Is Slavery Bad?

Is slavery bad?  The answer to that question would, on its face, seem obvious.  Nearly anyone in modern western civilization would, if asked directly, be vehemently opposed to slavery.  In fact, if you were to openly accuse most random individuals of supporting slavery, you would be viciously rebutted. 

Let us look at this rationally, however, and see if the premises that slavery is bad and that most people oppose it hold any water.  The first thing we must do is define slavery as a practice and an institution.  Slavery may be defined as "the state of one bound in servitude as the property of" another, or "the state of a person who is a chattel of another."  (For the linguistically challenged, "chattel" is defined as legally-held, movable property.  Google it.)  Wikipedia describes it by stating that "Slavery (in the past, also called serfdom or thralldom) is a system in which people are the property of others. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand wages."  Slavery can also be defined as "forced labor" according to Anti-Slavery International.  So, in a nutshell, a slave is one who is either the property of another, or one who is forced to labor involuntarily on behalf of another.

There are many on both sides of the American (and European) political spectrum who openly support the principle of slavery without possessing the intestinal fortitude to name it as such.  Conservatives like to pass or lobby for laws prohibiting the possession or use of drugs or alcohol, or prohibiting various forms of sexual activity (prostitution, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc.) among consenting adults, or even prohibiting suicide (assisted or otherwise). When they do so, conservatives are, in effect, telling you that they, and not you, have the right of ownership over your body and may dictate what goes into your body, how you may employ it, or whether you may dispose of it.  The same is true for liberals who want to outlaw tobacco use, eating fatty foods, or using salt, or who want to mandate helmet usage for various recreational activities, or who want to outlaw risky activities altogether.  Assuming that you are not a minor child, a criminal, or mentally incompetent, who, besides you, has a right to tell you what you may put in your body or how you may enjoy your leisure time? 

You can not argue the "societal burden" regarding health issues.  First, it is a non sequitur.  What "right" is there to be saved from your own poor choices?  A unilateral decision by the government to provide some level of health services does not imply that there is any corresponding mandate upon an individual to behave rationally, responsibly, or cautiously.  Second, the "societal burden" is little more than a different form of socially justified enslavement.  Why do my bad decisions confer any obligation upon you?  Furthermore, the crime issues related to drug usage are a non sequitur as well.  Robbing a convenience store is a crime, regardless of whether the money is to purchase food, rent, or drugs.  Murder is murder regardless of whether the motive was to eliminate a romantic rival or to protect drug turf.  Driving under the influence is a crime regardless of whether the intoxicating chemical was legal (i.e. alcohol) or illegal (e.g. THC).  A man who smokes a joint in the privacy of his own living room, goes to bed, and wakes up sober (which the vast majority of drug users do) harms no one.

Now, the ethically-challenged Charlie Rangel has taken the practice of slavery (i.e. involuntary servitude) to a new level with his ‘Universal National Service Act’.  Now any American may enjoy the privilege (or maybe the "right", as we redefine "rights") to be forced into serving the agendas of the party in power.  Yes, this is the same Charlie Rangel who said "The challenges African-Americans are facing today are rooted in the system of slavery."  Apparently, as an African-American, Charlie has been enlightened as to the benefits of involuntary servitude.

John Locke argued in his Second Treatise of Government that since a man has the right of possession of his own person or body, he also has a right to whatever is produced by the labor of his body.  It was the principles of Locke that guided the Thomas Jefferson in his writing of the Declaration of Independence.  These principles were further enshrined generally in the principles of limited government, and specifically in the Bill of Rights.  Yes, we are all aware of the Founders' hypocrisy.  Even the Founders themselves were aware of it.  Most, including those who owned slaves, however, grudgingly accepted the institution as a temporary evil with an eye toward its eventual elimination.

So I ask, once again, that you consider the question, "is slavery a bad thing?"  I have made up my own mind on the matter.  You, however, will have to answer that question for yourself.  But if you do decide in favor, at least have the integrity to call it what it is.