No, I'm for democracy with the full original meaning of the word (as in ancient Athens), which includes a full list of obligations from each and every citizen to his city-state and all of his fellow citizens.
The word for individual that didn't want to contribute to their state, in ancient Athens, was "idiot" (literally: private), and it meant both the "private citizen" (a citizen involved only in his private affairs) and the imbecile.
That's where we got the word "idiot" from, and I find it very appropriate.
>I get it - slavery is back in style, because that's what it is when you take from one person to give to another, no matter what the relative positions of the two persons are.
No, it very much matters what the relative positions of the two persons are. It makes all the difference in the world.
For example, the rich slave owners in the South should not just have their slaves freed. They should also have had to share their estate between their slaves (the very persons that were the unpaid source of his wealth until then). That way we wouldn't have to wait until 1950 to end segregation, nor we would have the problem of piss poor black families going forward (and the crime that goes with that), or Jim Crow laws.
No, I'm for democracy with the full original meaning of the word (as in ancient Athens), which includes a full list of obligations from each and every citizen to his city-state and all of his fellow citizens.
The word for individual that didn't want to contribute to their state, in ancient Athens, was "idiot" (literally: private), and it meant both the "private citizen" (a citizen involved only in his private affairs) and the imbecile.
That's where we got the word "idiot" from, and I find it very appropriate.
>I get it - slavery is back in style, because that's what it is when you take from one person to give to another, no matter what the relative positions of the two persons are.
No, it very much matters what the relative positions of the two persons are. It makes all the difference in the world.
For example, the rich slave owners in the South should not just have their slaves freed. They should also have had to share their estate between their slaves (the very persons that were the unpaid source of his wealth until then). That way we wouldn't have to wait until 1950 to end segregation, nor we would have the problem of piss poor black families going forward (and the crime that goes with that), or Jim Crow laws.