If your do a little research you will find that most of those indentured
servants considered themselves enslaved rather than prisoners. An
interesting thing to think about is that mostly England sent their
convicted criminals to Australlia as prisoners, and their convicted
debtors to America as indentured servants, the interesting part is which
ones eventually rebelled. A little research will point up the vast
resentment the common people in America had against the crown.
By the way the concept that the convicted paid their debt to society and
got their rights back, has mostly gone by the wayside in modern america.
Once a convict, always a convict is the rule today.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
cbwaters wrote:
Wouldn't that be more like indentured servitude? I mean, they do
eventually work off their "debt", right?
CW
----- Original Message ----- From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: Update: The fur fellow's feet
Well, if you think that there is a right not to be enslaved, I
suggest you go check out any prison industry. Here in NC you can see
that right violated on the highways. I assume that people working
under a gun are not employees. About the only right that actually
exists is the right to die (freedoom), and most states have laws
trying to eliminate that.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Bob W wrote:
First, rights do not entail responsibilities. A right is a right. For
example, you have a right not to be enslaved. This right comes with no
strings attached whatsoever. If you disagree with this, perhaps you
could
tell me what responsibilities you might neglect that would justify your
enslavement.
Second, I suspect you have not really examined the question of animal
rights. The phrase itself is unfortunately rather misleading. The
standard
argument in favour of animal rights makes it quite clear that the
rights in
question are not the same as those accorded to people, such as the
right to
vote. The crucial thing is the right to equal consideration. If you
accept
that animals have interests and moral status (and perhaps you don't
accept
this), then this argument claims that you should give equal moral
weight to
the comparable interests of animals and people unless there is a
relevant
difference between them that justifies unequal consideration.
The Australian philosopher Peter Singer expressed this in his book
"Animal
Liberation". There is a summary of the argument here:
http://www.utilitarian.org/texts/alm.html.
It is dated 1985, so the examples are out of date, but the argument
still
holds. It is worth reading the essay all the way through. For a more
detailed examination, read the book.
--
Cheers,
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10
December 2005 19:19
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Update: The fur fellow's feet
People who advocate animal rights don't understand that rights also
entail responsibilities. Animals can't be held responsible for
their actions so they cannot have rights, it's a two edged sword,
unless you wish to completely redefine what rights are.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date:
12/9/2005
