If there was no labor shortage, there would be no market for slaves

Rationality Pro definitely presents a straw man here: What I argue is that since humans are only sometimes rational (or certainly not always rational, I understand that it varies) that demand (i.e. our wants) we should not expect to be purely rational. The idea that humans are not a completely rational species I think is entirely evident from our general knowledge of human beings. To fail to grasp this, as Pro has, is to fundamentally misunderstand the human condition. This is really what the debate comes down to: Do people always make purchases according to some completely rational calculation of marginal utility and the ability to factor in every economic condition and essentially nothing else? If this is the case, then Pro is set. If, however, only one time in history a slave purchaser thought: "Wow, check out the curves on that one....I'll give $150!" then Pro's argument is shot. It is my firm belief - I would call a basic belief - that while sometimes rational, we cannot expect humans to be fully rational in terms of their personal wants. Additionally, I have mentioned that slaves essentially could be purchased on a whim for the wealthy in the antebellum south. More importantly, Pro's statistics do not cover, and could not possibly cover, all the instances of slavery throughout history which almost certainly varied to a considerable extent in price. If a slave owner chooses to buy a slave on the basis of her curves, that's not necessarily for sexual services. Pro, once again, is unable to grasp the idea that people likely purchased slaves for reasons that extended outside of economic concerns. Slavery during a labor surplus Pro is confused on the definition of slavery. According to Merriam-Webster, slavery is a "condition in which one human being is owned by another" [1]. It is not a necessary condition of slavery that the slave is not paid; what counts is whether the slave can leave. In the situation that I cited in my article, the slaves did not have the freedom to leave and had to escape their owner's house to call attention to their injustice. If we take Pro's definition, a slave who was given enough for a piece of candy here and there would not "really" be a slave, but this is of course ridiculous. To get a grasp of how warped Pro's conception of economics is, consider this paragraph: "A minimum wage places the lowest legal wage above the equilibrium, thereby creating a labor surplus. When a worker is paid below minimum wage, it does not make them a slave, it makes them an illegal worker. A slave would be paid below the equilibrium wage, which requires a labor shortage." It is apparent that the first sentence, while possibly true, is only that - possibly. The minimum wage could easily be well below the equilibrium wage. This would clearly be apparent in e.g. high-paying professions, and really even most professions in general. The second sentence is fine. The third sentence just doesn't follow and isn't supported. Slaves, generally (but not always) are non-paid labor and this is so regardless of whether there's a labor shortage or not. One can cut costs by paying for slaves. Lower Wages "Con claims that even if wages were low, that there would be a market for slaves, because slaves would serve as a status of wealth." This is obviously a straw man. I said slaves owning *could* be socially desirable and that the purchase of slaves likely held other purposes outside of the purely economic one. I did mention that slaves could be even cheaper workers, but does Pro rebut this? No. "The status of owning a slave was not inherent in slave ownership." I can't make heads or tails of this claim. Summary: We need to refocus the debate back to the thesis since it's become way off track. My case boils down to the fundamental implausibility of Pro's argument. He says "if there was no labor shortage, there would be no market for slaves." For this to be true, this must always be the case. There cannot be even a singular exception, and probably if I cared a little more - and in retrospect, perhaps I should have - dug into economic history. In any case, I consider Pro's case extremely implausibly on the basis on simple introspection, and given this I frankly had to look no further. Pro's case fails because all it takes for there to be a market are producers and suppliers, and the demand for slaves as mentioned can be based on social, racial, or cultural considerations. Pro's evidence is nowhere near adequate since we're talking about slavery over history and this encompasses the slavery of the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, etc. While we both lack adequate labor statistics, it seems extremely obvious that - especially when slavery was cheap - that there would be a market for slaves even when the general labor market is in some equilibrium state or if there is a surplus. In any case, it's likely that the Roman or Greek slave purchaser or oligarch may not have given two shrugs to the labor market of peasants especially in the case of a new shipment of prisoners of war about to be sold off. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...