employer I could agree with, and I argue that given 100% of my work income would be disposable income, that is a scenario in which it should be without a doubt that I am not performing slave labor under your current argument. Given that the meat of your current argument is that slave labor traces back to obligation, and I have no such obligation as a result of my very fortunate situation.
And that is in a still developing 3rd world country like Egypt. I believe that the percentage of individuals, under a fortunate enough condition where "the obligation to work to make ends meet" does not exist for them, is even higher in developed countries with good living, working conditions, as well as proper enough labor laws and welfare systems. A high enough percentage that it would be firmly incorrect to say that all, or the grand majority, of people who work 9 to 5 in such countries, are performing so out of the obligation to satisfy human biological necessity.
2.Charity work
An additional situation that can be testimony that when one works it is not out of necessity is charity work. If a person's regular labor is non-profit, is not made with the intention of breaking even with expenses, and sometimes without even any revenue at all, then that usually means that such a person does not have monetary obligations to fulfill, or at the very least that they're able to fulfil their obligations without work income. Charity work does not always but can take the form of a 9-5 labor routine.
This time I am not the personal example here, that honor instead goes to my father. When he worked as a doctor in his own clinic he provided free service to those unable to afford payment who came to him. Additionally after he'd retired he became vice-president and then president of a charity organization dedicated to helping the elderly.
And impressively, even while much of his time, labor and resources were spent on profitless endeavors. He still had enough leftover to send me to a private school, a private college, and leave me in such a financially stable enough situation that, the concept of "making ends meet" was simply completely foreign to me. My dad's life was filled with a great deal of labor free from obligation. What would properly qualify as "voluntary labor".
I can not say for certain that father's labor routine was exactly from 9 to 5. However I can confidently say that it was something of a comparable level of time commitment given what he'd told me and when his clinic needed to be open and available.
3.The monetary prison system
Even under the situation where a person is required to work in order to make ends meet. What makes the free market system, common currency, the work contract, or whichever it is you intended to target with your remarks, as something that "The monetary prison system" is a fitting description for?
There are several thought routes I like to employ whenever deciding whether or not to apply blame and/or accountability for something, or someone. One of those methods is "how would things be if it did not exist". I already laid out this objection in the Addressing the current points segment, but to elaborate further in a way in which I make claims/conclusions rather than ask questions:
- If common currency did not exist, (which at a time it didn't yet), we would have the inferior bartering system, where if you were to run into someone who had items you wished to trade for, you might not necessarily have the items he desires, or vice versa.
- If the free market system did not exist, then not even bartering would exist. (at least, legally)
- If the work contract did not exist. A person who can not farm, hunt or otherwise directly acquire their own food, could not survive period. Even those normally in a "work or die" situation where they're forced to work, if you take away the work contract most of their positions simply change to "die".
Another route I'd like to employ is what does it directly serve? What transitional change happens as a result of going from it not existing to it existing?
- When the common currency existed. Trade was made easier as a result of it no longer being necessary that both members of a trade deal desired each others' goods or services.
- When the free market system took form (or rather, grew), people were able to specialize over a certain trade rather than have to do a little bit of everything in order to satisfy their necessities, their obligations. And by extension, relatively more freedom in your choice of labor. Including obligation fulfilling labor. (Not always relatively more freedom for everyone. But almost never less freedom for someone)
- When the work contract took form as a natural progression of the free market system. The agreement to provide labor for payment. People were able to specialize over yet more options, it was no longer necessary that their trade produced a physical tradable product such as food, clothing or furniture. And even in cases of labor that produces physical products, that it was no longer necessary for the laborer to also be the salesman of the product. Relatively more freedom in your choice of labor, including obligation fulfilling labor. (Same here as well. Not always relatively more freedom for everyone. But almost never less freedom for someone)
The introduction of these things, at least according to my claim, come with positives for some people and negatives to nearly nobody. And by extension can be claimed that these, generally speaking, make our living conditions better than if they didn't exist. I would argue that this is a supporting argument against naming any of these things as fitting of the term "monetary prison system"
4.How does chattel slavery compare?
To clarify, what I mean by chattel slavery is slavery in which the slave is legally another person's private property. The most known example of which the system the United States used to enslave black people. Which I hope to believe no reasonable person would challenge that the term "slavery" fits it.
Now before I continue, I would like to clarify that in order for your argument to be correct, the 9-5 work contract does not necessarily have to be exactly like chattel slavery. What I hope to accomplish however is that by comparing certain aspects of chattel slavery to the 9-5 work contract and/or to any of the things that you might potentially be pointing to as "The monetary prison system", a could show a few more points that further support my claim that the 9-5 work contract is not slavery. Or that "The monetary prison system" does not fit what I currently think you're coining as such.
How would things be if it did not exist? : We have the answer to this question. Chattel slavery, as a legal institution, is abolished in most countries. And in pretty much every instance of a country performing this, the overall living conditions of its people have improved. And yet more so when it was completely eradicated as a practice. While technically the introduction of slavery benefits slave owners and slave traders and sometimes creates works of labor, this happens unjustly at the expense of the slaves. The introduction of chattel slavery is generally a negative, is a positive for some, and a negative for many, both unjustly so. The removal of it a negative for some, and a positive for many, both justly so.
What does it directly serve? : What does chattel slavery bring to the table? Well, aside from the complete dehumanization of individuals as a result of legally making them private property. It provides the ability for slave owners to get free labor from their slaves. Without the slave's ability to negotiate their position, their work hours, their work conditions, their pay or their contract length. The fact the slave is given food and a place to live by the slave owner is not something chattel slavery brings to the table. You can negotiate labor for living space and food under a work contract. Chattel slavery has nothing positive to offer to slaves, only negatives. And the positives they provide slave owners are unjust.
Additionally, a direct example of how societies can develop differently based on the existence or absence of chattel slavery are the northern states and southern states of the United States before chattel slavery's abolition, and how they developed differently. Generally speaking the southern states not only depended on slave labor for their economic relevancy, but even beyond that according to them, required that slavery continue to be expanded in order for their influence to not degrade.
By comparison, the northern states have found ways in which, resource acquisition and wealth increase can be achieved to a comparable if not greater degree, without the need to exploit chattel slave labor. Without it coming at the expense (or at a comparable level of expense) of the laborer. Societies without chattel slavery, as far as the general populace's wellbeing is concerned, perform much better than societies with chattel slavery.
Chattel slavery, in regards to what change its introduction brings. Has nothing positive to bring either on the general individual level or in the development of societies, only negatives. And no negatives come from its abolition either on the general individual level or in the development of societies, only positives.
I would argue that, while these are not necessarily iron clad points that the 9-5 work contract isn't slavery, or that free markets, common currency, or the work contract aren't a "monetary prison system". They should still be relevant points given that, the introduction of chattel slavery only increases pain, misery, injustice and forced obligation. While the 9-5 work contract, free markets and common currency, while can arguably be connected with pain, misery and injustice and forced obligation, do not increase to any of those things. That in fact their introduction decreases them.
A final question
It is possible that your argument might be something similar to "the 9-5 work contract does not cause obligation or increase injustice, but it exploits it and takes advantage of it". If such is the case, I would like to know what are the nuances that makes this argument reconcilable with my current claim that the introduction of the work contract has only potential positives and few/no negatives? If such a claim is left unchallenged. (I suppose if you challenge that claim, then you might be less inclined to answer this question)
Round 2
"I believe that debating my opponent on the grounds of what he defines as slavery, rather than going to a source like oxford dictionary, should result in my counter-points properly addressing the spirit of his arguments, rather than going around them and missing the point due to technicalities."
Very important point for the whole debating world. Dictionaries are not sources for words and definitions. Dictionaries are references that report information that came from the source which are people. People use language in a reality that communicates it between individual persons.
A dictionary holds a consensus of a general usage as well as outlier usages that may be recorded or not depending on how often updates occur.
But if these usages aren't recorded, do the definitions not exist or are they invalid?
Or course not. So we ought to be very careful at keeping this in mind when we're handling any definitions.
"What is your definition of slavery?"
My definition is just what reality presents. So it's not really my definition. I didn't come up with it myself or invent it. I don't have exclusive rights on it. But reality has demonstrated that those who are obligated to do something or are unable to do one thing without being forced or obligated to do something else is enslaved.
I trust that this doesn't vary much from any dictionary definition if you understand the complete picture.
"That said though, shouldn't this also be an acknowledgement that such an occurrence, forced overtime, is not an inherent, or at the very least, not a necessary feature of the 9-5 work contract? In an argument labeled The 9-5 is modern day slavery I would normally think that this would imply the mentioned slave-like features always (or at the very least, in an extreme majority) exist with it."
The point to focus on is the amount of time spent just working instead of living your life with the "free" time you are allowed to have once you're not on the clock.
Which is subject to change based on being obligated to work in order to live .
"However, if something that sometimes happens in the 9-5 work contract and sometimes doesn't (in this case, forced overtime) is at the very least a supporting point to your argument, I would like you to elaborate on how it is."
It doesn't change the status of enslavement whether it's 40 hours or more. See what we have to know is the multiple levels to enslavement. Some slaves are enslaved to more or less duties according to the master see. Those chains that you have on whether physical or not , it doesn't matter, can have a whole lot of slack or very little. You're still enslaved nevertheless.
See the general public doesn't contemplate in these terms because slavery to the general concept is just physical shackles, brutality, whips and a paper that stamps one and another as property.
But just as the opposing side mentions "the spirit" of the thing. This means in essence, what do we have?
I understand it's more comfortable to say I'm a working person that has to do this , has to do that for this amount of time versus just saying I'm enslaved to the monetary system via a work for a living.
"The question is "forced by who?" though."
At this point, day and time, it's not really a "who " anymore. It's the dollar bill or currency that has been designed that in turn has trapped man apparently, that he cannot get out of . Maybe he can. But for right now he is subject to the system of monetary supremacy.
By the way I want to insert this here so I don't forget. I appreciate the opposing effort. I have interacted with individuals that will not treat these exchanges seriously and carefully at all. I would like to request what topics of interest the opposing side wishes to engage in, let me know.
"If there was a person, lets call him Mark, who needed an immediate home to shelter in, and that if I refused him he would die. If under such a situation I agreed to shelter him but only under the condition that he always cleans up after himself. All of his trash he discards properly in the trash bin, any plates or other kitchen ware he uses he must clean after, the clothes and bedsheets he uses he must clean when they smell. That if he regularly fails to fulfil these conditions intentionally he will be kicked out. Mark here is technically in a situation where "he must have shelter or else he will die" and "I will provide shelter for him only if he does xyz" and also "xyz is technically labor". Leading to "If mark does not do labor he will die". In this situation, does it qualify to accurately and confidently say the statement that "I am forcing Mark to perform labor"? and, does it qualify to accurately and confidently say that Mark is my slave, or that he is performing slave labor, and/or that Mark is a slave to the system?"
It qualifies that the person is enslaved under the system.
The person is enslaved under the system. It is because of the system that you made this arrangement of work for a living. The person is enslaved via the delegation of labor under the system which is comparative as a 9-5 , trading time for money or some sort of compensation. Again, generally people don't use the term slavery as they already have a solidified picture of slavery just depicting a plantation and ships and whips. If you think in a conventional way or in a box, none of this will be apparent to you as you haven't given thought to such a subject.
"I am guessing that the intention from conveying this is that leaving the monetary prison system is no real alternative, as the labor cost of survival is even higher and the resource acquisition less efficient than it usually is in a 9-5 contract. (Or at least, that is my understanding of "more so than back when they first started a 9 to 5 is the reality")"
The likelihood of surviving in the wilderness is in question besides. This is a good reason why the average person will be found participating in the economy more so than not.
"What confuses me however is that, once again, if the chain of obligation traces back to the human biological necessities for survival. How does this follow into framing the 9-5 as at fault? As being responsible for this obligation?
I suppose another way I could frame the question as, if there can be a situation where the monetary prison system did not exist, (and indeed, long enough ago it didn't) but the obligation to fulfil our survival necessities still existed. How would the monetary prison system be responsible, accountable, for our human necessities. And if it is not, what is the elaboration that makes it so that the connection between the monetary prison system and human necessities supports your argument?"
No no no. Let me give you the perspective of this to where it is the most simple and going in one direction.
The topic is centered around the 9-5 . So we're dealing with the system of currency or the monetary system that was clearly invented. It is because of this , it has enslaved people.
Just think about it . In the system of monetary supremacy, what can you do that does not require monetary compensation directly or indirectly?
"Additionally, if labor for money (at least, up to the point where you work from 9 to 5) is slave labor. But prior to the existence of the monetary prison system (and by extension, the 9-5 contract you'd form with an employer) labor for resources is a survival necessity. Is your position that 9-5 is slave labor but labor for resources isn't slave labor? Or is your position that both of those are slave labor? Or is it a different more nuanced answer? And in any of the three cases why is that the case?"
I'm not taking a position on before the monetary system was. That's not the topic see.
"Here I will lay out, instead of counter questions, some of my own arguments as to why the 9-5 contract model is not slave labor. Or at the very least, that it is not necessarily one. That it is incorrect to say that it is always slave labor in all situations, or that it is almost always slave labor in the grand majority of situations."
Are people in the system of currency,obligated to work , to do something in order to receive compensation for a living?
Just think about that and what can you do without financial obligation in order to acquire what is required to sustain.
"Such people, who most of if not sometimes all of their work income falls under disposable income, are not forced to work in order to make ends meet. And such people exist in no small number, although the percentage of them varies depending on country."
Question is what are these people doing or have done to sustain themselves?
"I am such a person. Even though I live in Egypt, not usually a charitable country to its citizens, I am in the exact situation that makes it so that I never need to work to put food on the table. I own my apartment and don't need to pay rent other than 100 EGP (2 USD) to the building owner."
You say "other than" so you are obligated financially.
"As a result of being diagnosed with autism, I have an early pension of 6000 EGP (125 USD) a month.(and of which I give half of to my cousin's education) My medical necessities are covered by the nearby military hospital as a result of my father being a veteran. Of which currently I get a free supply of Insulin as a result of my diabetes. My current savings are at 200,000 EGP of which give me from the bank a little under 2000 EGP monthly."
If you notice, all of this is integrated with the obligation of somebody working in the system of currency. There's no separation at all. This is what I mean by seeing the whole picture. One way or the other, you're still subject to the currency system.
You may qualify for some great slack in your chains but the chains are still there.
"As a result of this, I do not need to work an hour in my entire life to make ends meet. Or even to afford a few luxuries such as this pretty decent-ish gaming computer. And yet, for the simple reason that I wish I had more money to buy or do more things with, I perform labor anyway.
Granted I will admit that my labor is far less time committal than a 9-5 work contract. However it comes to reason that I still could enter a 9-5 contract provided I found an employer I could agree with, and I argue that given 100% of my work income would be disposable income, that is a scenario in which it should be without a doubt that I am not performing slave labor under your current argument. Given that the meat of your current argument is that slave labor traces back to obligation, and I have no such obligation as a result of my very fortunate situation."
You say you do not have to work an hour. What amount time are you obligated to maintain the current situation you have?
My argument is under the currency system you are obligated financially indirectly or directly via 9-5 particularly. But even you, according to what you've said, you're not exempt from financial obligation.
You're 9-5 could be just 9 seconds to 5 minutes, whatever.
In order to be subsidized by government which the currency system is also maintained, obligates you to do something in order to receive qualified compensation which can hinder or make burdens lighter. But we still have either a tighter or looser slack in them chains.
Now being that the topic is about people being obligated to give up much of their time for money, I don't really have to counter your particular situation.
Even still, you're not even exempt.
"And that is in a still developing 3rd world country like Egypt. I believe that the percentage of individuals, under a fortunate enough condition where "the obligation to work to make ends meet" does not exist for them, is even higher in developed countries with good living, working conditions, as well as proper enough labor laws and welfare systems. A high enough percentage that it would be firmly incorrect to say that all, or the grand majority, of people who work 9 to 5 in such countries, are performing so out of the obligation to satisfy human biological necessity."
Where there is no currency system, there's no financial obligation. So that's the first question you ask looking at any where in the world.
If there is such a system, you are obligated financially indirectly or directly. You are not free of finances so the "financial freedom" idea is a myth .
"2.Charity work" and working out of your own volition, not necessary for a living aside from necessary obligatory work for compensation is not a part of the topic.
To help keep this on track so you're not diving into all these other facets, recall the following from the first round:
"Taking more control of individual lives mandating work as without this obligation, you cannot fulfill your obligation to the monetary prison system that enables you to live."
"a could show a few more points that further support my claim that the 9-5 work contract is not slavery. Or that "The monetary prison system" does not fit what I currently think you're coining as such."
What does the term "slavery " mean to you?
I don't believe you use the terms "monetary prison system" so I will ask you , do you understand what I mean when I say "monetary prison system"?
"It is possible that your argument might be something similar to "the 9-5 work contract does not cause obligation or increase injustice, but it exploits it and takes advantage of it". If such is the case, I would like to know what are the nuances that makes this argument reconcilable with my current claim that the introduction of the work contract has only potential positives and few/no negatives? If such a claim is left unchallenged. (I suppose if you challenge that claim, then you might be less inclined to answer this question)"
I'm going to respond this way and forgive me if I am not answering directly but I tend to simplify things as best as needed.
The 9-5 workforce is modern slavery. Why do I say that?
Well it's because of obligation versus the freedom of your time or being free to use your time how you choose versus being obligated to trade it for compensation.
Even when you're "off " duty or have a day "off" work you're not free as that is under regulation, parameter and a 9-5 commission. It's one of the many conditions tied to your enslavement.
Now if you just stay within the details of these latter two paragraphs, in the confines of them, ask questions if needed within them, we can approach resolution, even agreement even smoother.
Now I stress again, the terms slavery, slave, enslavement, prison, monetary prison are foreign terms to label the 9-5 and even everyday commerce with.
So initially,this rhetoric may not be received or digested easily or even rejected. Topics like these catch attention so therefore the opposing side accepted.
But you have to follow and explore exactly what I'm saying to understand the sense of it. You can't rephrase or twist what I'm saying or else you'll always miss the validity of it.
Thank you for clarifying many things Pro. I can not claim to confidently fully understand your stance yet. But I'll continue trying to limit counter-points that might not be addressing the spirit of your points at all.
But reality has demonstrated that those who are obligated to do something or are unable to do one thing without being forced or obligated to do something else is enslaved.I trust that this doesn't vary much from any dictionary definition if you understand the complete picture.
If possible, could you further elaborate on this?
At this point, day and time, it's not really a "who " anymore. It's the dollar bill or currency that has been designed that in turn has trapped man apparently, that he cannot get out of . Maybe he can. But for right now he is subject to the system of monetary supremacy.
I think this is two answers so I will respond to each separately. Could you elaborate on what you mean by day and time?
And, if the dollar bill or currency were to disappear or be eradicated (in whatever form you imagine, if possible), would this put an end to the enslavement we're under?
By the way I want to insert this here so I don't forget. I appreciate the opposing effort. I have interacted with individuals that will not treat these exchanges seriously and carefully at all. I would like to request what topics of interest the opposing side wishes to engage in, let me know.
I already responded to this, but I wished to show it here to convey my respect for you in return.
It qualifies that the person is enslaved under the system.The person is enslaved under the system. It is because of the system that you made this arrangement of work for a living. The person is enslaved via the delegation of labor under the system which is comparative as a 9-5 , trading time for money or some sort of compensation. Again, generally people don't use the term slavery as they already have a solidified picture of slavery just depicting a plantation and ships and whips. If you think in a conventional way or in a box, none of this will be apparent to you as you haven't given thought to such a subject.
Hmmmm, best as I understand what you wrote, I am not the enslaver, or the one accountable for enacting slavery within the context of this example, but Mark is enslaved by the system as a result of the system compelling me to make such an arrangement.
My follow up question. What if I did not enforce or tell him these conditions at all and sheltered him unconditionally? That if he doesn't clean up after himself I clean up after him. Would the only thing that change is that the chains slacken on him and tighten on me given that I'll be doing the labor instead?
No no no. Let me give you the perspective of this to where it is the most simple and going in one direction.The topic is centered around the 9-5 . So we're dealing with the system of currency or the monetary system that was clearly invented. It is because of this , it has enslaved people.Just think about it . In the system of monetary supremacy, what can you do that does not require monetary compensation directly or indirectly?
That does not answer my question. Ok, so my narrative is that the addition of currency has generally made life better for humanity overall than before it existed. My question is, how do you reconcile this with the narrative that the monetary system enslaves people?
I'm not taking a position on before the monetary system was. That's not the topic see.
I believe you misunderstand me. I do not claim that you made a claim regarding affirming or denying that the conditions before the monetary system qualify as slave labor.
I will however insist on the relevancy of the question to the topic at hand, as I believe it helps me examine what you believe to be the conditions of slavery independent of its relation to the monetary system or the 9-5 work contract. Further helping establishing the identifying factors/features of slavery. (An example similar question, asking "is apple a fruit" in a "is tomato a fruit" debate).
To be clear you can still choose to not answer this question, as is the case with all of my question. I do however wish for you to answer it for the benefit of my understanding.
Question is what are these people doing or have done to sustain themselves?
The answer could differ from individual to individual. In my case the answer is "absolutely nothing", the government gives me my pension, and I get some more money from the bank.
You say "other than" so you are obligated financially.Where there is no currency system, there's no financial obligation. So that's the first question you ask looking at any where in the world.If there is such a system, you are obligated financially indirectly or directly. You are not free of finances so the "financial freedom" idea is a myth .
To clarify, does the presence of financial obligation at the absence of work obligation still qualifies the conditions of me being a slave to the system?
You say you do not have to work an hour. What amount time are you obligated to maintain the current situation you have?My argument is under the currency system you are obligated financially indirectly or directly via 9-5 particularly. But even you, according to what you've said, you're not exempt from financial obligation.You're 9-5 could be just 9 seconds to 5 minutes, whatever.
When I said I don't have to work an hour. I did not mean "I am required to work less than an hour", I meant "I am not required to work at all". I don't have to work for 5 minutes or 9 seconds. I mean, unless the trip to the grocery store counts as work.
In order to be subsidized by government which the currency system is also maintained, obligates you to do something in order to receive qualified compensation which can hinder or make burdens lighter. But we still have either a tighter or looser slack in them chains.Now being that the topic is about people being obligated to give up much of their time for money, I don't really have to counter your particular situation.Even still, you're not even exempt.
But what is this something that I am obligated to do to qualify? All I do currently is collect my pension every month using a separate bank card. Is my trip to the ATM obligated time spent for money?
Or are you referring to when I went to the military hospital to get diagnosed for autism several years ago? In either case if your argument is "much of their time for money", neither of these things is much time at all.
"2.Charity work" and working out of your own volition, not necessary for a living aside from necessary obligatory work for compensation is not a part of the topic.To help keep this on track so you're not diving into all these other facets, recall the following from the first round:"Taking more control of individual lives mandating work as without this obligation, you cannot fulfill your obligation to the monetary prison system that enables you to live."
I will counter this assertion by saying that charity work is relevant to the topic at hand as it provides an alternative scenario where work (the 9-5) is not born from obligation, is not slavery.
It might not counter the claim "some work is slavery", but I believe that it at least puts into question the claim "all work is slavery" and by extension, the general statement "work is slavery".
Additionally it potentially provides examples of individuals free from obligation, via the explanation that if they had obligation, they would put their energy towards that instead of towards optional voluntary labor. That, mentioning your quote, such individuals (many of them at least) are free from more control being taken from their lives duo to mandated work as a result of necessary obligation.
What does the term "slavery " mean to you?
To be de facto (not necessarily de jure) someone else's property. So for example, those in Nazi concentration camps or Russian gulags would qualify as slaves. Blackmail also could potentially make you someone's slave. I do not personally believe conditions such as making ends meet, needing to eat, or such qualify as slavery.(except in situations where an individual (or several) is creating those conditions or making them worse) The legalization of chattel slavery is not necessary. I believe that the monetary system is not responsible for, and did not make worse, our human need for resources, and I do not believe nature, time or day to be the culprit. I believe the conditions for one to be a slave requires the culpability of at least one other (if not several) human being involved.
I don't believe you use the terms "monetary prison system" so I will ask you , do you understand what I mean when I say "monetary prison system"?
To the best of my understanding, the dollar, the euro, the pound, or whichever currency is being used. The system surrounding it forces the individual to use it to pay for goods, among which are necessary goods. And that same system forces the individual to give up his time and energy in order to get a steady supply of said currency.
Now I stress again, the terms slavery, slave, enslavement, prison, monetary prison are foreign terms to label the 9-5 and even everyday commerce with.So initially,this rhetoric may not be received or digested easily or even rejected. Topics like these catch attention so therefore the opposing side accepted.But you have to follow and explore exactly what I'm saying to understand the sense of it. You can't rephrase or twist what I'm saying or else you'll always miss the validity of it.
That is why I ask so many questions.
The 9-5 workforce is modern slavery. Why do I say that?Well it's because of obligation versus the freedom of your time or being free to use your time how you choose versus being obligated to trade it for compensation.Even when you're "off " duty or have a day "off" work you're not free as that is under regulation, parameter and a 9-5 commission. It's one of the many conditions tied to your enslavement.
When you say the 9-5 workforce. Given what I've said about my work situation, do I qualify as part of that workforce?
Do people who perform charity work qualify for that labor force?
Do people whose work profit is 100% disposable income qualify for that labor force?
A few more questions of my own
Given that, while I might believe I have a better understanding of your stance, there's always room for potential error in understanding, I have the following question in addition to the ones I asked in responses.
Who are the slaves to the system you described? Is it everyone?
Given that chattel slavery is absolutely abhorrent and morally unethical. Do you believe the current system of slavery also abhorrent and/or morally unethical, and if so is it equally that to chattel slavery?
Do you believe there to be a solution or alternative to our current system of slavery? And if so do you know it and what is it?
If a person, say, worked for 7 years, and then from that he acquired enough money to support him and all his needs for the rest of his life. And assuming he qualified for the term slave during those 7 years. Is he still a slave after the 7 years are over and he is well and fully retired?
Round 3
"Thank you for clarifying many things Pro. I can not claim to confidently fully understand your stance yet. But I'll continue trying to limit counter-points that might not be addressing the spirit of your points at all."
Hey let's do a part 2.
"But reality has demonstrated that those who are obligated to do something or are unable to do one thing without being forced or obligated to do something else is enslaved.
I trust that this doesn't vary much from any dictionary definition if you understand the complete picture."
"If possible, could you further elaborate on this?"
Yes real simple. I'm talking about money. Name something you can do in the system of monetary supremacy or the economy, that is not subject to financial compensation.
"Could you elaborate on what you mean by day and time?"
Yes I mean modern day, the current day.
"And, if the dollar bill or currency were to disappear or be eradicated (in whatever form you imagine, if possible), would this put an end to the enslavement we're under?"
Yes, the enslavement of the monetary system as it would not exist .
"My follow up question. What if I did not enforce or tell him these conditions at all and sheltered him unconditionally? That if he doesn't clean up after himself I clean up after him. Would the only thing that change is that the chains slacken on him and tighten on me given that I'll be doing the labor instead?"
My my I enjoy discussing this topic. You could look at it that way of support. Being that you're already under the system, your obligation was what it was just supporting you. Now you decide to accommodate for another. How much more do you have to mill or mull over in the prison yard or world?
The person that you are supporting is still subject to the system because it's through the system that maintains you and the other person.
If I'm in a penal prison and my fellow cell mate does most or all of my work detail, we're still both in prison. The cell mate does my laundry, gets whatever I need from the commissary, keeps our cell tidy. In order for me to sustain in prison, these obligations still have to be met for me. So I'm still subject to them in that prison. I'm in prison but at the hands of another that meets his, he's a valet for mine. But I'm still under the same regulation.
Otherwise in your example you wouldn't have to accommodate for the extra weight because you wouldn't have a system at all that would obligate you to do that if that was the case.
"That does not answer my question. Ok, so my narrative is that the addition of currency has generally made life better for humanity overall than before it existed. My question is, how do you reconcile this with the narrative that the monetary system enslaves people?"
You're asking out of a bias to the currency system. I'll compare it to a slave or a prisoner that is living life perhaps in comfort or in luxury within the prison system. This is as long as we're talking about what is "better". Especially if you're born a slave. You're used to the life you live and you're satisfied right. Why change it? Why get away from massa? You're content with slave life .
So you can find all kinds of satisfaction within the enslavement. This topic isn't particularly dealing with "better" or worse. It just acknowledges the state of affairs based on a perspective if you care or are open to look at it that way. Which would be going out of the box. But when you're in a box, you can't see things the same . Just as an institutionalized prisoner in a box that hasn't even realized he's had this done to him .
"I will however insist on the relevancy of the question to the topic at hand, as I believe it helps me examine what you believe to be the conditions of slavery independent of its relation to the monetary system or the 9-5 work contract. Further helping establishing the identifying factors/features of slavery. (An example similar question, asking "is apple a fruit" in a "is tomato a fruit" debate).
To be clear you can still choose to not answer this question, as is the case with all of my question. I do however wish for you to answer it for the benefit of my understanding."
What is the question? I didn't see a question mark. I can answer a question when it's obvious to the topic.
"The answer could differ from individual to individual. In my case the answer is "absolutely nothing", the government gives me my pension, and I get some more money from the bank."
This is what I mean by looking at things on a grand scale, as in the whole picture or big picture.
Are you just "given" money right from out the womb?
Has anybody from the womb?
Has anybody involved in your delivery to outside the womb just been given money to without having to do something or meet specific conditions?
We're talking about money. You better believe we're going to be talking about obligation somewhere.
I don't believe you do absolutely nothing because you haven't told me so. Also, if you're not in a nominal 9-5 job situation, your outlier situation doesn't actually apply to the topic.
So just a remainder to keep within the topic. Is the modern 9-5 slavery?
Yes. You are obligated to meet financial compensation in order to live.
"To clarify, does the presence of financial obligation at the absence of work obligation still qualifies the conditions of me being a slave to the system?"
The answer is in the question. Yes. You said presence of financial obligation.
"When I said I don't have to work an hour. I did not mean "I am required to work less than an hour", I meant "I am not required to work at all". I don't have to work for 5 minutes or 9 seconds. I mean, unless the trip to the grocery store counts as work."
I don't know about your particular situation but people are obligated to commute to the store or make arrangements of the sort to meet payment obligation that a store would require.
"But what is this something that I am obligated to do to qualify?
I would expect you know this or the appropriate representative party would know this better than me. I'm not involved in that.
Does a government entity just give out money or does there have to be some type of formal request obligated to be made?
I'm sure there is an obligatory process there. I think you mentioned others that were obligated had a hand in it. Not to mention those that work in the official offices have their obligations to meet in order to make your financial situation possible.
Everywhere you turn, there is a corner or angle of a frame in the network of an obligatory network.
"All I do currently is collect my pension every month using a separate bank card. Is my trip to the ATM obligated time spent for money?"
It depends. You can probably answer yourself. Look at everything you do. Then ask "Do I have to do this in order to get xyz?"
Those that don't have to work to make money but make money while they sleep. They can ask themselves, do they have to do this and that.
So asking me are you obligated or not, if you know what the word means, you can answer based on your situation.
"Or are you referring to when I went to the military hospital to get diagnosed for autism several years ago? In either case if your argument is "much of their time for money", neither of these things is much time at all."
I'm not even going to refer to your specific situation as it's off topic. I'll just leave it general. You can speak on your situation and ask yourself, "Was anything necessary or required to be done?"
By who? If you say not you, then by who?
If you take an honest look, you say yes and it falls in line with the system. The same system that delegates via a 9-5 and any other assistance program.
You have financial assistance programs, allowances and subsidies due to the monetary system by the way.
"I will counter this assertion by saying that charity work is relevant to the topic at hand as it provides an alternative scenario where work (the 9-5) is not born from obligation, is not slavery.
It might not counter the claim "some work is slavery", but I believe that it at least puts into question the claim "all work is slavery" and by extension, the general statement "work is slavery".
The question or problem is, money. This is the whole picture. Who's making it to live off of?
People that aren't retired have to work for a living. They have to do it. Now what they do in their spare time or even when retired, doesn't matter.
The 9-5 I'm talking about which I believe I specified in the first round is enslavement.
"Additionally it potentially provides examples of individuals free from obligation, via the explanation that if they had obligation, they would put their energy towards that instead of towards optional voluntary labor. That, mentioning your quote, such individuals (many of them at least) are free from more control being taken from their lives duo to mandated work as a result of necessary obligation."
If you go over that first round I believe in the first paragraph or so I went over in context of the 9-5 labor industry.
So if you're talking about anything else but that, you're actually not referring to my position. I never made the statement that charity work or any work you don't do for a living is slavery. So we want to stay at the goalpost.
"I believe that the monetary system is not responsible for, and did not make worse, our human need for resources, and I do not believe nature, time or day to be the culprit. I believe the conditions for one to be a slave requires the culpability of at least one other (if not several) human being involved."
Ok so there's disagreement on the term slavery. So from this point, let's just look at this topic like this. Is there anything one does in the system of monetary supremacy that's not subject to money direct or indirectly?
"To the best of my understanding, the dollar, the euro, the pound, or whichever currency is being used. The system surrounding it forces the individual to use it to pay for goods, among which are necessary goods. And that same system forces the individual to give up his time and energy in order to get a steady supply of said currency."
Ok one thing left out appears to be " in order to live". You have to live. You have to meet financial obligation in order to live. Remember the phrase "work for a living " or "do for a living ".
"That is why I ask so many questions."
I say again, I appreciate the effort. You are the few exceptions that actually care to explore a position instead of being stifled with a bias. You are in the one percent.
Yes that does mean 99 percent usually keep close mindedness to bias. I suppose it's likely to be that way when in opposition.
I digress.
"When you say the 9-5 workforce. Given what I've said about my work situation, do I qualify as part of that workforce?"
You qualify in the sense of not being free from financial obligation regardless of how much or little you need to do to sustain for a living. Some live like grunts in a field. Others are living like kingpins in the lap of luxury. Both are in prison.
"Do people who perform charity work qualify for that labor force?"
Yes generally. I can't say all but there are those who labor for wages who also volunteer,sure.
"Do people whose work profit is 100% disposable income qualify for that labor force?"
Yes generally. Once more I can't say all. As long as you're in the system, you're obligated financially. You can have extracurricular activities on top of your obligatory duties.
"Who are the slaves to the system you described? Is it everyone?"
Everyone that is subject to it. In order to be a slave to something, you have to be subject to it . If you can live without using currency, you're not subject to it. You're FREE from it or of it .
That's what enslavement amounts to at the end of the day. You have to be subject.
Now this is either true or false.
"Given that chattel slavery is absolutely abhorrent and morally unethical. Do you believe the current system of slavery also abhorrent and/or morally unethical, and if so is it equally that to chattel slavery?"
I don't get into all these comparatives. Also I don't have any of this in mind when talking about slavery. I don't compare this method or type with another. Enslavement is simply being subject. If you just strip it down to that. It can be amazingly easier to get.
"Do you believe there to be a solution or alternative to our current system of slavery? And if so do you know it and what is it?"
Yes but being it's not really the topic, we can make that a whole other discussion.
"If a person, say, worked for 7 years, and then from that he acquired enough money to support him and all his needs for the rest of his life. And assuming he qualified for the term slave during those 7 years. Is he still a slave after the 7 years are over and he is well and fully retired?"
Yes the person is still subject.......to using the money right. Just keep that in mind. Being subject, being subject to.
Keeping these simple parameters in mind, it'll be clear.
When people keep it simple, oh what a simpler path to understanding.
Responses and some organizing
I'll start with the direct responses, I'll try to group up some of my opponents similar responses into so that the following rounds are a bit less cluttered.
Yes real simple. I'm talking about money. Name something you can do in the system of monetary supremacy or the economy, that is not subject to financial compensation.
I think you misunderstood my question. I did not ask how or why using money is obligation. I was asking you to elaborate on how or why obligation is slavery.
Yes, the enslavement of the monetary system as it would not exist .
Interesting, follow up question, would it put an end to slavery in general?
Otherwise in your example you wouldn't have to accommodate for the extra weight because you wouldn't have a system at all that would obligate you to do that if that was the case.
From my understanding, this implies that if currency were to be eliminated then my and Mark's enslavement would end. Is this what you mean? And if so could you elaborate further on this point? Especially on what you meant by I wouldn't have to accommodate him.
Especially if you're born a slave. You're used to the life you live and you're satisfied right. Why change it? Why get away from massa? You're content with slave life .
I object to this analogy. It implies that I made an argument out of familiarity or some sort of "This is what we've always had". But this couldn't be further from the truth. My argument is that we had a system without common currency that we're able to examine. This is spiritually opposite to any argument that bears similarity to "we were born with this why change it", the introduction of common currency itself is change.
I will admit my bias in favor of the free market and free market values, however I will argue that that trait neither weakens nor strengthens the merit of my arguments.
So you can find all kinds of satisfaction within the enslavement. This topic isn't particularly dealing with "better" or worse.
It might not, however I would argue that in most cases, and generally for society, no enslavement is better than enslavement. And by extension, if it can be demonstrated that state of being A is better than state of being B. While it would not necessarily on its own prove that A does not have slavery (or has less slavery as compared to state B), I would argue it adds strength and validity to it.
What is the question? I didn't see a question mark. I can answer a question when it's obvious to the topic.
It is the question I initially asked at the beginning of this bullet point chain. I will shorten the question for your convenience. Do most human beings prior to the creation of currency qualify as slaves?
Of note: The purpose of the question is to further help me identify what slavery is. I would say it is equally as relevant as asking "what is the definition of slavery?" as depending on your answer, it could potentially give an example of what is slavery. Or an example of what isn't slavery.
I would expect you know this or the appropriate representative party would know this better than me. I'm not involved in that.
I had previously stated that I don't currently have to do anything for my pension. (well besides collecting it monthly, obviously) In which you responded that I have to do something to qualify. I was essentially challenging your earlier assertion with a question. I am openly claiming that I don't have to do anything to qualify for my pension.
It depends. You can probably answer yourself.So asking me are you obligated or not, if you know what the word means, you can answer based on your situation.
Hmmmm, a follow up question. Does my obligated time spent going to the ATM qualify as a part of being enslaved?
Ok so there's disagreement on the term slavery. So from this point, let's just look at this topic like this. Is there anything one does in the system of monetary supremacy that's not subject to money direct or indirectly?
I might need a more detailed elaboration of the question. Especially in regards to what qualifies as "doing in the system of monetary supremacy". For example, does cleaning up after Mark's mess qualify because we both live in the system of monetary supremacy? Or did you intend to specify only actions in which money is involved? Such as working for money, buying food with money, or getting my door fixed by paying money? Or am I missing the mark in both cases and its something else?
Ok one thing left out appears to be " in order to live". You have to live. You have to meet financial obligation in order to live. Remember the phrase "work for a living " or "do for a living ".
I meant to imply that with my usage of the term "necessary goods". Either way I guess in summary it would be "We need the dollar/euro/etc. in order to live" ?
I say again, I appreciate the effort. You are the few exceptions that actually care to explore a position instead of being stifled with a bias. You are in the one percent.Yes that does mean 99 percent usually keep close mindedness to bias. I suppose it's likely to be that way when in opposition.
I appreciate and respect the gesture, but you're giving me too much credit here, I believe what I am doing is the bare minimum required for even a chance of either party emerging from the encounter wiser. As John Stuart Mill once said, "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that" .
Yes generally. Once more I can't say all. As long as you're in the system, you're obligated financially. You can have extracurricular activities on top of your obligatory duties.
Given how you've generally responded there might be a misunderstanding here. By 100% disposable income. I mean all of the monetary revenue they're getting, not part of it, all of it, is going into luxury spending. (or simply saving up the money or what will you). That in the instance of such individuals (who it qualifies to say 100% of their job income goes under disposable income) all of their financial obligations are met by a source independent of their work. Are met without requiring them to spend a minute of their time laboring.
Everyone that is subject to it.
Who is subject to it and who is not in our current world? Could you give me some examples for both cases?
I don't get into all these comparatives. Also I don't have any of this in mind when talking about slavery. I don't compare this method or type with another. Enslavement is simply being subject. If you just strip it down to that. It can be amazingly easier to get.
Ok then, without comparison to chattel slavery. Do you believe that enslavement, or being subject, to be unethical?
And whether or not you believe it so, do you believe enslavement to be a negative state of being? That it would usually be preferable to not be subject than to be subject?
Yes but being it's not really the topic, we can make that a whole other discussion.
You have the potential to be right. But I'd counter-argue that, if there isn't an alternative and/or solution to our state of being. (Or more accurately, if one is not demonstrated) Then that might make it at least a bit more improper to classify our state of being as slavery.
When people keep it simple, oh what a simpler path to understanding.
I will argue that, simplicity, on its own at least, is not inherently positive, or negative. And I argue the same for complexity as well.
I don't believe you do absolutely nothing because you haven't told me so.
I have but I apologize if I failed to convey it enough, I will say it as clearly as I can. I do not work for a living. Not a penny of my work revenue goes into my financial obligations.
Addressing potential contradictions
I say potential because there can be explanations and/or nuances behind what on the surface appear to be inconsistencies. Whether that is the case or not, I believe the fastest way to examine this is to point them out and await my opponent's response.
I don't believe you do absolutely nothing because you haven't told me so. Also, if you're not in a nominal 9-5 job situation, your outlier situation doesn't actually apply to the topic.The answer is in the question. Yes. You said presence of financial obligation.
The following two responses appear to be in contradiction. As the first argues that my situation does not qualify as relevant to the topic at hand. That I am not part of the 9-5 (and assumingly by extension that I am not under modern day slavery, given the topic's name). However the latter response argues that I am a slave without the requirement of work obligation.
I don't know about your particular situation but people are obligated to commute to the store or make arrangements of the sort to meet payment obligation that a store would require.Now being that the topic is about people being obligated to give up much of their time for money
In the first statement, you name even the trip to the store as obligation (in reference, my trip to the store is no more than 10 minutes). But in one of your responses regarding my example about myself, you say that countering my situation is unnecessary because you're talking specifically about giving up much of our time for money. I can already imagine a few ways to explain this but I don't want to assume your argument for you. I wish to know what you have to say, what your elaboration on this is.
By who? If you say not you, then by who?If you take an honest look, you say yes and it falls in line with the system. The same system that delegates via a 9-5 and any other assistance program.You have financial assistance programs, allowances and subsidies due to the monetary system by the way.Yes the person is still subject.......to using the money right. Just keep that in mind. Being subject, being subject to.So if you're talking about anything else but that, you're actually not referring to my position. I never made the statement that charity work or any work you don't do for a living is slavery. So we want to stay at the goalpost.People that aren't retired have to work for a living. They have to do it. Now what they do in their spare time or even when retired, doesn't matter.
The first group of statements imply that it doesn't matter if your provider is you or someone else, you're a prisoner in the system, it simply is that the chains are tighter on your provider and slacker on you in that situation. But the second group of statements imply that the only work relevant to the topic is work for a living, and that charity work (or otherwise voluntary use of spare time) has nothing to do with enslavement. Charity work can include voluntarily providing for others, which you've especially pointed out in my example about Mark, can be considered a form of obligation and enslavement. Can you speak more on this so I can understand better?
You qualify in the sense of not being free from financial obligation regardless of how much or little you need to do to sustain for a living. Some live like grunts in a field. Others are living like kingpins in the lap of luxury. Both are in prison.Yes generally. I can't say all but there are those who labor for wages who also volunteer, sure.
The first statement implies that even those completely exempt from work are in the prison you describe, merely the presence of financial obligation puts them in prison. The second implies that wage labor is required in order to be part of the 9-5 slave system. That laboring for your financial obligation is necessary.
Another question of my own
Given that the responses here are so numerous. I have only just one extra question to ask, it might sound similar to another I've already asked but I believe it distinct enough to be worth answer, and the answer will further help me identify what you consider slavery or enslavement to be.
Are we slaves to hunger? Not necessarily the feeling of craving for food but rather the fact that if we don't eat we'll die. Are we enslaved to the fact that we are non-voluntarily forced to eat food in a regular basis in order to live? Duo to having to fulfil a nutritional obligation?
Round 4
"I think you misunderstood my question. I did not ask how or why using money is obligation. I was asking you to elaborate on how or why obligation is slavery."
I think my answers , some at least , are not clear enough for you. So I will continue to simplify more as possible. The basic bare bones nature of slavery is obligation. Which is a hamper on freedom. I don't know how to make it more specific than that. If you know what freedom is, restriction, limitation, subjection and control of ability, all of these traits make up a thing I call slavery. You may not call it that. Others outside of them like me may not call it that.
When you are restricted or restrained to do things on account of being obligated to meet a financial condition, I call that being enslaved. That's it. That's why I asked , name something you can do without meeting this obligation. Just like naming something you can do without the permission of a slave master or prison warden.
Modern day, the currency is the slave master.
"Interesting, follow up question, would it put an end to slavery in general?"
I can not speak on that. I'm not talking about in general. I'm staying on topic with the monetary enslavement system. In general is too vast to speak on anyway.
"From my understanding, this implies that if currency were to be eliminated then my and Mark's enslavement would end. Is this what you mean? "
It would end to the monetary system, monetary system. You have to get out of the tendency of being general and broad.
"And if so could you elaborate further on this point? Especially on what you meant by I wouldn't have to accommodate him."
Somebody pays. If the other individual is not paying for his or herself and you elect to pay to support that person, you are accommodating for that person in compensation to be made to the entities that require financial obligation. Not only meeting the financial condition for you but adding on to that for another .
"I object to this analogy. It implies that I made an argument out of familiarity or some sort of "This is what we've always had". But this couldn't be further from the truth. My argument is that we had a system without common currency that we're able to examine. This is spiritually opposite to any argument that bears similarity to "we were born with this why change it", the introduction of common currency itself is change.
I will admit my bias in favor of the free market and free market values, however I will argue that that trait neither weakens nor strengthens the merit of my arguments."
My point exactly. This is what institutionalization is like or does. Being born into a system, brought up through the system. This is the way life has been, it's normal so there's no comparison to be outside of it. Like a fish that has always lived in water. It doesn't matter what was before the system of currency. We're in it now and its the reality of everyday life. Normally operated through the 9-5 to turn over the commerce world.
"Do most human beings prior to the creation of currency qualify as slaves?"
Possibly depending on how you look at it and whatever that was there to see them as such. My position has no exploration into that at the present moment.
"The purpose of the question is to further help me identify what slavery is. I would say it is equally as relevant as asking "what is the definition of slavery?" as depending on your answer, it could potentially give an example of what is slavery. Or an example of what isn't slavery."
"The basic bare bones nature of slavery is obligation. Which is a hamper on freedom. I don't know how to make it more specific than that. If you know what freedom is, restriction, limitation, subjection and control of ability, all of these traits make up a thing I call slavery."
"I had previously stated that I don't currently have to do anything for my pension. (well besides collecting it monthly, obviously) In which you responded that I have to do something to qualify. I was essentially challenging your earlier assertion with a question. I am openly claiming that I don't have to do anything to qualify for my pension."
So you mean to tell me money is just given to you. That's not reality. Something causes something else to be. For instance in the states, you have to qualify for medical disability, financial assistance, etc. and there's obligation for that. I don't know how it is where you are. Somebody has to know where and who the money is to be given to. It isn't arbitrary.
If you have a medical condition, you or your responsible representative party will seek assistance (obligation). To fund for medical coverage meets obligation. To payout stipends or income, taxes are paid (obligation). Gotta dig into this deeper and know where and from things come and how it all comes together in the system of money, economy and currency.
"Hmmmm, a follow up question. Does my obligated time spent going to the ATM qualify as a part of being enslaved?"
If you know what the word means, you can answer based on your situation. Instead of asking is this or that enslavement, just look at the word and ask yourself. The word is in the question. That word is the answer in the question.
Obligation = slavery, slavery = obligation
"I might need a more detailed elaboration of the question. Especially in regards to what qualifies as "doing in the system of monetary supremacy". For example, does cleaning up after Mark's mess qualify because we both live in the system of monetary supremacy? "
You tell me. Does this act of cleaning relate to currency or is the act subject to money?
Does it cost to be able to do it? Does it cost you not to do it directly or indirectly?
You just start with questioning everything you do.
"Or did you intend to specify only actions in which money is involved? Such as working for money, buying food with money, or getting my door fixed by paying money? Or am I missing the mark in both cases and its something else?"
You just start from scratch. From the time you wake up, you can start there. Does any act from waking up at that point from there and going on throughout the day until you go back to sleep, is any part of that subject to money?
Even another question to think about, is there a cost you're still subject to while you sleep?
You can just be laying there or sitting in a room , staring at a wall. Does every single breath you take , is it subject to cost?
Think about these questions. Answer and we can go over them.
"I meant to imply that with my usage of the term "necessary goods". Either way I guess in summary it would be "We need the dollar/euro/etc. in order to live" ?"
Yes.
"I appreciate and respect the gesture, but you're giving me too much credit here, I believe what I am doing is the bare minimum required for even a chance of either party emerging from the encounter wiser. As John Stuart Mill once said, "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that" ."
Much respect.
"Given how you've generally responded there might be a misunderstanding here. By 100% disposable income. I mean all of the monetary revenue they're getting, not part of it, all of it, is going into luxury spending. (or simply saving up the money or what will you). That in the instance of such individuals (who it qualifies to say 100% of their job income goes under disposable income) all of their financial obligations are met by a source independent of their work. Are met without requiring them to spend a minute of their time laboring."
Unless the person has no bills for living, housing, utilities, food, clothing, etc., it be impossible.
We're talking about living in a system of commerce of exchange of goods and services. Everything has cost and there is financial obligation (enslavement) to fulfill to meet your needs to live on.
"Who is subject to it and who is not in our current world? Could you give me some examples for both cases?"
Pretty much anybody who doesn't live in the wilderness, hunting, building their own shelter is subject to it. If you don't use money at all, you're not subject to . This doesn't include those that may be indirectly subject. Like your example of accommodating for a person's living. That person may not use any money because you're using it for him so it's indirect.
"Ok then, without comparison to chattel slavery. Do you believe that enslavement, or being subject, to be unethical?"
Not really the topic so I won't touch on that. However you can message me, let me know if you want to have a discussion on that later.
"And whether or not you believe it so, do you believe enslavement to be a negative state of being? That it would usually be preferable to not be subject than to be subject?"
Not really the topic so I won't touch on that. However you can message me, let me know if you want to have a discussion on that later.
"You have the potential to be right. But I'd counter-argue that, if there isn't an alternative and/or solution to our state of being. (Or more accurately, if one is not demonstrated) Then that might make it at least a bit more improper to classify our state of being as slavery."
You can talk about the condition of something without looking act how to address it or approach it.
We can talk about the state of affairs, current economy and inflation without taking on tangents.
"I will argue that, simplicity, on its own at least, is not inherently positive, or negative. And I argue the same for complexity as well."
I'm saying keep it simple. So when something is simple in nature, don't complicate it. Just keep it as is.
"I have but I apologize if I failed to convey it enough, I will say it as clearly as I can. I do not work for a living. Not a penny of my work revenue goes into my financial obligations."
Whatever it is that you do and have done is work for a living. Why? That's because money is not just handed to you for nothing. If so, tell everyone how to get in on this racquet.
"The following two responses appear to be in contradiction. As the first argues that my situation does not qualify as relevant to the topic at hand. That I am not part of the 9-5 (and assumingly by extension that I am not under modern day slavery, given the topic's name). However the latter response argues that I am a slave without the requirement of work obligation."
Oh you are still a slave by being in the monetary prison. The 9-5 is enslaving as it is delegated via the monetary system. So you can look at it like the field slave and the house slave you see. Both are in the system of slavery.
"In the first statement, you name even the trip to the store as obligation (in reference, my trip to the store is no more than 10 minutes). But in one of your responses regarding my example about myself, you say that countering my situation is unnecessary because you're talking specifically about giving up much of our time for money. I can already imagine a few ways to explain this but I don't want to assume your argument for you. I wish to know what you have to say, what your elaboration on this is."
In simple terms: you are still a slave by being in the monetary prison. The 9-5 is enslaving as it is delegated via the monetary system.
"Charity work can include voluntarily providing for others, which you've especially pointed out in my example about Mark, can be considered a form of obligation and enslavement. Can you speak more on this so I can understand better?"
Providing for another person is not charity work. Just like a parent providing for his or her child isn't charity work. It's work that has to be done one way or the other. You either find yourself in a situation obligated to support yourself or yourself and others.
"Are we slaves to hunger? Not necessarily the feeling of craving for food but rather the fact that if we don't eat we'll die. Are we enslaved to the fact that we are non-voluntarily forced to eat food in a regular basis in order to live? Duo to having to fulfil a nutritional obligation?"
You can look at us being enslaved or subject to hunger, sure.
Anything you're obligated to do is enslavement . You can break out of it and resist being imprisoned.
Just remember that before asking the question about this or that being slavery.
Given that my opponent has only one more argument after I publish this, I will finally present my full on counter-arguments, as well as my stance on how and why the 9-5 is not modern day slavery, at least not always. Including as full a picture of my stance as I can so that my opponent has the opportunity to address all of my points.
That said, I do still have questions so I will ask those as well given this is my last chance to get answers from Pro. So without further ado...
The 9-5 is not modern day slavery
My opponent's arguments suffer from many setbacks as a result of various levels and instances of Lack of commitment to answers, Fundamental claims that lack backing, Natural conclusions, potential oversimplification and possible fallacies and Conflict between spirit and semantics
My opponent's argument boils down to the claim that for those of us where money is a necessity for survival, and by extension is an obligation, that we need money in order to live, that it is an imprisonment. This stems from the claim that Obligation is enslavement, which naturally results in the conclusion that Life itself is enslavement. And duo to The lack of a concrete enough independent identity for enslavement leads to A circular argument around obligation and slavery. Additionally creating other problems all of which I will address to the best of my abilities.
Fundamental claims that lack backing
My opponent has made some core claims, plenty of which stand at the heart of his argument, but seems to lack in substantiating them sufficiently. If these core claims which form the foundation for his temple of reasoning turn out to be false or not sufficiently true enough, then his entire reasoning is at jeopardy of crumbling duo to his stance being built on assumptions rather than facts.
Obligation is enslavement
Obligation = slavery, slavery = obligation"The basic bare bones nature of slavery is obligation. Which is a hamper on freedom. I don't know how to make it more specific than that. If you know what freedom is, restriction, limitation, subjection and control of ability, all of these traits make up a thing I call slavery."Anything you're obligated to do is enslavement . You can break out of it and resist being imprisoned.
These and many more such statements paint obligation itself to be enslavement, that the mere fact that you are forced to have something in order to live makes you a slave to it, or to the system surrounding it. This argument goes so far that, merely needing it and not even needing to work for it still qualifies you as a slave.
Oh you are still a slave by being in the monetary prison. The 9-5 is enslaving as it is delegated via the monetary system. So you can look at it like the field slave and the house slave you see. Both are in the system of slavery.This doesn't include those that may be indirectly subject. Like your example of accommodating for a person's living. That person may not use any money because you're using it for him so it's indirect.Yes the person is still subject.......to using the money right. Just keep that in mind. Being subject, being subject to.
With this in mind, and even as elaborated by my opponent, not only do you not need to be earning money to be a slave to the monetary prison system, you do not even need to be using money at all, someone using money for you from their own pocket counts as well. The mere fact that money is needed for your survival, that you are subject to it, makes you a slave to it, simply because obligation itself is slavery.
However the claim that obligation is slavery is not sufficiently backed here, these are the answers I have been given so far when I asked how or why obligation is slavery.
I don't have exclusive rights on it. But reality has demonstrated that those who are obligated to do something or are unable to do one thing without being forced or obligated to do something else is enslaved.The basic bare bones nature of slavery is obligation. Which is a hamper on freedom.If you know what freedom is, restriction, limitation, subjection and control of ability, all of these traits make up a thing I call slavery. You may not call it that. Others outside of them like me may not call it that.When you are restricted or restrained to do things on account of being obligated to meet a financial condition, I call that being enslaved. That's it.
All of the answers given here, the answer to my question "how or why is obligation slavery?" simply re-iterate the claim that obligation is slavery. Additionally in one of those statements by my opponent's own admission, other people do not usually refer to obligation as slavery. While that does not necessarily mean that Pro is incorrect, it does mean that the burden of proof, or at the very least the burden of a sufficiently compelling argument, is on him as to why we should treat the term the same way he does.
One more thing my opponent has done in response to my inquiry about why obligation is slavery is tasking me with an assignment.
Ok so there's disagreement on the term slavery. So from this point, let's just look at this topic like this. Is there anything one does in the system of monetary supremacy that's not subject to money direct or indirectly?That's why I asked , name something you can do without meeting this obligation. Just like naming something you can do without the permission of a slave master or prison warden.
However, even if I were to fail at this task, all that would demonstrate is that money is obligatory. My inability to name something we can do without money, or disconnected from money, would demonstrate at most that money is obligation. It would still not address why obligation is slavery. Why we should believe that it is appropriate and accurate to call us slaves to money (or to modern day and time) as a result of our financial obligations.
Money/currency/the monetary prison system is the slave master.
In this slave/slaver owner relationship, Pro has coined money itself, or the monetary prison system, as our slave owner.
At this point, day and time, it's not really a "who " anymore. It's the dollar bill or currency that has been designed that in turn has trapped man apparently, that he cannot get out of . Maybe he can. But for right now he is subject to the system of monetary supremacy.Modern day, the currency is the slave master.
Unfortunately this too does not seem to be sufficiently backed.
This topic is simple in nature
No no no. Let me give you the perspective of this to where it is the most simple and going in one direction.When people keep it simple, oh what a simpler path to understanding.I'm saying keep it simple. So when something is simple in nature, don't complicate it. Just keep it as is.
My opponent's argument is accompanied with such statements that either imply, if not outright declare, that the topic is inherently simple in nature. And while I will not ask for this to be backed, as I do not believe that is possible anyway, I will still point out that we have no reason to believe this.
Indeed it could be possible that I am straying us from the truth by complicating a simple topic and not, as my opponent put it, keeping it as is. It is however also possible that my opponent is straying us from the truth by overly simplifying a complicated topic. I will stand by my earlier comment that simplicity or complexity are not inherently positive or negative, as I will accompany it with the claim that we do not know for certain if the topic is inherently simple or complex.
Lack of commitment to answers
During the course of this debate, I had posed questions of different varieties in order to extract as much information as I can from my opponent's stance, so that I can either find the flaws in it if he is wrong, or have a better understanding of it if he is right. Unfortunately a few have gone unanswered either due to an unwillingness to tackle it and/or because it had been deemed not relevant enough. Here are the most consequential ones to this debate in my view.
"Interesting, follow up question, would it put an end to slavery in general?"I can not speak on that. I'm not talking about in general. I'm staying on topic with the monetary enslavement system. In general is too vast to speak on anyway.
The troublesome potential implications of this is that tackling slavery in general is either irrelevant to topic, or not worth pursuing. Which leads to points I will further expand on under Circular reasoning and Lack of purpose
"And whether or not you believe it so, do you believe enslavement to be a negative state of being?Not really the topic so I won't touch on that. However you can message me, let me know if you want to have a discussion on that later.
The troublesome implication of this is that something that is fit to be coined "slavery" is either not a negative state of being and/or not unethical. Or that these two things do not matter. Which leads to points I will further expand on under Lack of purpose
"You have the potential to be right. But I'd counter-argue that, if there isn't an alternative and/or solution to our state of being. (Or more accurately, if one is not demonstrated) Then that might make it at least a bit more improper to classify our state of being as slavery."You can talk about the condition of something without looking act how to address it or approach it.
Indeed we can, however the conversation potentially suffers from addressing less. I can not guarantee 100% for sure that we have something to gain in regards to figuring out the answer to this topic by talking about how to address or approach it. However I can say that we have nothing to lose talking about it save for typing space and reading time. I believe potentially wasting time and energy on a pointless tangent is much less detrimental to the conversation than potentially missing out on insight that could've been gained by pursuing it.
For this particular case, I would argue that an alternative and/or solution to our state of being could provide more insight on what state of being isn't the monetary prison system, and maybe potentially even what isn't slavery in general. Which in turn could provide more insight on what qualifies as the monetary prison system, as well as potentially what slavery is in general, as its own identity.
Natural conclusions, potential oversimplification and possible fallacies
Life itself is enslavement
You can look at us being enslaved or subject to hunger, sure.Anything you're obligated to do is enslavement.
How my opponent has defined slavery throughout the course of this debate, in addition to him qualifying hunger as something we can be enslaved to, naturally leads to the conclusion that life itself is enslavement, and by extension, that every human being is a slave in one way or another. Especially given that every single living human being is a slave to hunger (among other life necessities) as a result of needing to eat in order to live. That all of mankind has been enslaved since its start, that mankind has never known what "not being a slave" is like.
The lack of a concrete enough independent identity for enslavement
Throughout the course of the debate, as a result of a combination of things demonstrated under Obligation is enslavement and Lack of commitment to answers, my opponent has greatly neglected, in this debate of "The 9-5 is modern day slavery", to give slavery its own identity independent of how it relates to the monetary prison system. In this debate the majority of what we've been given is "money is slavery" and "slavery is money", occasionally being packaged with "slavery is obligation" and "obligation is slavery", and sometimes "money is obligation".
A circular argument
Obligation = slavery, slavery = obligation
Continuing from where we left off on The lack of a concrete enough independent identity for enslavement, my opponent's arguments are potentially plagued with circular reasoning. The question to "what is slavery" being answered with "obligation" and the question to "what is obligation" being seemingly answered with "slavery" (or at least, there hasn't been demonstrated by my opponent a type of obligation that isn't slavery). Even when asked "how or why is obligation slavery" the answer given is
The basic bare bones nature of slavery is obligation.If you know what freedom is, restriction, limitation, subjection and control of ability, all of these traits make up a thing I call slavery.When you are restricted or restrained to do things on account of being obligated to meet a financial condition, I call that being enslaved.
The first statement simply says slavery is obligation.
"restriction, limitation, subjection and control of ability" simply translated to obligation, so the second statement says obligation makes up a thing he calls slavery.
"When you are restricted or restrained to do things on account of being obligated to meet a financial condition" simply identifies financial necessity as obligation. So the third statement says financial obligation, he calls that being enslaved.
Besides arguing what the meaning of the word is (which I'll address further under Conflict between spirit and semantics), all my opponent has is obligation is slavery and slavery is obligation. And when the monetary prison system is involved, all that exists is "Financial necessity is obligation" and "Financial necessity is slavery". (not necessarily vice-versa of these two statements, however they are still built upon the foundation of the circular nature of obligation and slavery to each other)
Conflict between spirit and semantics
The meaning of the word
So asking me are you obligated or not, if you know what the word means, you can answer based on your situation.If you know what the word means, you can answer based on your situation. Instead of asking is this or that enslavement, just look at the word and ask yourself. The word is in the question. That word is the answer in the question.
Outside of the points previously presented, this is the only other argument (that I am aware of) for why obligation is slavery. In the first statement (the word being referred to is obligation) my opponent argues that being forced to do something is obligation, which I am willing to concede to. In that case it is correct to say I am obligated to go to the ATM to collect my money.
In the second statement (the word being referred to is enslaved) my opponent repeats the same argument for enslaved/slavery arguing that being forced to do something (or according to his overall argument, simply being subject to it) qualifies as being enslaved due to what the word enslaved means. Claiming that slavery simply means "being forced to do something in order to live" (and not necessarily by a person or by a sentient being of some form).
However, not only is this merely thrown as a claim without reasoning provided (besides "My definition is just what reality presents.", another claim), reasoning that I argue should be provided given many people don't use slavery in such a manner.
But additionally, an argument so heavily based upon the technical meaning of slavery runs into issues of the argument having a Lack of purpose, hurting the spirit of the argument. Becoming a simple matter of stating an obvious fact(which I'll expand on under Squares and Rectangles).
Lack of purpose
You can talk about the condition of something without looking act how to address it or approach it.We can talk about the state of affairs, current economy and inflation without taking on tangents.
The argument, while on the surface seemingly being about the injustices of the 9-5 work routine, fails to make a commitment about the ethical of position of either slavery in general or monetary slavery in specific. That in combination with it being considerably focused on word meaning, as well as not wishing to address potential alternatives, outs or escapes, in my opinion begs the question of what the purpose of this debate is.
Usually there is a moral to the story, some kind of call to action, a life lesson to be had, or some kind of insight that in some way, shape or form can be used in order to better our lives, even if my the tiniest of margins. Some of the language used by my opponent's arguments such as "breaking out of prison" could potentially imply an encouragement to change our state of affairs so that we are no longer slaves to money. However when directly asked about this a committed answer is failed to be delivered. And the further definitional nature of the argument (which I'll expand upon under Squares and Rectangles) further puts this debate in danger of being lacking in purpose.
To be clear a lack in purpose would not necessarily mean that my opponent is wrong. Or even support it. But it would beg to ask why the question is being posed in the first place.
Squares and Rectangles
Every square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square. The reason we don't give "a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles" a word other than square is because there is no benefit in doing so. We only need "square" to identify squares.
Squares are rectangles and if I were to show you a square and you told me "that is a rectangle", you would be correct. However a rectangle's identity is not solely revolving around its relation to squares, rectangles have their own independent identity. "a plane figure with four straight sides and four right angles". There can be rectangles that are not squares so a different word is used for them. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. And likewise all rectangles are parallelograms, but not all parallelograms are rectangles.
And likewise, if there were an argument that said "Is a square a rectangle?", while the answer would be yes, the justification wouldn't simply be "a square is a rectangle" or "square = rectangle, rectangle = square". The identifying factors of what a rectangle generally is would be laid out, the identifying factors of what a square specifically is would be laid out, and from this it would be demonstrated that a square is a sub-category of rectangles. The nature of what a rectangle is, independent of merely its relation to squares, would need to be examined to demonstrate why a square is a rectangle.
While my opponent has identified the monetary prison system as a sub-category of obligation, or alternatively as a sub-category of slavery. Neither slavery nor obligation has been identified as a sub-category of the other, and both have rarely (if ever) been talked about in a way that identifies it independently.
Firstly, I'll give my own opinion and view. All slavery is obligation, but not all obligation is slavery.
Indeed the very nature of slavery makes it impossible for there to be a state of being, where it is person to call a person a slave, where obligation is not involved. In every possible and imaginable instance of slavery, obligation is involved. Even willingly selling yourself to slavery would invite the obligation of having to obey your slave master.
However, not all obligation is slavery. I would argue that the minimum needed for a person to appropriately be called a slave, is for the object of their enslavement, the slave master, to be a person or sentient being or organization (like a prison, or government) in some form. For example black slaves in America were slaves to private individual slave owners, Jewish people in Nazi concentration camps were slaves to the Nazi regime, and people in gulags were slaves to the communist state. I would argue that in an instance where the object of obligation is not sentient, such as for example my hunger or necessity to eat, that qualifies as an object of obligation, but not as an object of slavery. I am not a slave to hunger as hunger itself has no thoughts, actions or decision making of its own. And I would argue that what supports my position usually when slavery is used, is it is used to refer to the likes of what black slaves in America went through. In combination with the fact that there would be little point in the distinction if obligation simply meant slavery and slavery meant obligation.
The issues with my opponent's approach, is if obligation meant slavery and slavery meant obligation. Not as a square to rectangle comparison, but as a square to square comparison. Exact same shape and size and everything. (Combine that with the fact that financial obligation is obligation). What you would get would essentially transform the argument "The 9-5 is modern day slavery" into "Monetary slavery is modern day slavery", or "Slavery is slavery". Even in the case of my opponent becoming technically correct, there would be no benefit in such a conclusion. (besides pointing out to the general public that they're wrong to identify obligation and slavery independently) And there would be even less purpose to the debate itself. It would not even be a "1+1=2" debate, it would be a "1=1" debate.
And as a result of Life itself is enslavement, my opponent's argument is also at risk of concluding that there can be no form of life that isn't enslavement. Not only further potentially reducing the purpose of using "slave" as an identifying factor. (outside of what specific forms of slavery they're under). But also potentially at risk of falling into concluding that Life = Slavery and Slavery = Life. That the two relate to each other in a square to square or 1=1 comparison. my opponent's "name something you can" can be, with the sum of his other arguments, transformed into "name a state of life you can have where you are not a slave". This can also result into Human = Slave and Slave = Human.
Not only do the sum of my opponent's arguments put the debate question itself at risk of being pointless. It puts my opponent's conclusion at risk of being pointless as well. If not potentially worse, detrimental, at least lingually detrimental. I would argue we potentially have something to lose by treating obligation and slavery as words that mean the exact same thing than if we kept them separate, then if we kept slavery as a sub-category of obligation.
In conclusion
So far my opponent's arguments have lacked evidence and/or sufficient reasoning support for plenty of its claims. Some of which are important claims. Has possibly suffered from a lack of addressing potentially relevant bullet points. Has possibly suffered from committing to the simplification of a potentially complex topic. And possibly in danger of making the question meaningless. As well as possibly in danger of making his conclusion meaningless and/or without benefit.
I do apologize for not having made this presentation earlier as I wish my opponent had more than one round to respond. If it is possible to increase the number of round of this debate I'd be in support of it.
Direct responses
The following are direct responses that I otherwise did not know how to place in my big picture presentation.
My argument is that we had a system without common currency that we're able to examine. This is spiritually opposite to any argument that bears similarity to "we were born with this why change it", the introduction of common currency itself is change.My point exactly. This is what institutionalization is like or does. Being born into a system, brought up through the system. This is the way life has been, it's normal so there's no comparison to be outside of it. Like a fish that has always lived in water. It doesn't matter what was before the system of currency. We're in it now and its the reality of everyday life. Normally operated through the 9-5 to turn over the commerce world.
I believe this counter-point fails. The claim "there's no comparison to be outside of it" has already been pre-emptively countered by "we had a system without common currency we can examine(and compare to)" as well as "the introduction of common currency itself is change"
Whatever it is that you do and have done is work for a living. Why? That's because money is not just handed to you for nothing. If so, tell everyone how to get in on this racquet.
Be diagnosed for autism and deemed unfit for workplace environment I guess. Funny enough that is also exactly how a German friend of mine got an early pension.
You can look at us being enslaved or subject to hunger, sure.Anything you're obligated to do is enslavement . You can break out of it and resist being imprisoned.
If hunger qualifies as an object we can be enslaved to. Then in that case it is plainly impossible to break out of the imprisonment of hunger , unless you count dying.
Questions
If possible, what is a form of obligation that is not slavery?
Can there exist a state of living where a human is not a slave? Yes, generally, not specific to monetary enslavement.
Sorry for not specifying, but in my example Mark is a complete stranger, not a family member or even a friend or acquaintance. (prior to the scenario at least). Do I still count as non-charitably providing for him?
Round 5
"While that does not necessarily mean that Pro is incorrect, it does mean that the burden of proof, or at the very least the burden of a sufficiently compelling argument, is on him as to why we should treat the term the same way he does."
Before I begin, I preface in saying when you're just not understanding something or you just don't get it, nothing I say will suffice. This is why you continue to ask questions because it just doesn't click . At least right now . It's not so much lacking my explanation but a severe lack in understanding.
It takes time, experience and observation. This thing really comes through once you observe or have done so for a while. But if you never gave a 5 second thought or two minute thought on this, everything I say is foreign. I never said anything about or argued about treating the term slavery or obligation any kind of way. If you don't want to call it slavery, use whichever word you're comfortable with.
"However, even if I were to fail at this task, all that would demonstrate is that money is obligatory. My inability to name something we can do without money, or disconnected from money, would demonstrate at most that money is obligation. It would still not address why obligation is slavery. Why we should believe that it is appropriate and accurate to call us slaves to money (or to modern day and time) as a result of our financial obligations."
There you go right here. See I'm asking you the question is there anything within the system of monetary subjection we can do without monetary subjection. The answer is in there, right. So being subject is being obligated and or enslaved. All of these terms are synonymous.
If you're asking why I use them synonymously which may be a better help to you to understand, slavery has always had the nature of obligation and deficit of freedom, isn't that so?
So I'm only using terms that the public has used to describe the same nature.
So if you accept that money is obligatory, money is slavery which connects obligation to slavery. See you have your answer right there in what you said but you have to realize how the dots are connected in what you say. It's all synonymous.
"Unfortunately this too does not seem to be sufficiently backed. "
I'm going to take you right back to this question. It's just going over your head .
Is there anything within the system of monetary subjection we can do without monetary subjection?
"Indeed it could be possible that I am straying us from the truth by complicating a simple topic and not, as my opponent put it, keeping it as is. It is however also possible that my opponent is straying us from the truth by overly simplifying a complicated topic. I will stand by my earlier comment that simplicity or complexity are not inherently positive or negative, as I will accompany it with the claim that we do not know for certain if the topic is inherently simple or complex."
Hey look here, is there anything within the system of monetary subjection we can do without monetary subjection?
Simple question isn't it?
The opposing side although wasn't direct as could be when answering, the opposing side did allude to money being enslavement.
"Indeed we can, however the conversation potentially suffers from addressing less. I can not guarantee 100% for sure that we have something to gain in regards to figuring out the answer to this topic by talking about how to address or approach it. However I can say that we have nothing to lose talking about it save for typing space and reading time. I believe potentially wasting time and energy on a pointless tangent is much less detrimental to the conversation than potentially missing out on insight that could've been gained by pursuing it."
The topic, the modern 9-5 is slavery. Now that's either true or false. I understand you want to delve into sub topics or other facets to the topic. But that's what they are, other topics.
Really it just comes down to how you look at it. The way I have explained it, does it make sense and is it consistent? We're not talking about negative or positive or anything. We're not talking about problems or solutions. You're broaching all these other things trying to see what there is to gain.
What there is to gain is to examine my position for consistency and the sense of it all according to why the modern 9-5 is slavery. I have suspicion that because you don't have much focus on this but more on these other topics, what I'm saying must make sense and you yield to that. So that's really the end of the topic. If you find yourself understanding what I'm saying and get the sense of it and say "well from that perspective, I see how that works", then you agree. You gain agreement.
"For this particular case, I would argue that an alternative and/or solution to our state of being could provide more insight on what state of being isn't the monetary prison system, and maybe potentially even what isn't slavery in general. Which in turn could provide more insight on what qualifies as the monetary prison system, as well as potentially what slavery is in general, as its own identity." = further complicating it
Slavery is obligation, obligation is slavery= simple.
"my opponent has greatly neglected, in this debate of "The 9-5 is modern day slavery", to give slavery its own identity independent of how it relates to the monetary prison system. In this debate the majority of what we've been given is "money is slavery" and "slavery is money", occasionally being packaged with "slavery is obligation" and "obligation is slavery", and sometimes "money is obligation"."
"Oh you are still a slave by being in the monetary prison. The 9-5 is enslaving as it is delegated via the monetary system."
"all my opponent has is obligation is slavery and slavery is obligation. And when the monetary prison system is involved, all that exists is "Financial necessity is obligation" and "Financial necessity is slavery". (not necessarily vice-versa of these two statements, however they are still built upon the foundation of the circular nature of obligation and slavery to each other)"
I'm sorry you see my explanation of traits as circular. But I truly believe you are or have had a hard time of getting your head around it.
"But additionally, an argument so heavily based upon the technical meaning of slavery runs into issues of the argument having a Lack of purpose, hurting the spirit of the argument. Becoming a simple matter of stating an obvious fact(which I'll expand on under Squares and Rectangles)."
It was mentioned about what is to be gained. It is fruitless to argue over semantics and definitions. The topic is not proving what slavery means but observing the parallel of the modern day 9-5 and slavery. If you didn't have an understanding for what slavery or obligation is, this could of been asked before accepting to debate. Wasting rounds going back and forth over definitions when all they are to serve as are tools for communication, that can be squared away before commencing the debate. No pun intended.
"The argument, while on the surface seemingly being about the injustices of the 9-5 work routine, fails to make a commitment about the ethical of position of either slavery in general or monetary slavery in specific. "
Not the topic. One thing the opposing side seems to struggle with is keeping focus on the epicenter of the topic. If you can't keep focus there, you indirectly concede and move to other facets .
"That in combination with it being considerably focused on word meaning, as well as not wishing to address potential alternatives, outs or escapes, in my opinion begs the question of what the purpose of this debate is."
Yes this is my point exactly. The opposing side could of flushed this out before accepting.
Usually there is a moral to the story, some kind of call to action, a life lesson to be had, or some kind of insight that in some way, shape or form can be used in order to better our lives, even if my the tiniest of margins. Some of the language used by my opponent's arguments such as "breaking out of prison" could potentially imply an encouragement to change our state of affairs so that we are no longer slaves to money."
Don't go by "usually" and implication. You run yourself into error.
" However when directly asked about this a committed answer is failed to be delivered. And the further definitional nature of the argument (which I'll expand upon under Squares and Rectangles) further puts this debate in danger of being lacking in purpose."
I wonder why the opposing side didn't flush this out at least at the beginning of the debate. Did the opposing side just assume that this would be an ethical issue?
You don't have to assume. If I said the topic was "It's unethical to be enslaved in this 9-5", you know instantly well we're talking about ethics.
"I would argue that the minimum needed for a person to appropriately be called a slave, is for the object of their enslavement, the slave master, to be a person or sentient being or organization (like a prison, or government) in some form."
One of the things you said for the object of their enslavement is organization. That's what the monetary prison system is. It's organized and it's a prison as the keyword you mentioned "prison". That it is. It is also governed. The economy is governed with laws, regulations, taxes(obligation), etc.
You probably don't realize the things that you see or are used to are actually what I've been talking about. I'm just helping to shift the perspective a bit. But the big picture is what it is.
"What you would get would essentially transform the argument "The 9-5 is modern day slavery" into "Monetary slavery is modern day slavery", or "Slavery is slavery". "
Tomato tomotto tomato tomotto.
All the same thing. This is what I mean by complicating and over analyzing and getting finicky with this and that. Again, slavery the term may sound to harsh so you choose not to use it .
But what reigns supreme over your life? Is it your life or the dollar/currency an organized form of domination and obligation?
Case closed.
"And as a result of Life itself is enslavement, my opponent's argument is also at risk of concluding that there can be no form of life that isn't enslavement. Not only further potentially reducing the purpose of using "slave" as an identifying factor. (outside of what specific forms of slavery they're under). But also potentially at risk of falling into concluding that Life = Slavery and Slavery = Life. "
Not really up for discussion or debate. If you really want to talk about all these other things, let me know and as I say again, a separate time can be arranged. Just stick to what you want to talk about unless you just want a free range dialogue.
"It puts my opponent's conclusion at risk of being pointless as well. If not potentially worse, detrimental, at least lingually detrimental. I would argue we potentially have something to lose by treating obligation and slavery as words that mean the exact same thing than if we kept them separate, then if we kept slavery as a sub-category of obligation."
The point of the topic is as follows: "The topic is not proving what slavery means but observing the parallel of the modern day 9-5 and slavery."
"It takes time, experience and observation. This thing really comes through once you observe or have done so for a while."
So is my observation correct or not? I say that it is. Your position was to argue that it isn't. It seems you held your counter arguments until the latter but just flushed out a litany of questions which could of been reduced so we could of had a back and forth more on the counters.
"So far my opponent's arguments have lacked evidence and/or sufficient reasoning support for plenty of its claims. Some of which are important claims. Has possibly suffered from a lack of addressing potentially relevant bullet points. Has possibly suffered from committing to the simplification of a potentially complex topic. And possibly in danger of making the question meaningless. As well as possibly in danger of making his conclusion meaningless and/or without benefit."
Oh the evidence is following this question:
Is there anything within the system of monetary subjection we can do without monetary subjection?
I don't believe the opposing side knows what the evidence is supposed to look like. Keywords there : look like.
The opposing side doesn't even realize the answer that was indirectly alluded to says it all. Money is obligatory I believe was said. Oh that "doesn't prove slavery". Well being that the opposing side was asking a slew of questions, the opposing side should of harped on this question following it up with more questions. What is money to make it obligatory? How does it obligate us ? In terms of what? What we can do or not do or both.... in what areas of life does it affect? What areas of life don't involve money? What areas of life aren't subject to it? Is this not what enslavement is? Then what exactly is enslavement? Does it have nothing to do with being subject? Particularly in so many areas of your life....have you thought about all these questions and answers?
See this is lining up. It all lines up. This is how we come to the line of reasoning that we do. So when we talk about evidence, it's what we can see, right. It is what we can empirically verify as reality the way it is. So me, the opposing side, anyone that can step back and see(view empirical evidence) for themselves the domination of life or how much life is subject to what it's subject to.
Just like in any science experiment. You start with a question, hypothesis, form a theory, test it, reach a conclusion.
So the question, is my life subject to money?
I asked the question"Is there anything within the system of monetary subjection we can do without monetary subjection?"
The opposing side didn't answer the question head on. It was a sort of "even if it was the case , it still doesn't prove" response. But if the opposing side would have not stopped at "the very least" type of response and gave it more consideration and asked following up questions like anybody could ask to him or herself, the questions would have lead you to the reality of it all meaning the proof.
It's not at the very least money is just obligatory and that's it. Next question, money is obligatory so how does it enslave my life?
Your life is subject to it. Is it in all areas of my life ? Yes.
How? You're participating in a system of it that surrounds you. What system? Commerce.
What am I doing to participate?
Mostly being occupied and working a 9-5 job because you're subject to it. This is how you're also able to spend money. Something else you're subject to do.
What am I not subject to do? There's got to be something isn't that right?
In this system, to supply all your needs which are living needs have a monetary cost or financial obligation. So is there really nothing? There is no area you're free from just like a slave that has all of his or her areas of life subjected.
These are the lines of questions that would take the opposing side, anybody that is willing, right where they're seeking for evidence.
This is straight to it. This could of been the first round, end of story. But the opposing side, if you noticed just delved into SOOOOO many other things away from the crux right here in the topic.
What, where, how and why. The epicenter was right here in these straight to the point line of questions.
It all started with "Is there anything within the system of monetary subjection we can do without monetary subjection?"
I don't believe the opposing side said"yes". If the opposing said"yes", the opposing case could of been argued from that positive affirmation. But the opposing side steered away from just coming out directly saying"no" as that would of had strength in agreement to my side.
Once you admit that's there's NOTHING, it's harsh, it's grim, just like slavery is painted to be but true and correct as the topic statement says.
Think about it. You say no. There's not anything we can do like a slave can do without being subject to his master as we are to the currency master. Case closed.
Oh what about the 9-5 ? Where does the 9-5 COME FROM?
The opposing side, I have to say, you have to start looking at everything as being connected. Stop observing things in isolated boxes.
We have 9-5 structures due to have a currency system. The wage an hour, the 40 hour a week work structure, the value of work a worker is equivalent to be paid for all comes through the delegation of A SYSTEM.
You have a slave master or you can the headmaster and his SYSTEM of secondary masters under him. These secondary masters form companies, right. They form corporations that head all the workers. Of course this is done in an organized fashion so it doesn't fall apart. The word you used, organized and it's all subjection or obligation so it's in a prison, another word you used. They're all imprisoned headed by a slave master.
Oh the slave master as currency isn't a person. Whom invented, codified the value of the currency was a person(s). In spirit we adhere and follow the dictation of that person(s) by maintaining the system we're in that we're also governed by. Another term you used, governed. It is all connected.
I'll say again. The term slavery or enslavement has been painted as is. The opposing side brought up slavery in terms of history of the world. So when the opposing side sees the term "slavery", to my statement of the word there's like an instant rejection or a defense wall thrown up saying "wait a minute, no. Not true. So you're saying that is what slavery is. What are you talking about?"
Mind in a box. Broaden that scope and perspective and realize what I'm talking about in essence. Down to the bare bones as I've said. I broke it down to the bare nature and there's still struggling from the opposing side to understand or comprehend that in the broken down basic terms.
Today, rethink about everything around you and in the world, how it all works through commerce, people working via employment, money changing hands.
Start with you waking up , going and doing whatever throughout the day until you go back to sleep and even during sleep. What is the world of commerce doing? Do you think you dip in and out of it or are you always in its activity 24/7?
Too bad this is the end because these are the questions we really could of dug into . See because it's dealing with right now of that which you can see for yourself. It's questioning your observation, what you think you see to what you really see, what is really going on. The evidence will be right there before your very eyes. It has to be what you can observe. Me telling you isn't evidence. I can only point you or direct you to evidence. It's what you can see for yourself. That's what evidence is and how it works. Not what you're told, not what somebody has written. Many individuals on this site got that mixed up so I'm ruffling their feathers right here in this instance.
Now I didn't intend for this response to be at length as this. But topics like these, you will need lecture type dissertations in great detail for those that get thrown off or superficially cannot decipher what is being communicated. I try to simplify or make concise with those questions I posed. Beginning with that initial question I thought would help getting our focus on what we basically need to learn to acknowledge the truth.
"I do apologize for not having made this presentation earlier as I wish my opponent had more than one round to respond. If it is possible to increase the number of round of this debate I'd be in support of it."
I suspect this was intentional to avoid the number of refutations. If you only have limited or perhaps even one refutation to give to my counterpoints, it's easier to hold your best defense until the end saving your one and only counter.
"I believe this counter-point fails. The claim "there's no comparison to be outside of it" has already been pre-emptively countered by "we had a system without common currency we can examine(and compare to)" as well as "the introduction of common currency itself is change""
Here's the problem right here with the term "we". Who are the "we"? You and I, right. As far as I know I have never been outside of the system. So being that I don't personally know, I have no realization of what that is. Remember what I said about seeing things and experiencing things for yourself. Others experiences are not evidence to me. It is to them. The currency system has been here years and years. I doubt you were born outside of it. I was born into it. My progenitors were. Theirs were and so forth.
So all I know and all we know is what we've been born into. What I mean by know is personal evident experience as opposed to knowing of . When you're born into an environment, grew up in that environment, all you've ever known to live in existence period is that environment. This is how someone outside the environment comes in and can feel or react or deal with things in a way that is different from you. That person may not be able to adapt or find a fitting or find footing in such a place and the person struggles to assimilate. You can do life, live and thrive because you're embedded.
If you understand anything about institutionalization, you know what is ordinary to you , what appears to be not out of place or seamlessly works fine as is with no issues so you hold no gripe or contentions. Only to a newcomer that is an outsider would have the gripes. I'm trying to help you take eyes of a newcomer within your own situation taking a different perspective of life in talking about the reality of the actual subjection you're in. Being something you didn't realize before, you don't easily accept nor understand.
If I suddenly break out this subjection/monetary prison, go try to thrive in wilderness, I'm going to get the survivorship rationality shock instantly like a prisoner that was in penal prison who has basically lived an entire young adult life into elder age upon release.
I'm going to have a hard time with things going wrong in the wilderness because everything was so right in the commerce world. All I knew was that world so essentially that increases my survival probability and I just look at it that way. If I just look at it that way, it's hard to see it as anything else. So when someone else comes along and calls it slavery, wait, what?
That's pretty much the opposing side's reaction to the topic, to my position. "Wait , what ? " It's others reactions to this because they've been born into it.
You don't realize how much you rely and are subject to the system just as any prisoner that has been in a system for so long. That person is so dependent. Being born into the thing is more than "so long" for any individual. A prisoner that has been in a system for so long, that person is so dependent on the system which is what is called institutionalization. The government, the economy is the institution WE HERE NOW are under. We can't speak to before us and compare if that was better or worse. We weren't there. We have no evidence of that, no personal awareness and experience.
"Be diagnosed for autism and deemed unfit for workplace environment I guess. Funny enough that is also exactly how a German friend of mine got an early pension."
You're not unpacking this at all. Didn't you have to do something to get diagnosed? Didn't others have to do something to get you evaluated? Did they not have to travel, did you not have to? Did they not have to do something in order to obtain coverage (financial obligation) in order to compensate for the medical evaluations?
I'm sure somewhere in this process paperwork had to be done, sent, processed, required, etc.
There had to be required evaluations, tests, conditions, standards to meet to qualify for monetary compensation. Then this is followed by still being obligated to comply with whatever medical proceedings in the future to continue payment assistance,sending off more paperwork,medical updates,updates regarding living situations, medications , regular physician visits, food allowances, clothing and budgeting. On top of that, whatever you have to do to receive your compensation and you're beholden to those that have to receive their compensation from you.
You've been responding in a shallow sense when it comes to this. Look at the bigger picture on a grand scale and see the web, the network of things at work all still in a world of commerce.
What I'm saying is, you don't just receive a medical benefit just by existing. There are things required of you , others , things that must be done, have to happen in this web of obligation and commerce enslavement.
Even when it comes to medical situations, you're still subject to money. You have to pay for medical care. If you can't pay, there goes your life. Unless others(taxpayers) chip in for you. Which still speaks to monetary supremacy. The dollar reigns your life. You don't reign the dollar.
"If hunger qualifies as an object we can be enslaved to. Then in that case it is plainly impossible to break out of the imprisonment of hunger , unless you count dying."
Ok so is this topic about the enslavement to the 9-5 or hunger?
See how you easily got the topic going all over the place. I'm not copping out. I'm trying to maintain focus so we don't shuffle getting lost in a lot of messy sauce.
"If possible, what is a form of obligation that is not slavery?"
To me that is like asking what is a form of killing that isn't death.
Slavery=obligation, obligation=slavery .
Maybe we ought to have a discussion on what obligation is, what it constitutes, what it entails.
When you are obligated to do something, you have no freedom to not do it. What is supposed to be the distinction with that and being enslaved to that something?
Do you see what I'm taking about?
"Can there exist a state of living where a human is not a slave? Yes, generally, not specific to monetary enslavement."
Nothing comes to mind . Put it this way. Of course this answer drastically changes on how you define slavery. Like I say generally, people think of slavery as physical chains, shackles and whips. They don't even think about penal prison. Oh well.
"Sorry for not specifying, but in my example Mark is a complete stranger, not a family member or even a friend or acquaintance. (prior to the scenario at least). Do I still count as non-charitably providing for him?"
If the provision is made possible by you being subject to the monetary system, doing for and receiving from the monetary system, no you're not doing charitable work. The person may receive it as charity or believe it is because usually a grown person can provide for his or herself.
Signing off here comrade.
It pains me that this is potentially the final round of this debate. However, as I've said in the comments already, I'd be very happy if we were able to continue this in a part 2 debate as I believe there's lots of ground we haven't gone over and as my opponent said, its just not clicking for me what's in his mind and heart as hard as I try to understand him. So with that in mind, this final argument will still contain in it questions. I urge that these question not have an effect in the voting process here as my opponent hasn't the opportunity to answer them here in the first place and are meant for in case there is a part 2.
Addressing common points
Throughout the course of the argument, my opponent has had, to his credit, plenty of self-consistent/unchanging stances. I will group these stances as best as I can so I can address them more effectively.
"You just don't understand"
Before I begin, I preface in saying when you're just not understanding something or you just don't get it, nothing I say will suffice. This is why you continue to ask questions because it just doesn't click . At least right now . It's not so much lacking my explanation but a severe lack in understanding.It takes time, experience and observation. This thing really comes through once you observe or have done so for a while. But if you never gave a 5 second thought or two minute thought on this, everything I say is foreign.I'm sorry you see my explanation of traits as circular. But I truly believe you are or have had a hard time of getting your head around it."It takes time, experience and observation. This thing really comes through once you observe or have done so for a while."I don't believe the opposing side knows what the evidence is supposed to look like. Keywords there : look like.Mind in a box. Broaden that scope and perspective and realize what I'm talking about in essence. Down to the bare bones as I've said. I broke it down to the bare nature and there's still struggling from the opposing side to understand or comprehend that in the broken down basic terms.
You are right, even up until now I do not yet fully 100% understand what is inside Pro's heart and soul in regards to why and how enslaved and obligated are interchangeable. And you are also correct that I ask so many questions in large part because I do not yet fully understand how or why one could come to the conclusions you have ultimately come to. I have ideas, theories and possibilities, but nothing that can make me say "I know 100% for sure and for a fact what you're thinking and why you're thinking it"
It is even possible that this is an unexplainable concept. That the reason I am not understanding is not because Pro could do more, but rather because there's no more that could be done on his part. (alternatively, it could always be possible that the explanation is sufficient and the shortcoming is on my end).
In fact I had even already gone out of my way to use keywords such as "possible" and "potential" when arguing for what can possibly be a shortcoming in Pro's explanation.
That said, I will continue to argue my position, and my position regarding this specific bullet point, is that while "it can not be explained, it takes time, experience and observation" could be true. Pro's argument does not benefit if this is the case as we would not have sufficient reason to take his side on the basis of his explanation. That assuming Pro's conclusion is the correct one, only those who have already gone through the time, experience and observation Pro has gone through could arrive at that conclusion.
The evidence will be right there before your very eyes. It has to be what you can observe. Me telling you isn't evidence. I can only point you or direct you to evidence. It's what you can see for yourself. That's what evidence is and how it works. Not what you're told, not what somebody has written. Many individuals on this site got that mixed up so I'm ruffling their feathers right here in this instance.
Even in this case, I would argue, at the very least personally up to my current understanding, that your instructions and directions as to how we can come upon the evidence required to reach the same conclusions as you, are lacking. I would go beyond this and say that we might also potentially lack sufficient reason to believe that such evidence exists. That as correct an observation as we can make will lead us confidently to the same conclusions you've come to.
"Name something that isn't"
There you go right here. See I'm asking you the question is there anything within the system of monetary subjection we can do without monetary subjection. The answer is in there, right. So being subject is being obligated and or enslaved. All of these terms are synonymous.Is there anything within the system of monetary subjection we can do without monetary subjection?Hey look here, is there anything within the system of monetary subjection we can do without monetary subjection?Is there anything within the system of monetary subjection we can do without monetary subjection?I asked the question"Is there anything within the system of monetary subjection we can do without monetary subjection?"What am I not subject to do? There's got to be something isn't that right?It all started with "Is there anything within the system of monetary subjection we can do without monetary subjection?"Start with you waking up , going and doing whatever throughout the day until you go back to sleep and even during sleep. What is the world of commerce doing? Do you think you dip in and out of it or are you always in its activity 24/7?
My opponent's argument is filled with this question being proof in concept that money is slavery and that we are enslaved to money, given the fact that there is nothing we can do without it being directly or indirectly related to money. The argument essentially going like this. "Can you do anything without money" "No.", "Therefore money is obligatory", "and obligation is enslavement", "Therefore money is enslavement"
However, in this chain of deduction, the "and obligation is enslavement" is the most lacking part. In most instances where Pro elaborates on this, Pro simply assumes it to be true. Pro's new response that I was able to find that address it with more than just assuming it to be correct is
If you're asking why I use them synonymously which may be a better help to you to understand, slavery has always had the nature of obligation and deficit of freedom, isn't that so?
This does not challenge what I've said actually. I said all slavery is obligation but not all obligation is slavery. Your current explanation provides why every instance of slavery is necessarily packaged with obligation. Why all slavery is obligation. It does not provide an explanation for why every instance of obligation is necessarily packaged with slavery. Why all obligation is slavery.
And this is why I personally view "name something that isn't" as an incomplete argument and, at the very least, requires more supporting arguments. Something that explains why every instance of obligation is fit to be considered a form of slavery.
"Why not answer the question?"
The opposing side didn't answer the question head on. It was a sort of "even if it was the case , it still doesn't prove" response. But if the opposing side would have not stopped at "the very least" type of response and gave it more consideration and asked following up questions like anybody could ask to him or herself, the questions would have lead you to the reality of it all meaning the proof.I don't believe the opposing side said"yes". If the opposing said"yes", the opposing case could of been argued from that positive affirmation. But the opposing side steered away from just coming out directly saying"no" as that would of had strength in agreement to my side.
I did not answer the question head on because I didn't feel the need to specify given my responses. Indeed you are correct in concluding that I have practically responded with no. That for the purposes of this argument, we can assume that the answer is "no, there is nothing I can think of that I can do that doesn't relate to money directly or indirectly."
In fact, I would even go so far as to say that Pro's example of living in the wilderness, does not apply. As out in the wilderness in order to survive I will at the very least grow my own food. That food, and anything else I produce, are potential trade goods that can be sold for money. Even out in the wilderness I will always be in some shape or form growing or shrinking my effective wealth, which can be translated into money, as a result of my production and my consumption.
Anyway, the reason I did not answer yes was because there is nothing to be gained in attempting to argue that I do not need to spend money in order to live. I believe everyone reading this must spend money in order to live. While I am your opponent, I would only hurt my case if I attempted to contradict every single bullet point I came across.
The reasons I did not answer a simple "no" was that I practically did and my response could be deduced as such, as evident by your response to it.
The heart of your argument, as I explained in the previous bullet point, was "money is obligation" --> "obligation = slavery" --> "money is slavery"
The question demonstrates the first conclusion of those three, and the third conclusion is the natural conclusion of the combination of the first and second conclusions. Therefor I answered by directly asking why is the second conclusion true. And, as I said before, because it already could be deducted that my answer was no.
Neglecting the core issue and distracting with irrelevancies
The topic, the modern 9-5 is slavery. Now that's either true or false. I understand you want to delve into sub topics or other facets to the topic. But that's what they are, other topics.What there is to gain is to examine my position for consistency and the sense of it all according to why the modern 9-5 is slavery. I have suspicion that because you don't have much focus on this but more on these other topics, what I'm saying must make sense and you yield to that.Not the topic. One thing the opposing side seems to struggle with is keeping focus on the epicenter of the topic. If you can't keep focus there, you indirectly concede and move to other facets .Yes this is my point exactly. The opposing side could of flushed this out before accepting.I wonder why the opposing side didn't flush this out at least at the beginning of the debate. Did the opposing side just assume that this would be an ethical issue?Not really up for discussion or debate. If you really want to talk about all these other things, let me know and as I say again, a separate time can be arranged. Just stick to what you want to talk about unless you just want a free range dialogue.It seems you held your counter arguments until the latter but just flushed out a litany of questions which could of been reduced so we could of had a back and forth more on the counters.Ok so is this topic about the enslavement to the 9-5 or hunger?See how you easily got the topic going all over the place. I'm not copping out. I'm trying to maintain focus so we don't shuffle getting lost in a lot of messy sauce.
The main topic suffers
The first thing I wish to address is the implication of avoiding the core topic, of neglecting the core issue, of detracting from the center focus. Or some such combination of them as a result of failing to address it enough, or addressing other things too much.
I deny that I have neglected or lacked in addressing the main topic. That is simply flatly false, the large scope of my arguments has always included what you consider the main topic. As shown by for example the bullet point started by me asking what do you define as slavery and ending with you telling me it takes time, experience and observation. Usually the topmost written bullet point of your and my arguments.
I also deny that addressing other topics too much detracts or distracts from the main topic. As again in my view, the worst case scenario in those ending up being irrelevant is that I wasted writing time and you wasted reading time on them. I deny that this has adversely affected my ability to address what you consider as the important topics. Or claim at the very least that if it has, that should be evident from a drop in quality of my statements addressing the main topic, rather than from the mere volume of the amount of topics I bring up.
I also deny that I concede the main topic by virtue of adding other topics. I am only in process of conceding the main topic if I neglect addressing it.
These are not the topic
Examining your position consistency and sense of how the modern 9-5 is or isn't slavery includes examining what slavery is in that position. Examining how slavery and life itself are potentially interchangeable within Pro's stance further addresses this. The topic regarding how hunger relates to slavery also further addresses this. As well as addresses a characteristic you gave to slavery. It being something we can break out of.
The ethics, and potential outs and alternatives, can potentially serve to shed light into what would motivate is into, as Pro put it, observing and questioning everything around us, from the moment we wake up to the moment we go to sleep, in order to arrive or not arrive to the conclusion Pro arrived to. That the 9-5 is modern day slavery.
These topics may not strictly be "The 9-5 is is modern day slavery" or "The 9-5 isn't modern day slavery". However I argue that they could potentially serve as a contributing factor in helping answer the question "Is the 9-5 modern day slavery?"
Why didn't you flush this out?
I think there might be a misunderstanding here. For example with ethics, I didn't say "This is outrageous, Pro's argument must have an ethical stance, this is not what I expected from this debate", merely, "This is how Pro's argument potentially suffers from being ethics neutral". Merely a bullet point argument of mine.
Why delay the counter arguments?
Largely for the same reason why I asked so many questions. I did not understand the heart and soul of your argument, in fact according to you I still don't. I wished to gain as clear an understanding of your stance as I could before counter-arguing, as I'd first need to know what argument I am attempting to rebut in the first place.
A further experience that reinforced this was the first round, where I had presented several counter arguments including a defense of free market capitalism, and a case study comparison with chattel slavery. After you did much respond to these and gave answers to my questions I deemed that it would be better to first extract as much meaning from your stance as I could before I jump to counter arguments so that I can continue, as I put it before, trying to limit counter-points that might not be addressing the spirit of your points at all. I truly meant it when I said "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that". In fact, even in round 4 I had not yet felt that I knew enough about your side of the case, however you only had one response left after that so I decided to rush out all rebuttals I could think of, even the ones I feared were in danger of potentially being irrelevant and failing to address the heart of your argument.
Additionally I deny that my asking so many questions is the reason we lost out on potentially "a back and forth more on the counters.", I did not run out of typing space in any of my arguments.
You should've asked these questions.
Well being that the opposing side was asking a slew of questions, the opposing side should of harped on this question following it up with more questions.
Let's examine this bit by bit.
What is money to make it obligatory?How does it obligate us?In terms of what?What we can do or not do or both.... in what areas of life does it affect?What areas of life don't involve money?What areas of life aren't subject to it?
All these first six questions would accomplish is establish that money is obligatory. That we need money in order to live, and that there is nothing we do that does not, directly or indirectly, relate to money in some way. That every area of life involves money directly or indirectly. Points that, as Pro himself observed, I had already conceded to within the course of this debate.
Is this not what enslavement is?Then what exactly is enslavement?Does it have nothing to do with being subject?
These 7th 8th and 9th questions are all questions I had asked in fact. I had asked what Pro considered to be slavery, the 8th question, I had asked why is obligation (and by extension, being subject to) enslavement, the 7th question and 9th questions.
Particularly in so many areas of your life....have you thought about all these questions and answers?
I will answer directly. I haven't put much thought into the first 6 questions as I decided to simply move on with the debate under the notion that money is obligatory. Not needing to be questioned. The other 3 questions of course I have for I asked you those questions.
Simplicity vs Complication
Hey look here, is there anything within the system of monetary subjection we can do without monetary subjection?Simple question isn't it?"For this particular case, I would argue that an alternative and/or solution to our state of being could provide more insight on what state of being isn't the monetary prison system, and maybe potentially even what isn't slavery in general. Which in turn could provide more insight on what qualifies as the monetary prison system, as well as potentially what slavery is in general, as its own identity." = further complicating itSlavery is obligation, obligation is slavery= simple.Tomato tomotto tomato tomotto.All the same thing. This is what I mean by complicating and over analyzing and getting finicky with this and that. Again, slavery the term may sound to harsh so you choose not to use it .But what reigns supreme over your life? Is it your life or the dollar/currency an organized form of domination and obligation?Case closed.
Most of my argument against this already exists under This topic is simple in nature in my round 4 argument. I will directly address these three responses as well.
For the first and third responses, I will argue that your claim that the simple question you posed will simply lead to the conclusion is not necessarily true. Given that in this debate you have posed that question, you've observed my answer to it as practically a no, and I have yet to arrive to your conclusion. Now while this is not 100% proof that the topic is more complex than this, as it is technically possible that I am simply, as an individual, being unreasonably obstinate here, I will personally deny that that is the case and argue that we don't have much reason to believe so.
The second response is merely a claim.
The slave master
One of the things you said for the object of their enslavement is organization. That's what the monetary prison system is. It's organized and it's a prison as the keyword you mentioned "prison". That it is. It is also governed. The economy is governed with laws, regulations, taxes(obligation), etc.Think about it. You say no. There's not anything we can do like a slave can do without being subject to his master as we are to the currency master. Case closed.You have a slave master or you can the headmaster and his SYSTEM of secondary masters under him. These secondary masters form companies, right. They form corporations that head all the workers. Of course this is done in an organized fashion so it doesn't fall apart. The word you used, organized and it's all subjection or obligation so it's in a prison, another word you used. They're all imprisoned headed by a slave master.Oh the slave master as currency isn't a person. Whom invented, codified the value of the currency was a person(s). In spirit we adhere and follow the dictation of that person(s) by maintaining the system we're in that we're also governed by. Another term you used, governed. It is all connected.
So now there is a hierarchy of slave masters?
Firstly, even with your attempted explanation at how this fits with my personal bare minimum necessity for the slave master being sentient organizations. While the secondary slave masters, being people in charge of law, regulation, tax collection, company & corporation heads, and so on, fits with my necessity that slave masters be sentient. This is still does not explain how money and currency itself being the, as you put it, headmaster fits in with this necessity. Even inserting people into this hierarchy as secondary slave masters the top slave master, to the best of my understanding of your argument, is still currency itself, a non-sentient being.
Secondly this implies that currency, as something we must use in order to live, would disappear without people enforcing us to use it. However common currency has not only existed long before that was the case. There is not any individual, or any group of individuals I can think of, not even the most powerful of banks, that is forcing me to use the Egyptian pound for exchange. I could always (and have in fact done so once) exchange it for dollars, I could try to trade items directly (and have in fact a few times) instead of using the Egyptian pound when buying or selling stuff. The primary reason I and many people don't is because money is simply a more effective medium of commerce than alternatives such as bartering.
And it is my claim that even if you were to remove all the law officials, regulators, tax collectors, company & corporation heads and whoever else, people at large would use money so much so that "I need money in order to live" would continue to be true. We could have it so that, using prison as an analogy, all the prison wardens and guards give the keys and ownership of the prison to the prisoners, and if they select to stay in that prison complex and make it their home you potentially might still call them imprisoned even with nobody imprisoning them, or might claim that money (or in this case, the circumstances of using the prison complex as a home being that of better living conditions than leaving the prison) itself is the prison warden. That the prisoners are imprisoned by their desire to stay. That we are imprisoned by our desire to continue using currency.
Direct Responses
These are direct responses that I otherwise could not fit under common points
To me that is like asking what is a form of killing that isn't death.
Funny enough, while I do understand what you're trying to convey. That analogy fails even within your own meaning.
Every form of killing results in death. But not every death is the consequence of killing. In here killing is a sub-category of death. And meaningfully in sentences they are not always the same, for example. "He died" and "He was killed" are not always the same. From this analogy it isn't the case that death = killing, killing = death.
To the best of my understanding, I believe your intention was to use a more completely interchangeable analogy, such as "twelve" and "a dozen"
The topic is not proving what slavery means but observing the parallel of the modern day 9-5 and slavery.
But how can we examine the parallel's of the modern day 9-5 and slavery without knowing what slavery is/means?
Here's the problem right here with the term "we". Who are the "we"? You and I, right. As far as I know I have never been outside of the system. So being that I don't personally know, I have no realization of what that is. Remember what I said about seeing things and experiencing things for yourself. Others experiences are not evidence to me. It is to them. The currency system has been here years and years. I doubt you were born outside of it. I was born into it. My progenitors were. Theirs were and so forth.
Is examining things we haven't a lived experience with going to be relatively more difficult than examining things we had a lived experience with. Of course it will be.
However your claim or implication that it is impossible or pointless to examine something we haven't a lived experience with, and/or that information we hadn't a personal lived experience with is no evidence to us, is zero evidence to us, is in my opinion too tall of an order to claim with confidence. I believe that it is within our capacity to examine, and use as insightful data, information that neither you nor I nor anyone on this planet has had. Not necessarily that it is certain we'll always benefit from it. But at the very least that there is nothing lost in trying.
Humanity has had a life before common currency. And we can examine it and use it as a point of comparison. That neither you nor I nor our grandparents lived such lives makes examining it more difficult, but not necessarily impossible, pointless and completely and utterly devoid of deductive evidence.
If I suddenly break out this subjection/monetary prison, go try to thrive in wilderness, I'm going to get the survivorship rationality shock instantly like a prisoner that was in penal prison who has basically lived an entire young adult life into elder age upon release.You don't realize how much you rely and are subject to the system just as any prisoner that has been in a system for so long. That person is so dependent. Being born into the thing is more than "so long" for any individual. A prisoner that has been in a system for so long, that person is so dependent on the system which is what is called institutionalization.
This can be interpreted in several ways, given that you can't respond (until a potential part 2) I'll address the interpretations I can think of. I apologize if none are what you meant.
"Because the monetary prison system has a higher quality of life than the wilderness, we are tricked into believing it is not imprisonment"
Potentially true, but this depends on assuming that money is imprisonment. And I would argue that the higher quality of life includes less hours we need to labor to live (under the system of money, as compared to in the wilderness), which is relatively more freedom, the opposite of imprisonment.
"Life in wilderness is better than life under money. However living our entire lives under money leaves us incapable of having the best living conditions in wilderness"
There is no evidence to believe life in wilderness is better, or even of more freedom (as far as the amount of labor you must do to survive) than life under money.
"Life in wilderness isn't better than life under money. However living our entire lives under money leaves us incapable of having the best living conditions in wilderness"
If life in wilderness isn't better why would we pursue it?
You're not unpacking this at all.Then this is followed by still being obligated to comply with whatever medical proceedings in the future to continue payment assistance,sending off more paperwork,medical updates,updates regarding living situations, medications , regular physician visits, food allowances, clothing and budgeting.
I have already unpacked it, when I said "Is my trip to the ATM obligated time spent for money? Or are you referring to when I went to the military hospital to get diagnosed for autism several years ago?". But if that is not sufficient I will answer again, even more clearly. All I personally needed to do to qualify for pension was visit the military hospital once several years ago to get diagnosed for autism, after which the only thing I need to do to collect my pension monthly is go to the ATM and use my bank card to collect it.
There is no further obligated medical proceedings now or in the future that I have to comply to. Either in general, or in order to maintain my qualification for pension. Unlike with other topics there is no "potentially" or "possibly" on this one. This is personal testimony. I fully and confidently deny your assertion that I must be continuing to comply to medical proceedings to continue my payment assistance.
If the provision is made possible by you being subject to the monetary system, doing for and receiving from the monetary system, no you're not doing charitable work. The person may receive it as charity or believe it is because usually a grown person can provide for his or herself.
What is charity then?
Questions
Given the hierarchy of secondary masters you've posed, I'll ask. In my example regarding Mark am I a secondary slave master of him?
If possible, could you name who is the top slave master of the United States? or of my country Egypt? Or of any country of your choosing.
Talking about a literal prison, not a figurative one. If a person chooses to stay in the prison complex.(Let's say for example, as a result of not owning a home) They have the key to their cell(or room I guess), and nobody will hurt or obstruct them if they try to leave. Are they still a prisoner?
If possible, could you further assist me and the readers on what that time, experience and observation is? Especially to those of us who don't have it.
If possible, could you elaborate on how slavery=obligation, obligation=slavery is not circular?
Also regarding slavery=obligation, obligation=slavery. To be clear and leave no room for interpretation, are slavery and obligation a square and a rectangle, or two identical squares?
Do you believe there is the possibility, the potential that you are wrong? I'll answer first. I always believe I could potentially be wrong about anything. I suppose except my personal testimony of what I do/did for my pension.
When you say obligation and slavery are synonyms, do you mean exactly the same or nearly the same?
If every human state of living is slavery, what is freedom?
Hey, before it escapes my mind I wanted to ask. Would you be up for making a part 2 continuation of this topic? I was sincere about my offer to lengthen this debate if possible.
Phew, made it in time. My argument still could've benefitted from polishing as I think I repeated myself in it a few times, something I am not proud of.
What I am also not proud of is because I barely finished my counter-argument big picture presentation in a hurry, the questions section is lacking. I am glad I asked a ton of questions in the first three rounds. But I still feel bad about failing to do so this time.
Well this is embarrassing, I said I'd group some of the responses to reduce clutter but I didn't do that.
"By the way I want to insert this here so I don't forget. I appreciate the opposing effort. I have interacted with individuals that will not treat these exchanges seriously and carefully at all. I would like to request what topics of interest the opposing side wishes to engage in, let me know."
I am happy to hear this, I take it as a compliment, and to answer your question. I dunno, mostly philosophical, economic and/or religious topics if I had to choose? But I am willing to engage in other things too.
The 9 to 5 isn't modern day slavery; slavery is modern day slavery.
Hey, I noticed you weren't too pleased with getting a newcomer the last time you attempted this topic. So I just wanted to comment that I promise not to forfeit on this debate. I do not guarantee that this interaction will be fulfilling to you but I'll at least try to make it so.
Bro has never heard of 996 and unpaid mandatory overtime.