I don't know if that was directed at me or not but regardless I was not making a case for any instance of slavery being "less bad".

"Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, or morbid minds; enthusiasm of the free and buoyant. Education and free discussion are the antidotes of both."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, 1816

__________________

Biblical slavery really does have very strict guidelines that does make it "less bad " than slavery seen in the South.

Socialism is slavery. I would say that it's "less bad" than America's peculiar institution.

Since socialism is an economic theory that makes about as much sense as me arguing, "capitalism is slavery."

Socialism, as a politico-economic system, is slavery. I didn't think I would have to clarify that, but there you go.

Only libertardians and anarchists believe socialism is slavery. Let's cut the polemic wanking. Thx.

Hell, those types of imbeciles also think taxation is theft and that government is evil, so their opinions are worth about as much as a pile of dog turds.

__________________

Im sorry but socialism is not slavery.....there are aspects of some forms of socialism that could be construed as "like slavery" in a sense but that brush you just used painted a swath much to wide.

There are aspects of socialism present in every major republic or free state in the world....by the same logic would you say that because of the United States unemployment program that the United States participates in some form of slavery?

__________________

Nicod3mus, I will be presenting an argument in the private debates forum. I encourage you to read it, as I will be giving a more concise reason as to why I say that. You can also read the thread, "Socialists: defend your position."

And yes, I definitely consider such welfare programs to be state-sponsored slavery.

No, it still doesn't make sense. You can't equate the notion of slavery with an economic system, especially when that economic system eschews the notion of unpaid labour. You may as well try and compare slavery with a tree.

The man works and receives nothing that directly corresponds to his labor.

I mean, you might say, "Well he gets a home, food, health care, etcetera 'for free,' so therefore, he's not a slave!" But that doesn't really work when we can make the same argument even for slaves in America's peculiar institution.

The fact remains that the man works for the direct benefit of others. He is deprived of freedom regarding value assessment. He is deprived of the freedoms: to produce as a means of surival, and to consume that which he determines to be of preferential value. That is, he may consume only what his "masters" arbitrate as beneficial value for his labor. Yes, that's slavery.