Slavery

[Azriel]

They should make slavery diverse, having different type of treatment in different areas.

Examples:
A location that don't waste time with prison, instead the convicts are sold into slavery.
A location where capturing a person against there will is against the law. HOWEVER, a person could sell themselves into slavery/indentured service to pay back a loan or debt.
A location where slavery is common, people are treated harsh and their owners can do whatever they want with them, from sexual abuse, to torture, to killing them in the street with no consequence. Slaves are sold on the street, rented out for for labor or sex, and sold in the open.
A location where slaves are treated really well (better than they could live *free*) and actually would fight the characters if they tried to free them.
A location where a particular subsection of humans are considered inferior and automatically considered property. This can be any group from age, sex, race. For example, anybody over 30 with blond hair (silly I know, but no sillier than some of the stuff that has happened in real life).

Also, a lot of side quests, like finding the underground railroad to help or stop would be cool. I do think there should be very diverse situations and should not be so black and white for all of them. However, I do think slavery would be harsh and cruel on average in the wasteland. The wasteland should be an unforgiven place with no laws, the darkest/basest human nature should be prevalent, humanity has fallen, the wasteland should reflect that.

[Gearhead]

That sounds really cool, and would be a great example of how cultures develop. It shouldn't be an always-in-your-face issue, but would definitely add to the flavor and feel of the many locations you visit.

[stonetoes]

Yes, cherry-picking. Did you even try to find "the other side of the story" while doing your research? Then how can you contend that your view is accurate?

There are areas of humanity where I am actually very optimistic, but slavery and power without oversight in general is not one of them. I'm also slightly confused here, are you asking me to prove to you that slavery and unchecked power do not lead to abuse? I honestly am not aware of any such research, though it is perfectly possible it exists. What I am aware of is massive, overwhelming amounts of evidence for the opposite. This is not exactly something I thought was even up for debate these days. And I am not about to dismiss overwhelming evidence for one side due to hypothetical evidence for the other. Frankly, evidence which could prove unchecked power does not lead to abuse would be something I would be rather sceptical of, if only because there is so much to the contrary. But please, surprise me.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that most are, indeed abused. But by no means all. Very rarely in Life does "ALL" apply to a LARGE population.

Whether they are "ALL" abused is irrelevant and I'm not sure why you are fixating on it. The rights of the powerless to not be abused come before the rights of the powerless who wish to maintain the status quo. Even if those being abused are in a minority, the ending of their suffering is a priority. You can probably come up with scenarios where allowing people to be raped, tortured and killed at will is a necessary evil compared to ending them, where such practices are a net good, but just how divorced from reality are you willing to get in order to reach that state? At some point an examination of this slavery that is not "black and white" is going to be so different to how slavery actually exists in the world we live in that it becomes worthless. It's like an examination of murder in a world where there is no death. Probably interesting and thought-provoking, but nothing compared to examining murder as it occurs in our own world.

You lose because with everything that the Desert Rangers have on their plate, your policy does, in fact, initiate a war. At a time when the Desert Rangers have a somewhat fragile existence. THIS ONE ISSUE would consume pretty much ALL of the organization's attention. And the Reputation of the Desert Rangers will be that _it starts wars_ to enforce its will on others.

I'm sure you're having fun here, but these are all conclusions you have come to based on your own scenario. As you already pointed out to Woolfe, you have a very specific view of how powerful the rangers would be compared to slavers. I don't really know why you're trying to start the same argument with me when you yourself have admitted it's pointless. I am curious if you want a game where the rangers make a difference, or one where they are passive observers. Because you are painting a picture where the player in Wasteland 2 is effectively powerless. To me, the beauty of a post-apocalyptic setting is that one man can make a difference, let alone a paramilitary organisation. Why try to turn slavery into something morally ambiguous if the player has no choice in whether it takes place anyway? Yes, they might only be able to affect small changes, or be the beginning of a long process, but you seem at pains to make any opposition to slavery a cataclysmic death-sentence for the whole ranger organisation. And I find it baffling.

Some people will cheer loudly for the Rangers. Others WILL start to wonder, "If they win this war, who will they go after next?" That is NOT a thought the Management at Ranger Center wants to be on people's minds. They would become the Iran of their era: What happens if we let it grow? _Can_ we risk trusting them to always "do the Right Thing?" Or are they dictators in the making? There's no way to _prove_ that your answer IS the Truth. And people have a tendency to assume the worst in others.

Again, you're assumption that people thinking "the rangers declare war on slavers" is a bad thing is rooted in your previous assumptions that nothing can be done. I see striking the fear of god into slavers and slave-owners alike as a good thing. Who knows, maybe it will stop some bloodshed if people accept the inevitable. The rest of your argument assumes the rangers won't be spreading their own propaganda.

Let me just iterate one of my foundation conclusions: There will either be NO organized Slavery, or it would be pervasive (Deep South model). If the hostility to Slavers is intense, when they poke their noses up out of the muck, abolitionist-minded people would hunt them down "before the disease takes hold and starts to spread". If that doesn't happen, then Slavery starts to become a stable factor in the (re-) developing Economy.

Wait, but you already posted links from within the past 10 years showing that slavery still exists even in a society where it is highly illegal. People trafficking and forced prostitution is a massive, organised business right now, despite huge and organised opposition. How are you reaching the conclusion that in the post-apocalypse it will be all or nothing?

[CaptainPatch]

But please, surprise me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ch ... oundations
Your premise is that given power over others, anyone in a position of power WILL abuse those in his power. The stipulation negates the human ability to "fight their inner demons". Just because there is someone in the position of power does not mean that he WILL succumb to the temptation. There is no obligation that those with resources be required to give to those that do not (aside from taxes, that is). Yet, millions of people DO share. More elaboration in a bit.

Whether they are "ALL" abused is irrelevant and I'm not sure why you are fixating on it. The rights of the powerless to not be abused come before the rights of the powerless who wish to maintain the status quo.

Yet you have no problem dictating to ALL of them that what _you_ believe will be what ALL of them as to what they can or cannot do. I know you can't begin to wrap your head around the concept, but there are, in fact, some people that _want_ to be slaves. http://www.masterslaveconference.org/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/slaveslookingformasters/ http://www.slaveregister.com/settings/sign-in/ SOME people simply prefer to have someone else caring for them and in return they perform labor (or whatever else it is that the Master wants and the slave is willing to give). Simply put, it's a symbiotic relationship. Everything you've posted thus far indicates that you would treat the kind, generous Masters with the same Wrath of God you want to visit on the obvious abusers. If it is essentially what is going on between consenting adults, why are you butting in? Is putting an end to homosexuality next on your agenda?

Even if those being abused are in a minority, the ending of their suffering is a priority.

I agree. Abuse, the inflicting of misery on others, should end. But if you are going to get on your high horse and start a crusade, then by God you should go after abuse wherever it is to be found . Catch a parent beating his kid and deliver unto him the same "justice" you intend for Slavers. The same goes for wife-beaters. Rapists. Thieves. Predatory lenders. Identity thieves. If you are going to make yourself Judge, Jury, and Executioner, then if you _don't_ go after those abusers that give misery to others, then you would be hypocritical. Or have you in your role as Judge determined that, "_I_ am not obligated to anything other than what _I_ feel like doing"?

You can probably come up with scenarios where allowing people to be raped, tortured and killed at will is a necessary evil compared to ending them, where such practices are a net good, but just how divorced from reality are you willing to get in order to reach that state?

Hey, if you _insist_ on starting this crusade, why aren't you crusading against those other Evils as well? Not high-profile enough for you? The Wasteland is just chock full of bandits, rapists, murderers, etc. Are you going to let those low lifes have free rein while you are bashing on the Slavers? Or will you set that "trivial" task to others that aren't tied up with your Important Project? [If you think the Rangers have enough manpower to carry out both programs, enjoy that pie that just fell from the sky.]

Why try to turn slavery into something morally ambiguous if the player has no choice in whether it takes place anyway?

Because of the fact that there has been not a single year in all of recorded History wherein Slavery was being practiced somewhere. Despite a HUGE number of well-meaning abolitionist-minded people wanting to exterminate the practice, it's still very much alive and kicking. Why is that? Are nearly all people ambivalent to the subject? Not incensed enough to destroy what is patently an EVIL institution? Obviously, the overwhelming vast majority of people DO NOT CARE enough to give the subject anything more than lip service. "For shame!", and then they get back to their own lives. What makes you think that after the Apocalypse that those percentages are likely to change drastically The only answer I can see is, "Wishful thinking".

Again, you're assumption that people thinking "the rangers declare war on slavers" is a bad thing is rooted in your previous assumptions that nothing can be done. I see striking the fear of god into slavers and slave-owners alike as a good thing. Who knows, maybe it will stop some bloodshed if people accept the inevitable. The rest of your argument assumes the rangers won't be spreading their own propaganda.

I've never contended that nothing can be done. But all things considered, going to war -- and that is precisely what this move would be -- restricts just what the Rangers as an organization can or can't do. Because anything less than squad strength movements invites ambushes of smaller groups -- the size of deployments that Rangers would normally be deployed in for regular operations. That badge they flash makes for an obvious target, and you can count on the Slavers offering a bounty to anyone that brings in one or more badges as trophies. Until the war is over, pretty much everything would get back-burnered -- and can the Wasteland really afford to have that happen? That's why I advocate the Long Campaign, relying on Subtlety and Guile.

Wait, but you already posted links from within the past 10 years showing that slavery still exists even in a society where it is highly illegal. People trafficking and forced prostitution is a massive, organised business right now, despite huge and organised opposition. How are you reaching the conclusion that in the post-apocalypse it will be all or nothing?

Yup, Slavery is very much alive and kicking. There are just far too many economic incentives for get-rich-quick people to pass up the opportunity to make some money off of workers that don't need to be paid. But stop and think about it: One of the biggest people-trafficking operations in the USA is for the sex trade. (Possibly tens of) Thousands of women selling their bodies to hundreds of thousands, perhaps even _millions_ of customers, just so the pimps can get rich. Why aren't the "Johns" reporting these obvious sex slaves to the Authorities? Why haven't the Authorities not even put a dent into such operations? At best, they've only knocked off the "tip" of the iceberg". Obviously, the Authorities that _do_ have sufficient resources to squash the sex slave business feel they have more important things to attend to. I'm inclined to believe that the Desert Rangers Authorities would be like-minded.

[Woolfe]

Let me just iterate one of my foundation conclusions: There will either be NO organized Slavery, or it would be pervasive (Deep South model). If the hostility to Slavers is intense, when they poke their noses up out of the muck, abolitionist-minded people would hunt them down "before the disease takes hold and starts to spread". If that doesn't happen, then Slavery starts to become a stable factor in the (re-) developing Economy.

And I reject that completely. There may be any degree. You yourself have pointed out some of the variations of society even today. Rednecks etc.
For something to become pervasive there has to be ongoing trade an interaction. You are thinkign from the point of view of an established society, and this is not necessarily going to be the case.
We could have a large expanse united under the rule of someone like the guardians, or we might have fragmented power structures who are opposing each other and have somewhat stabilised as no one group has power over others.
Or we could have several independant societies that remain somewhat isolated either through choice or circumstance. Maybe right now those societies are being forcibly conquered by the Guardians or whatever.
I don't disagree that there could be a "league of slavers" but I think its more likely that there will be several different societal groupings. Why, because history shows us so. Without a unified government, you will have many smaller states that may unite against a larger foe, or maybe even for simple advantage, but they are just as likely to remain independant, and fiercely so.

[Prosiak]

Should be different levels like there has been and is to this day even serfs

[CaptainPatch]

Slaves are not inexpensive to maintain. First, the slaves need to be acquired, a labor-intensive task in itself. Then the slaves have to be fed, as an absolute minimum, and supervised almost continually. Optionally, clothed, and housed. Just to protect the investment, some Medical care needs to provide for sick or injured slaves. WHY would anyone go to that expense unless there was a substantial Return On Investment? (Altruistic slave-owners aside.) FOR PROFIT is why. The Return On Investment must be adequate to warrant the effort and expense. SOMEBODY -- and a lot of them -- are paying the Slavers Big Bucks for slaves. Big Bucks means "wealthy people". "Wealthy" means having MUCH more than nearly everyone else in the given Society. Who constitutes the majority of Movers-and-Shakers in most Societies? That would be mostly Wealthy people. Either the same people buying slaves, or in the same class as people that are Wealthy that buy slaves. And in any Society where there is Wealth, there is manipulation in the government to protect the interests of the Wealthy more than the interests of everyone that is NOT Wealthy.

[Historical note: One of the very significant motivations behind many of the backers of the Abolitionist movement before, during, and after the ACW was that with the end of Slavery, the cost of Labor dropped MASSIVELY. Adding 3.5 million workers to the pool glutted the Labor market. Real wages in the North where all the industrialists had their power base plummeted. Research reveals that many of those industrialists were big contributors to the Abolitionist movement. The impetus for most race riots shortly after the ACW was primarily targeted _against_ former slaves because "They're stealing our jobs!"]

Any Society that has a system of Wealthy and not-Wealthy has something in the way of organized Commerce. It may be only a barter system, but more than likely some agreed upon currency is in play. The important point being that Wealth is fluid enough to make Slavery viable.

You are correct that hardly ever do people struggling to simply survive day to day engage in Slavery. (Excepting redneck survivalists that is, apparently.) But Society in the Wasteland has been evolving beyond that stage. Permanent communities have been established. But more importantly, Commerce is reemerging. Wealth is becoming fluid enough that it can flow from one community to another. Any enterprise that has wages as one of its primary overheads is going to get those Wealthy owners to thinking about the benefits of using slaves instead of employees. And from that idea will arise _organized_ Slavery.

"Don't take it personally. It's only business."

[Woolfe]

But Society in the Wasteland has been evolving beyond that stage. Permanent communities have been established. But more importantly, Commerce is reemerging. Wealth is becoming fluid enough that it can flow from one community to another. Any enterprise that has wages as one of its primary overheads is going to get those Wealthy owners to thinking about the benefits of using slaves instead of employees. And from that idea will arise _organized_ Slavery.

Exactly my point, it is evolving beyond that stage but is still early on.

However bear in mind that there will be multiple people in a community. So if a business owner starts buying and using slaves in an effort to reduce his costs to beat his competition. 1 of 3 things will happen.
1 - The other guy goes, "shit thats a good idea" and starts getting his own slaves.
2 - The other guy goes, "Slavery is terrible, we should run the bum out of town", and helps remove the threat.
3 - The other guy sucks it up and loses.

Now each of these has differing levels. Maybe the first guys doesn't get slaves, but instead starts payig his staff slave wages. If things are desperate enough they'll hang around. Then he starts coming out on toop, cause he doesn't have to feed and house his staff.
Or the Second guy gets a town ordinance passed saying that slaves are not allowed.
Or the thrid guys sucks it up, because he knows the rest of the town won't like it. Maybe the rest of the town stop using the 1st guys services as a result.
Or maybe the 3rd guy knows the rangers, and knows their attitude to slavery, and secretly sends a note out to them, whereever they are.

Now multiply that by every community. Don't get me wrong, in some cases the slaver will win. But they will lose in just as many. Later when the slaver is established and the benefits are obvious, others will start to copy, but that takes time.

The variables we don't know is just how established are the societies. Maybe there is some reason keeping them from really uniting properly (scorpitrons in the trade routes maybe), and thats why the Guardians have gotten strong as they were able to take out the scorps in their immediate area, and expand from there.

You are saying this/or this is the way it will be. I am saying it could be any number of ways.

Maybe its just a house slave situation. Maybe they don't use them as workers, but house slaves are fine. Maybe its a female dominated society and all men are treated and traded like slaves. We just don't know.

All I am saying is that I will opppose the slavery in the game, no matter what I find. Even if that means breaking some good eggs to do it.

[CaptainPatch]

You missed, "Maybe the first guy gets an ordnance passed that legalizes Slavery." And as for boycotting the slave-owner's wares, consider the boycott against Wal-Mart, how is that working out? The overwhelming majority of people are inclined to get their goods where they can get them the cheapest. The most you get out of them is lip service.

[Woolfe]

You missed, "Maybe the first guy gets an ordnance passed that legalizes Slavery." And as for boycotting the slave-owner's wares, consider the boycott against Wal-Mart, how is that working out? The overwhelming majority of people are inclined to get their goods where they can get them the cheapest. The most you get out of them is lip service.

I didn't specifcally say that, but I beleive it was implied. Perhaps the other businesses then take up slavery as a result of the ordnance. Thats exactly my point, there are many many different possibilities.

Walmart is a bad example. Massive difference in the economy of scale. We are talking communities of survivors without stable forms of communication. Whereas Walmart is an enormous entity that covers most if not all major cities in a country of 300 million people.

Walmart can wait out the outrage. A small business in a small economy can't.

[stonetoes]

But please, surprise me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ch ... oundations
Your premise is that given power over others, anyone in a position of power WILL abuse those in his power. The stipulation negates the human ability to "fight their inner demons". Just because there is someone in the position of power does not mean that he WILL succumb to the temptation. There is no obligation that those with resources be required to give to those that do not (aside from taxes, that is). Yet, millions of people DO share. More elaboration in a bit.

Of course, but there's a reason we require people who work with kids to undergo background checks and the like (at least we did at the charity I worked at last year). The fact that however many people don't abuse their power doesn't mean it's not incredibly common. When you have no alternative, you have to accept that this will happen and do your absolute best to make sure it happens as little as possible. You do this with oversight, enforcement of laws and accountability. When you do have an alternative, you use it, rather than accepting the fate of those who are being victimised because the transition process might be difficult. With slavery, we have a clear alternative.

Yet you have no problem dictating to ALL of them that what _you_ believe will be what ALL of them as to what they can or cannot do.

Are you really trying to argue that owning slaves and the right to now be a slave are equivalent, and that enforcing one over the other is unjust? Regardless, I am not dictating that what I believe is what they should do, I'm dictating that what the slaves believe is what they should do. If those slaves, given a free choice, choose to remain under bondage there is nothing I can do about it (at least in a post-apocalyptic setting).

I know you can't begin to wrap your head around the concept, but there are, in fact, some people that _want_ to be slaves.

Considering I already mentioned stockholm syndrome and battered-wife (or spouse) syndrome that seems a rather inaccurate, not to mention insulting, characterisation of me don't you think?

http://www.masterslaveconference.org/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/slaveslookingformasters/ http://www.slaveregister.com/settings/sign-in/ SOME people simply prefer to have someone else caring for them and in return they perform labor (or whatever else it is that the Master wants and the slave is willing to give). Simply put, it's a symbiotic relationship.

OK, first of all, two of those sites require a sign-in, so I can't access them. The other one seems to be a BDSM site. I'm a little disturbed that you consider BDSM as equivalent to general slavery. Actually no, I'm not, because I don't think you do believe that, I think you're clutching at straws. You and I know that the whole point of slavery is that it's non-consensual. Seriously, let's not even pretend otherwise. If you are aware of people engaged in BDSM which isn't consensual, I suggest you call the police (seriously), because what is happening there isn't a dom/sub relationship, it's rape, assault and unlawful confinement.

Just so we’re clear, I have absolutely no problem with people engaged in consensual BDSM, but that is absolutely not what we are talking about here.

Everything you've posted thus far indicates that you would treat the kind, generous Masters with the same Wrath of God you want to visit on the obvious abusers.

I've already stated that kind and generous slave-owners have their good deeds significantly outweighed by their needless detention of another human being. Also the "wrath of god" you mention involves telling them to let their slaves go (and possibly provide some compensation). If their desire to keep slaves instead of paying for workers is so great that they choose to risk their lives to indulge that desire I seriously doubt how kind and generous they actually are. It’s also irrelevant, as their ever-so-grateful former slaves will have a free choice as to whether they want to return to their masters as de-facto slaves anyway. But it’s the slave who decides just how kind and generous their owner really is, not the owner themselves.

If it is essentially what is going on between consenting adults, why are you butting in? Is putting an end to homosexuality next on your agenda?

If you are even using the word consensual to describe slavery... well I don't really know what to say. Again, I think you're clutching at straws here. But just in case you're being serious, slavery cannot be consensual. If you have the choice to leave without facing retribution, it's not slavery.

And homosexuality, really? Brother None didn't delete my posts from the "gay characters" thread because I was too anti-homosexuality, so please don’t bother.

But if you are going to get on your high horse and start a crusade, then by God you should go after abuse wherever it is to be found . Catch a parent beating his kid and deliver unto him the same "justice" you intend for Slavers. The same goes for wife-beaters. Rapists. Thieves. Predatory lenders. Identity thieves. If you are going to make yourself Judge, Jury, and Executioner, then if you _don't_ go after those abusers that give misery to others, then you would be hypocritical. Or have you in your role as Judge determined that, "_I_ am not obligated to anything other than what _I_ feel like doing"?

What on earth makes you think I amn’t opposed to those things? Where do these assumptions of yours even come from? I personally believe that each of those acts deserves punishment under the law, with those who resist that justice with violence being subject to violence themselves. Regardless, this thread is about slavery, so bringing up all those other things is pointless and will only send us spiraling out of control here.

If you think the Rangers have enough manpower to carry out both programs, enjoy that pie that just fell from the sky.

You don’t believe that having one program is feasible, let alone two, so why quibble? You’re also assuming that I’m not capable of having priorities (or rather that my hypothetical rangers aren’t). I believe that slavery entails a whole host of other evils, as I’ve discussed, so stopping it is a priority for me. Woolfe’s point about stopping it before it becomes normalised is also a good one.

Why try to turn slavery into something morally ambiguous if the player has no choice in whether it takes place anyway?

Because of the fact that there has been not a single year in all of recorded History wherein Slavery was being practiced somewhere. Despite a HUGE number of well-meaning abolitionist-minded people wanting to exterminate the practice, it's still very much alive and kicking. Why is that? Are nearly all people ambivalent to the subject? Not incensed enough to destroy what is patently an EVIL institution? Obviously, the overwhelming vast majority of people DO NOT CARE enough to give the subject anything more than lip service. "For shame!", and then they get back to their own lives. What makes you think that after the Apocalypse that those percentages are likely to change drastically The only answer I can see is, "Wishful thinking".

But that’s an argument for why lots of people practice “see no evil, hear no evil”, not for why the rangers would hypothetically face overwhelming opposition. If anything I would say that this line of logic supports an interventionist ranger policy, as most people will back something once other people make the effort, even if they don’t do so themselves. Just because townsfolk don’t take up arms themselves doesn’t mean they’re going to curse the rangers who do.

That's why I advocate the Long Campaign, relying on Subtlety and Guile.

You’re still making assumptions about just how powerful the slave-owners and slaves are in comparison to the rangers, but I guess we won’t know who’s right till we play the game. I’m also not sure how opposed we are on this, as I have also been imagining covert actions to prevent backlash.

Why aren't the "Johns" reporting these obvious sex slaves to the Authorities? Why haven't the Authorities not even put a dent into such operations? At best, they've only knocked off the "tip" of the iceberg". Obviously, the Authorities that _do_ have sufficient resources to squash the sex slave business feel they have more important things to attend to. I'm inclined to believe that the Desert Rangers Authorities would be like-minded.

Yes, the response is inadequate, but a large part of that is because the abuse goes on beyond closed doors. In the media we get “Pretty Woman”, not “immigrant who has been forcibly addicted to heroin and had her genitals burned to reduce sensation while she’s gang-raped”.

In the wasteland this kind of abuse will still go on behind closed doors, but that’s not an argument for allowing it to continue when it’s out in the open. You can't make perfect the enemy of the good, or however that phrase goes. Maybe ranger command will find it convenient to pretend there isn’t a problem, but if they’re worth a damn then when it’s right in front of their eyes they’ll take action, covert or otherwise.

[CaptainPatch]

stonetoes --
A very basic, very fundamental question. Two, actually. Backdrop: There is Ranger Center with its system of laws. Several communities in the Wasteland of varying size and level of organization. The Apocalypse has effectively destroyed all Federal and State-level government. That leaves all of these communities on their own.

1) Do any of those communities have the right to enter Ranger Center and declare, "Henceforth Ranger Center is under _our_ jurisdiction, and you will acknowledge and obey _our_ Laws"?

2) Under what Authority would Ranger Center be permitted to enter another community and declare, "Henceforth this community will acknowledge and submit to Ranger Center's code of Laws"? "Might makes right?"

I await your answers.

[stonetoes]

stonetoes --
A very basic, very fundamental question. Two, actually. Backdrop: There is Ranger Center with its system of laws. Several communities in the Wasteland of varying size and level of organization. The Apocalypse has effectively destroyed all Federal and State-level government. That leaves all of these communities on their own.

Premise accepted.

1) Do any of those communities have the right to enter Ranger Center and declare, "Henceforth Ranger Center is under _our_ jurisdiction, and you will acknowledge and obey _our_ Laws"?

What kind of "right"? A legal right? Seems unlikely if there's no government which encompasses both towns as you describe. A moral right? If the rangers are committing acts which I personally consider immoral and the invaders have no other way to stop them, yes. I really hope this isn't you trying to start a debate on moral relativism in a thread about slavery...

2) Under what Authority would Ranger Center be permitted to enter another community and declare, "Henceforth this community will acknowledge and submit to Ranger Center's code of Laws"? "Might makes right?"

Pretty much. I'm not sure what other kind of authority people would even wield in a setting like the one you describe. Hell, I'm not sure what other kind of authority people ultimately wield now. It's all backed up by violence, you just have to fight to make sure the winners are the good guys. But hey, better than the alternative right?
...........right? CaptainPatch?

So another question for you in return my dear Captain, if I may? Did you play Bioshock and find yourself thinking "This Andrew Ryan fella' seems to know his stuff, why all the hatin'?"

[Woolfe]

Just so we’re clear, I have absolutely no problem with people engaged in consensual BDSM, but that is absolutely not what we are talking about here.

You big Perv you

1) Do any of those communities have the right to enter Ranger Center and declare, "Henceforth Ranger Center is under _our_ jurisdiction, and you will acknowledge and obey _our_ Laws"?

Its called being able to defend yourself. If you want to walk into New york today and declare yourself king, at worst you'll spend some time in the clink, maybe get some fines etc, why because you don't have the force to take it over. You bring an army to the doorstep, and watch how quick the military turns up and gives you a drubbin.

Its a post apocalyptic world. The leaders will be those with the ability to take control and keep control. Whether Rangers or Slavers. The Rangers have an advantage in that the everyman(the usual target of slavers) will probably agree with them. Whereas the Slavers have the rich wealthy mercantile types who want the advantage slavery gives them.

In a post apoc war, I'd put my money on the everyman

2) Under what Authority would Ranger Center be permitted to enter another community and declare, "Henceforth this community will acknowledge and submit to Ranger Center's code of Laws"? "Might makes right?"

Diplomacy, the sort that comes from the barrel of a gun. The funny thing is, I wouldn't be doing that. I'd be looking to make alliances and bring them in voluntarily. I might claim a town where I had just taken out the slaving management. But I would offer the locals a chance join us and help rebuild, or to join us, but go elsewhere, or bugger off.

Let me guess, what makes my form of diplomacy better than the Slavers form of diplomacy. Not a thing. Its what happens after that is important.

Might makes right is always the way. USA knows that thats why they spend so much on their military. Au knows it, thats why we have long standing alliances with the US, UK, and other western nations to ensure if anyone comes knocking down our door there will be ramifications. Plus we have a pretty highly trained army, considering the size of it. But if we didn't have the ANZUS alliance, I think we would have been in a shit fight with Indonesia many years ago. Altho the fact that our F111's were able to do runs all the way to Jakarta and back used to give them the heebiejeebies

[CaptainPatch]

[Never played Bioshock. Never even took a close look at it.]

So both of you guys feel that 1) "Might makes Right", 2) that communities do NOT have the right to self-determination if what they determine disagrees with you, and 3) the Desert Rangers are an imperialistic power bent on Wasteland domination (and further until the devastation creates an impassable barrier). "Yield, or we will _make_ you yield." Not quite the vision for the Desert Rangers that I think Fargo & Company had in mind.

I believe that you fellows are putting too much faith in Everyman. Even if they think Slavery is inherently wrong, as long as they aren't enslaved, "It's not my problem." And when the Wealthy start paying good money for people to enlist in their New Confederate Army, I'm certain that there would be no lack of enlistees.

Prior to the Civil War, less than 30% of whites owned slaves. Of those that did own slaves, only one-in-ten owned more than 2 or 3 slaves. In Texas alone, 98% of the white population didn't own any slaves. Yet, when war came, a HUGE percentage of the population signed up with their State and Confederate armies. Why? What was in it for them? They were certainly not being paid well.

If you seriously study the ACW, what you discover is that for the residents of the South, the overwhelming motivation was _self-determination_. They felt that the Federal government had gone too far in bossing around the Southern States, telling them what they could or could not do. Naturally the Wealthy in the South were doing everything they could to fan the flames of that sense of patriotism. More than likely, the Wealthy slave-owners of the Wasteland will be smart enough to duplicate that model.

Expecting that Everyman will turn out in large numbers to show their support of your incursion into their home domain reminds me of Cheney saying, "The people of Iraq will greet us as liberators.”

[Woolfe]

So both of you guys feel that 1) "Might makes Right", 2) that communities do NOT have the right to self-determination if what they determine disagrees with you, and 3) the Desert Rangers are an imperialistic power bent on Wasteland domination (and further until the devastation creates an impassable barrier). "Yield, or we will _make_ you yield." Not quite the vision for the Desert Rangers that I think Fargo & Company had in mind.

Nope I said I wouldn't be doing that to anyone except slavers, which I believe has been established, I don't like much

I would be looking more to create a confederation, which will eventually become a federation. Thing is I want to do it without the slavery element existing and becoming a future issue.

If you seriously study the ACW, what you discover is that for the residents of the South, the overwhelming motivation was _self-determination_. They felt that the Federal government had gone too far in bossing around the Southern States, telling them what they could or could not do. Naturally the Wealthy in the South were doing everything they could to fan the flames of that sense of patriotism. More than likely, the Wealthy slave-owners of the Wasteland will be smart enough to duplicate that model.

Again you are conflating 2 very very different situations. You had very established governments with established nationalist tendancies within the south. This came about because the federal side wasn't as strong as it is today. The states themselves had a lot more self determination in how they operated.

The wasteland however is not the south.

[CaptainPatch]

But by sheer devastation and attrition, what it has defaulted to is City-States. If the communities have NOT progressed past a dog-eat-dog existence, then they are NOT communities; they would simply be battlefields. Nor would you have any kind of decent Economy. Certainly no trade between communities. A poorly developed economy means that you wouldn't have any kind of Slaver organization. It would be more like bandits that take slaves for their _own_ use. In which case you have no argument from me; kill the bastards. My concerns are more about an environment that is developed enough to sustain a healthy Economy and therefore could facilitate an actual slave trade.

[pomor]

Anti-slavery guys seem to forget, that the game is supposed to take place _decades_ after the war, most of it's generations born in the wasteland, long after the war, so contemporary sensibilities are no longer applicable. At best, it would be seen as borng grandpa' stories, about how the world used to be.

More to the point, I would not want the stance on things like slavery being forced on the player, because it is some sort of "official Rangers policy". I want to be able to either fight the slavers, or support them, or just ignore the issue altogether as irrelevant. And it should not brand my party as Evil, or Renegade. Sure, by supporting some slavers, I should loose reputation with certain groups, gain it with the others, but the general population should be indifferent.

[Woolfe]

But by sheer devastation and attrition, what it has defaulted to is City-States. If the communities have NOT progressed past a dog-eat-dog existence, then they are NOT communities; they would simply be battlefields. Nor would you have any kind of decent Economy. Certainly no trade between communities. A poorly developed economy means that you wouldn't have any kind of Slaver organization. It would be more like bandits that take slaves for their _own_ use. In which case you have no argument from me; kill the bastards. My concerns are more about an environment that is developed enough to sustain a healthy Economy and therefore could facilitate an actual slave trade.

Once again you are using a one brush fits all. But anyhoo.

You really believe a sustained economy with slavery is a good thing? For me Slavery is a sign of barbarism, no matter how nicely you dress it up.

Anti-slavery guys seem to forget, that the game is supposed to take place _decades_ after the war, most of it's generations born in the wasteland, long after the war, so contemporary sensibilities are no longer applicable. At best, it would be seen as borng grandpa' stories, about how the world used to be.

Nope, been there done that, read the whole conversation if you dare
I think you'd be surprised how much weight grandpa's stories might hold. Talking about the golden age. Rose coloured glasses. How magical would things like TV, and airplanes, computer games, hell dessert could be a whole topic in itself.

More to the point, I would not want the stance on things like slavery being forced on the player, because it is some sort of "official Rangers policy". I want to be able to either fight the slavers, or support them, or just ignore the issue altogether as irrelevant. And it should not brand my party as Evil, or Renegade. Sure, by supporting some slavers, I should loose reputation with certain groups, gain it with the others, but the general population should be indifferent.

No one is suggesting it except me, and it is my stance, the stance MY rangers will take.

[ravenshrike]

So another question for you in return my dear Captain, if I may? Did you play Bioshock and find yourself thinking "This Andrew Ryan fella' seems to know his stuff, why all the hatin'?"

Y'know, if you've played Bioshock 2 you could easily take the view that he should have shot the cray chick the first moment he noticed she was nuts and that the reason everything went to shit is because he listened to her at all.