Every year, we open up a stadium for a giant Pro Slavery + Pro Nazi + Pro Confederacy rally. At the end of the rally, we lock all the doors and sell everyone in the stadium to the highest-bidding slavers.
Everyone at the rally gets to enjoy their pro-slavery desires and everyone else is rid of them. Win-win.
um… who do we sell them to? if it’s someone outside the stadium, aren’t they also pro-slavery? wouldn’t that mean they’d also be in the stadium? also, wouldn’t we, then, end up with a lot of slaves?
this seems like a bad idea for a few reasons, the least of which is the hypocrisy…
Hmmm… it wouldn’t be circular if we had “levels” of slaves. Imagine you only directly enslaved the people in the level below you, and you were only directly enslaved by the people in the level above you. I think it would still end up circular in places, though, so maybe we should call these “classes” instead.
But make it so if you didn’t play along then you would be cared for if you fell ill. Or you couldn’t get food. And you could only level up if you passed the right exams.
Make sure the highest slave owner pays a different kind of tax to the others at a much lower rate.
Make sure ownership can be inherited with relative ease.
Maybe a circular chain (no pun intended) of slavery can work if the circle is long enough? Each slave/slaver will get abused by their master and take out their frustration abusing their own slave. While it’s true that if you go far enough in either direction you’ll eventually reach yourself, there is not much you can do about it - even if you try to order your slave to order their slave to order their slave … to order their slave to free you, by the time that order reaches your own master the incentive to enforce it will be so diminished that they could ignore it without much consequence.
Of course, in order for this to work we need a rule that a master cannot order their slave to give them their slave. Or - to be on the safe side - a master cannot interfere with what a slave does with their own slaves.
Every year, we open up a stadium for a giant Pro Slavery + Pro Nazi + Pro Confederacy rally. At the end of the rally, we lock all the doors and sell everyone in the stadium to the highest-bidding slavers.
Everyone at the rally gets to enjoy their pro-slavery desires and everyone else is rid of them. Win-win.
um… who do we sell them to? if it’s someone outside the stadium, aren’t they also pro-slavery? wouldn’t that mean they’d also be in the stadium? also, wouldn’t we, then, end up with a lot of slaves?
this seems like a bad idea for a few reasons, the least of which is the hypocrisy…
Qatar. We sell them to Qatar.
Plot twist, they find that their belief systems are extremely similar and they join forces.
Russel’s slavery paradox.
It could be solved if slaves could own slaves, but it would become circular.
Hmmm… it wouldn’t be circular if we had “levels” of slaves. Imagine you only directly enslaved the people in the level below you, and you were only directly enslaved by the people in the level above you. I think it would still end up circular in places, though, so maybe we should call these “classes” instead.
Wait a minute… MyGodIGetItNow.jpg
Not strong slavery. Never mention the word.
But make it so if you didn’t play along then you would be cared for if you fell ill. Or you couldn’t get food. And you could only level up if you passed the right exams.
Make sure the highest slave owner pays a different kind of tax to the others at a much lower rate.
Make sure ownership can be inherited with relative ease.
Maybe a circular chain (no pun intended) of slavery can work if the circle is long enough? Each slave/slaver will get abused by their master and take out their frustration abusing their own slave. While it’s true that if you go far enough in either direction you’ll eventually reach yourself, there is not much you can do about it - even if you try to order your slave to order their slave to order their slave … to order their slave to free you, by the time that order reaches your own master the incentive to enforce it will be so diminished that they could ignore it without much consequence.
Of course, in order for this to work we need a rule that a master cannot order their slave to give them their slave. Or - to be on the safe side - a master cannot interfere with what a slave does with their own slaves.
I mean fire’s always an option