Did you miss the part where he listed taking slaves as part of his ideology? He wasn't a hypocrite, he correctly believed that slavery was a compatible part of liberalism.

From what I’m reading here, someone only forfeits their rights when they put themselves into a state of war with another.

So you do accept that unilaterally declaring that someone has "forfeited their rights" and taking them as a slave with no due process is compatible with your beliefs?

[+] WhatsTheHoldup@lemmy.ml -6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Did you miss the part where he listed taking slaves as part of his ideology?

In the way you describe, yes I missed that.

So you do accept that unilaterally declaring that someone has "forfeited their rights" and taking them as a slave with no due process is compatible with your beliefs?

"Slave" is a very archaic word in this context. It is my understanding he is talking about the concept of prisoners.

If a person murders another, I do accept they have "forfeited their rights", and that we should then use due process to try them of this crime, and if guilty they should be imprisoned (does that mean taking them as a slave?).

This is not the economic practice of slave labor being described.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 months ago

“Slave” is a very archaic word in this context. It is my understanding he is talking about the concept of prisoners.

It says that he is considered a wild beast with no rights and can be subject to 'despotic power'. That sounds more like a slave than a prisoner. If he just meant prisoner, it would also mean that he opposes people being imprisoned in any context outside of war.

This is not the economic practice of slave labor being described.

It certainly says slave labor is an acceptable use of these prisoners. Which makes sense given that the person saying it owned part of slaving company.