Wealthy foreigners should be allowed to keep slaves

____________________________________________________________________________ Friendly note to my opponent, Brian Eggleston (voters can skip to next section to read argument): [Thanks for the debate. My only regret is that it wasn’t a five round debate. By the way, looking at your profile I came to three conclusions based on the following: “Travelling first class around the world doing fit birds in deluxe hotels but when I'm not working I like to spend time in my local pub.” So from that I concluded three things about you, ordered from most likely to least likely: (1) You are an extremely lucky individual, whose life I would steal if it were a tradable commodity—by the way, if your ever sick and need someone to fill in for you, please get in contact with me at any time; I know the time difference makes are schedules incongruent but I am willing to sacrifice myself and face whatever hardships I might find while leapfrogging from luxury hotel to luxury hotel. I think with firm resolve I could manage that lifestyle. So night or day, around the calendar, if you need a surrogate self, you have someone in the states willing to fill in. (2) Second, you are actual in some time of clandestine services, likely MI6, but I can’t rule out other groups. This is also based on your profile which sounds like the kind of profile James Bond might have if James Bond were on DDO. (3) Third, you’re in fact not Brian Eggleston but a member of the British upper-class (likely with a well-tended and well-oiled handlebar mustache, whose closet is filled with spare walking canes and monocles) taking to gauge what peasants like myself think about returning to a kind of nineteenth century notion of gentility. In fact, if that is the case, I would concede the debate based on the fact that nobleman British gentlemen cannot be burdened or beset by problems that might arise by interacting with the riff-raff and modern chimneysweeps like myself. Anyway, sorry for the protracted personal note. I have been quietly laughing to myself for the last few days imagining you wearing a top hat, lighting a cigar a stack of British pounds still wrapped in their currency belt, while you dictate you thoughts to a peasant sitting at a computer while another peasant functions as a footrest, and another is meticulous fanning you with antique folding fan]. [End of personal comment to my opponent] ____________________________________________________________________________ [BACK TO THE DEBATE] [Voters can begin here] Rebuttal to the claims made last round: (1) “‘Our economic freedom is founded on individual property rights; government should never be permitted to take those away."’ (2) “…you cannot deny that the slaves belonging to wealthy foreigners are their property…” (3) “…people today choose to become slaves.” (4) “…must not impose our own socio-political beliefs on people from other cultures.” Let me briefly touch (3) first because I agree that people “choose” slavery, if you by “choice” you mean something like a Hobson’s choice [an eponym I’ve always liked, a contribution from those who speak proper English, the Queen’s English], a phrase meaning: “No real choice at all - the only options being to either accept or refuse the offer that is given to you.”[1] [Don’t mistake this with Hobbesian choice, this is a common mistake people make]. Technically, the individuals are making decisions, but in the same way that during the bread riots before the outbreak of the French Revolution people stole food to feed their children. Voters, should accept the idea of choice, if they also accept the idea that a person threatened with a weapon is free in making the decision to either give up their wallet or give up their life. It is exactly the same, the only difference being the time, place, and manner and not the substance. (1) (2) and (4) are related, in that they make a definitional claim that equates slavery with property, or more generally, an economic liberty based claim—a position very familiar to my side of the pond given that it was this argument that lead to our gruesome Civil War. Basically, if people are property then rape, violence, and murder do not exist. By way of example, it is impossible to rape, torture, or murder by IPhone, specifically, I cannot do so because it is an inanimate thing devoid of anything. My rebuttal could go on indefinitely, but I want to keep it brief [This is largely for selfish reasons, I am presenting a paper at a legal conference in a week, so don’t have the time]. So (4) specifically, should only be accepted by those that accept slavery is an economic institution rather than as a pestilent practice that sanctions the most grotesque practices and action ever committed by humanity. Plus, as I demonstrated with evidence in the last round the primary victims are women and children. So, let’s think about how Pro’s proposition would work if implement based on principle definitions accepted by both Pro and Con. I realize I could focus on the darkest aspects of slavery and how applying Pro’s standard would inevitably result in the accepted of child marriage, forced sexual acts, and violence, I don’t want to dwell on the obvious because Voters implicitly get that and second, and more important I might add, I’m not in the mood to search and then write about such dark and gruesome in the middle of the afternoon on a nice, sunny day where I can see from my window at my desk tulips blooming, squirrels scurrying, and birds playing outside. For anyone who cannot draw the inference or do not understand the obvious link I will provide a shortcut to assist you. Here are the steps: (1) type in Slavery on a google search. (2) Open up any website on that page. (3) That’s it. Argument of wealth, or why even Downton Abbey slavery is untenable: So I can to return to something Pro mentioned in Round 1. Wealthy individuals, in the sense defined by Pro and accepted by Con as individuals who have the mean to travel, accompanied by “chauffeurs, butlers, chefs, housemaids, valets” [lucky enough to own their own] “chateau…in the south of France.” This kind of extravagance is only for the wealthiest people on the planet, meaning billionaires, and maybe some multi-millionaires, maybe—they would be the one’s on the cheaper lots. People with this wealth in western countries could simply apply [meaning pay for] the dual citizenship in countries that allow slavery, creating an international loophole for people that already believe they are entitled to do whatever they want at any time without consequence. Anyway, I enjoyed the debate. Thanks. It was fun. [1] As a show of solitary with my friend Mr. Eggleston, I selected a UK based website for the citation: http://www.phrases.org.uk...