Slavery

[CaptainPatch]

Can't resist !
RSA Animate - Smile or Die
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo

Brilliant! And the rest of the post was also Good Stuff.

[Zigmar]

I though of a nice sub-plot for a slavery them, making good-bad decision a somewhat ambiguous: you go with some quest (or without) and kill some slave owner whom you by default perceive as "evil" and in result you get his slaves mad at you, because you stripped them of their stability (food, water, medicine and shelter) which they valued better than an abstract (for them) freedom.

[b0rsuk]

Somewhat related:

- it's fairly common that in a game you find prisoners inside enemy encampment. Some dangerous prisoners, orcs, beasts etc. You have the option to let them out so your enemies fight each other.

Except... imagine what happens if some of the prisoners escape into the wild ? Start attacking nearby settlements ?

[Oktobermensch]

Thing about slavery is that it can be viewed as both good and bad, depending on the circumstances.

Its bad if you have people being raided and enslaved to work in an abandonemd mine, but I doubt there would be much objection if by some stroke of luck some bandits or slavers got enslaved themsleves and were put to work in rebuilding a village or a farm that they destroyed earlier.

If you object to slavery totally on the moral principles then fair enough, make your rangers follow that route. But this kind of grey area should be explored too.

[Fuzi0n]

Thing about slavery is that it can be viewed as both good and bad, depending on the circumstances.

Sex slaves are a good thing.

[newyawk]

Especially if they are midget sex slaves... I would need at least 6 and some psychoactive drugs

[Woolfe]

Thing about slavery is that it can be viewed as both good and bad, depending on the circumstances.

Sex slaves are a good thing.

Especially if they are midget sex slaves... I would need at least 6 and some psychoactive drugs

*Boom* *Boom*

2 less slavers in the area....

[Mandemon]

Especially if they are midget sex slaves... I would need at least 6 and some psychoactive drugs

I am afraid to even ask but for sake of my own twisted humor?

Are they Germans and gays?

It's a joke with my friends. Whenever someone tries to joke "What porn are you watching?" standard response if "German midget gay porn". Don't ask.

[clippedwolf]

The UN classifies slavery into forced labor, bonded labor, forced child labor, sexual servitude, and involuntary servitude.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2196.html#af
Here is a watered down review of current real world slavery. 12 million enslaved today, and probably a conservative number. Reading every single country in that link from top to bottom makes me angry It reminds me of the idealism I had when I joined the military. There are some people out in the world that deserve to be violently removed from it, but I digress.
Without an active governing body to enforce social protection with a possible threat of force, slavery might creep back into existence in a post-apocalyptic America.
There also seems to be a link between drug trafficking and human trafficking. Why would an international criminal organization limit itself to one parasitic operation, right?

Like I said like three times in this thread, I'm for slavery in Wasteland 2, but more than maturity I think it deserves gravitas.

[newyawk]

Especially if they are midget sex slaves... I would need at least 6 and some psychoactive drugs

I am afraid to even ask but for sake of my own twisted humor?

Are they Germans and gays?

It's a joke with my friends. Whenever someone tries to joke "What porn are you watching?" standard response if "German midget gay porn". Don't ask.

Lol, well German gay misters probably cost a premium in the wastes... especially if they sound like mini uboat Commanders or Col klinks. I would have to settle for whatever is available and dress them up as oompa loompas.

[Worg]

"because of your staunch support of slavery, it would take decades, in stead of centuries, to rebuild the spark of civilization." A possible morally ambigous ending.

[CaptainPatch]

"because of your staunch support of slavery, it would take decades, in stead of centuries, to rebuild the spark of civilization." A possible morally ambigous ending.

Butttttt, Slavery would undoubtedly NOT be a universally accepted institution. It would only hold sway in areas where it is commonly held that "Might makes right. Period, end of story." Traditionally, in areas outside those spheres of dominance, more civilized groups would work to undermine those bullies any way they can, including that institution of Slavery. Underground Railroad and Kansas-style border raids would be fairly common as Abolitionists worked to eradicate that vile practice. Furthermore, since the area of play is the former USA, there would be a very determined effort to restore the are to be once more a free and democratic environment. [But then, even today, the USA still has a problem with human trafficking within its borders.]

[Woolfe]

"because of your staunch support of slavery, it would take decades, in stead of centuries, to rebuild the spark of civilization." A possible morally ambigous ending.

Butttttt, Slavery would undoubtedly NOT be a universally accepted institution. It would only hold sway in areas where it is commonly held that "Might makes right. Period, end of story." Traditionally, in areas outside those spheres of dominance, more civilized groups would work to undermine those bullies any way they can, including that institution of Slavery. Underground Railroad and Kansas-style border raids would be fairly common as Abolitionists worked to eradicate that vile practice. Furthermore, since the area of play is the former USA, there would be a very determined effort to restore the are to be once more a free and democratic environment. [But then, even today, the USA still has a problem with human trafficking within its borders.]

Slavery tends to perform best in Lots of work not many workers situations. The main reason it tends to die, is because it becomes less economical when you have a large population to work the industry.
That slavery has existed throughout human history and still does, is not at question, and I have to agree with Cap that their will be resistance to it.

But what Worg said, is that because of your support of slavery civilization takes longer to develop. Which is not correct, as slavery was the cornerstone of many civilisations throughout history. Just becuase they did unpleasant things, doesn't preclude civilisation.

[CaptainPatch]

Slavery tends to perform best in Lots of work not many workers situations. The main reason it tends to die, is because it becomes less economical when you have a large population to work the industry.

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with all of that. [What a surprise, eh? ] Usually Slavery occurs where 1) There is a LOT of work to be done, 2) If performed, that work yields LOTS of money, 3) BUT no one really wants to perform that labor unless substantially compensated for having performed soooo much work, 4) People with power, influence and wealth (mostly the wealth, from which the other two things derive) makes it possible for them to _make_ people perform the necessary work for little or no pay, and 5) There is a source of people from which slaves may be drawn.

There are three prime examples of Slavery that immediately come to mind to substantiate these points:
1) The Great Wall of China. Mandated by the Chinese emperor, _no one_ was willing to perform the work for a wage that the emperor was willing/able to pay. So he used convict labor and had them worked to death by the hundreds of thousands. (Something like 2,000 dead per mile of wall.) In order to make sure there were enough convicts to draw upon, laws were enacted where something on par with spitting on a public sidewalk would be enough to have someone arrested and shipped off to the Wall. This is an example of Power to create Slavery.

2) Greek and Roman Empires. Both empires were expansive and aggressive. In order to keep the army ranks filled adequately to sustain a state of near-perpetual warfare, it was needed to find enough labor from _somewhere_ to keep working the farms. Two birds with one stone: Conquered nations and tribes were decimated by a large percentage when men, women, and, children were shipped back home to serve as slaves. This served to seriously weaken the defeated enemy, slowing down its recovery and ability to renew hostilities. At the same time, it provided the labor that was needed back home while the men were off fighting wars. Technically, captured slaves belonged to the Government, but influential politicians made sure that it was people in their class that had first pick. In this way, estates and wealthy households got slaves aplenty, while it was extremely rare that a lowly independent farmer could afford to buy a slave to help out with the chores. This is an example of how Influence promotes, develops, and maintains Slavery.

3) Pre-Civil War USA. "Cotton is King!" But _not_ if the plantation owners had to pay "an honest wage" for the labor. You don't hear about too many cases where a poor farmer built up his enterprise to a plantation estate using hundreds of workers. Almost universally, the plantations were built and operated by the Wealthy Elite of the era. Because of their wealth and influence, many got started when they received HUGE land grants from the Crown for some reason or another. Once they had the land, they needed cheap labor = slaves, which they initially purchased from the Spanish and Portuguese further South. (Which, given the geography, helps to explain why Slavery was so much more prevalent in the Deep South than it was in New England.) During the development of the new nation, it was because of wealthy Southerners that the new nation, "conceived in liberty" and where "all men are created equal", things were managed to keep Slavery as an entirely legitimate method for carrying on business. Wealthy men controlled over 90% of all the slaves in the USA, and they had enough influence in the Government to make sure that it stayed that way. But when those wealthy men felt their control slipping and the institution of Slavery was being threatened, they arranged for those States where they had the most influence (and where Slavery was most in evidence), they lobbied to have "their" States to split away from the Abolitionist North, starting the American Civil War. This is an example of how Wealth maintains the institution of Slavery.

It strikes me as necessary to emphasize that human trafficking, the practice of creating and transporting slaves around the globe, is not so much an "institution" as it is a criminal enterprise. That is, pretty much EVERYWHERE, owning slaves is illegal. However, as long as the slaves are hidden away AND enough of the local Powers That Be get their bribes and "piece of the action", then the people that _should_ be enforcing the laws are instead inclined to "look the other way".

[Drool]

2) Greek and Roman Empires.

To be fair, pretty much every ancient empire made use of slave labor. It was a handy way to use conquered peoples.

[Woolfe]

Slavery tends to perform best in Lots of work not many workers situations. The main reason it tends to die, is because it becomes less economical when you have a large population to work the industry.

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with all of that. [What a surprise, eh? ] Usually Slavery occurs where 1) There is a LOT of work to be done, 2) If performed, that work yields LOTS of money, 3) BUT no one really wants to perform that labor unless substantially compensated for having performed soooo much work, 4) People with power, influence and wealth (mostly the wealth, from which the other two things derive) makes it possible for them to _make_ people perform the necessary work for little or no pay, and 5) There is a source of people from which slaves may be drawn.

There are three prime examples of Slavery that immediately come to mind to substantiate these points:
1) The Great Wall of China. Mandated by the Chinese emperor, _no one_ was willing to perform the work for a wage that the emperor was willing/able to pay.

2) Greek and Roman Empires. Both empires were expansive and aggressive. In order to keep the army ranks filled adequately to sustain a state of near-perpetual warfare, it was needed to find enough labor from _somewhere_ to keep working the farms.

3) Pre-Civil War USA. "Cotton is King!" But _not_ if the plantation owners had to pay "an honest wage" for the labor. You don't hear about too many cases where a poor farmer built up his enterprise to a plantation estate using hundreds of workers.

Erm.... isn't that what I said, LOTS of work, not many workers. Which pretty much fits all of those areas you were talking about. The last one was the most vague, but only because I don't know what the population numbers were like in that period.

Oh and I did state "Tends to perform best" because there are ALWAYS exceptions

[CaptainPatch]

Erm.... isn't that what I said, LOTS of work, not many workers. Which pretty much fits all of those areas you were talking about. The last one was the most vague, but only because I don't know what the population numbers were like in that period.

In point of fact, there _was_ adequate labor available, but either The Powers That Be wanted to use that labor to do other things (armies) or else the parties that needed the work to be done so they could be filthy rich weren't willing to pay the wages necessary to motivate the local laborers to do the job. Or in the case of the Great Wall, both conditions applied.

Factoid: At the time of the Civil War, the population in the South was @9 million, of which 3.5 million were slaves. At the same time, the population in the rest of the USA was 22 million, with about another 3 million in the various Territories.

Grunt work in the North during that era paid only pennies per day. Had the plantation owners in the South been willing to pay even slightly more than that ("slightly more" to pay for the cost of moving South), there would have been a flood of workers heading South. So the labor was available, but the plantation owners weren't willing to pay for it.

[Woolfe]

Erm.... isn't that what I said, LOTS of work, not many workers. Which pretty much fits all of those areas you were talking about. The last one was the most vague, but only because I don't know what the population numbers were like in that period.

In point of fact, there _was_ adequate labor available, but either The Powers That Be wanted to use that labor to do other things (armies) or else the parties that needed the work to be done so they could be filthy rich weren't willing to pay the wages necessary to motivate the local laborers to do the job. Or in the case of the Great Wall, both conditions applied.

Factoid: At the time of the Civil War, the population in the South was @9 million, of which 3.5 million were slaves. At the same time, the population in the rest of the USA was 22 million, with about another 3 million in the various Territories.

Grunt work in the North during that era paid only pennies per day. Had the plantation owners in the South been willing to pay even slightly more than that ("slightly more" to pay for the cost of moving South), there would have been a flood of workers heading South. So the labor was available, but the plantation owners weren't willing to pay for it.

Well why would you pay more for local workers when slaves are available? Especially when your government doesn't object much.

Still counts tho, they couldn't enslave their own people. Because of laws, so they introduced foreign slaves and got around the lack of labour at low prices by doing that.

[CaptainPatch]

Well why would you pay more for local workers when slaves are available? Especially when your government doesn't object much.

Still counts tho, they couldn't enslave their own people. Because of laws, so they introduced foreign slaves and got around the lack of labour at low prices by doing that.

Which sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make about Power, Influence, and Wealth are what creates and maintains Slavery, doesn't it?

[Woolfe]

Well why would you pay more for local workers when slaves are available? Especially when your government doesn't object much.

Still counts tho, they couldn't enslave their own people. Because of laws, so they introduced foreign slaves and got around the lack of labour at low prices by doing that.

Which sort of illustrates the point I was trying to make about Power, Influence, and Wealth are what creates and maintains Slavery, doesn't it?

Oh I didn't disagree with that. I am just talking historically. Slavery tended to come about because there aren't enough workers. Whether this is because the citizen workers that are around are costing more than you are willing to pay, or because there just wasn't a lot of people left, are just variations on the same theme. Historically in ancient times it was more "not enough people" in more modern times it was "I don't want to pay fair rates". 2 sides of the same coin really.