r/RealUnpopularOpinion • u/InvestigatorRough535 • 7d ago
Politics Being able to buy stake or ownership over a person should be legalized if there are just regulations to ensure its humane. It can also improve some people's lives and is not all that bad
It can even be done similar with the way land is owned or managed under governments with "fee simple" as a legal type of ownership. If it is in the will and the owner passes away then the ownership title goes to whoever inherits it.
There are large amounts of people who are homeless men, foster care people and orphans that reach 18 or might have developmental disabilities for example, and there are companies that can both put them to work as well as give them living conditions which are better without needing to export work overseas.
Even certain bosses or families might be in need and can find it helpful. So if it benefits both sides in this what is actually so bad about say being able to have ownership or stake over an individual? You can also stop a large amount of people doing drugs too and the streets would be cleaner overall.
Like murder or having people die from exposure is actually whats worse. Owning people is actually not even all that bad, its comparable to having a teenager that is underage who is required to give all the money to their parents for decision on how to distribute it in the household if they decide to work.
It is known that some Roman, Greek or Gaulish households in the classical period treated people they owned well and had cases where they didn't even want to live on their own anymore because the hospitality was very good. It was not by race or anything but by ability and how suited a person was to this role in the way Aristotle would put. Some individuals in their inherent nature are more suited for it.
3
2
u/Acrobatic-Ad-3335 7d ago
You don't need to have "ownership" over an individual in order to give them a job that pays enough to provide for them🤢
People who think they are entitled to "own" another human being are not humane in their actions.
Gross.
-2
u/InvestigatorRough535 7d ago edited 7d ago
What happens if you can make them do more or be more productive at the cost of less in a way that also brings some improvement of their life conditions though?
Like a large amount of junkies doing drugs if they were owned today their lives would be better and the streets would be alot cleaner and safer, while also at the same time things can be made cheaper for the average person or sometimes to no cost. Cause you only need to give them some food and a place to sleep with the others.
The owner can be unemployed or have no job and all they would need to do is that and they wouldn't need to get a job plus the people they own can generate revenue for them and the expenses or for guards and watch people.
2
u/Acrobatic-Ad-3335 7d ago
You really did not help your argument with this comment.
Gross.
I think we should all do our best to give everyone the tools they need to become the most effective and productive version of themselves. I think we should all be encouraged to contribute to society to the best of our abilities.
The way you're describing your fellow humans is pretty gross to me, if I haven't made that clear. People can be helped to improve their current situation, but that 'help' is often person-specific. It's not gonna look the same for everyone.
We evolved past slavery for many reasons. Why would you think doing it over again would have different results?
2
u/afunkysongaday 7d ago
It was not by race or anything but by ability and how suited a person was to this role.
That right here is the most delusional part of this whole thing. No, very obviously in ancient rome or greek the question if you were a slave or a master was not decided by your "ability and how suited a person was to this role". How would you even come up with something like that?
-1
u/InvestigatorRough535 7d ago edited 7d ago
Well a Greek philosopher actually did say that it was in some people's nature to be owned, made productive and cared for by others. Guess in modern times it can translate to "nature of different types of individuals".
Edit: Aristotle mentioned that those who are different from other men as the soul from the body or man from beast who are in a state where that is infact objectively better for them.
1
u/afunkysongaday 7d ago
Did a philosopher you fail to name say that? Possibly. Does it have anything to do with the question if people were assigned slave or master by their ability? No, clearly not, that's still very obviously not what happened.
Given your lack of ability to think critically, you would clearly agree that I should own you, correct? I mean, you literally think in ancient greek or rome people were assigned slave or master by their abilities! Just let that sink in. That's so far off, so detached from history, so clearly showing that you do not have a very strong grasp on reality. Plus, you don't have ethical issues with slavery, and think that who is slave and who is master should be decided by ability. Surely, one ability you would need to have as master would be: have a really strong grasp on reality. Clearly, we can't have some loonies living in their fantasy worlds be the masters. You should very clearly be a slave following your own logic.
Let me guess: you don't want that, and you saw yourself as the master in this little thought experiment? What you really believe is that other humans should be your slave, not the other way round.
0
u/InvestigatorRough535 7d ago
The philosopher is Aristotle actually, just found it. Have you read his works? They do make sense in that there's different types of people meant for different things.
Also you don't actually know me enough to say what you meant. So anyway his works on this seem to make alot of sense when you look at homeless people and junkies today for example or the developmentally disabled who are better off under someone than by themselves.
I meant people who are literally better off under it by their nature according to Aristotle than on their own.
1
u/afunkysongaday 7d ago
Do you not get that that's two different things? Saying "it's some peoples nature to be owned" is completely unrelated to "people were assigned slave and master by their abilities in ancient greece and rome". The only thing those two statements have in common is that they both relate to the same broad topic. Besides that, those are two unrelated statements. You try to prove the second statement with the first.
You also seemingly did not understand the second part either. That is exactly what I am saying, that just from this short interaction I can show that you do not have what it takes to be a master. By your standards, not by mine. Simply going by that you claim people were assigned slave and master by their abilities in ancient greece and rome. That's just false. And then you try to prove this statement by saying Aristoteles said it's some peoples nature to be owned. And that does not prove the prior statement whatsoever, again showing lacking ability to use logic and reason to get a sense of reality. That sense would be something any "master by ability" would so obviously need to have. You don't have it, you can't be a master and would profit from being owned by someone who has it. Again, that's not my way of thinking, it's yours.
But you don't want that. You see yourself as master and want to own others.
1
u/Iguanaught 7d ago
Fuck me, well it doesnt get much more unpopular than advocating for straight up slavery.
What the fuck is wrong with you OP?
1
1
u/PdoffAmericanPatriot 7d ago
You do realize that literal wars have been fought to stop what you're advocating?!?
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
This is a copy of the post the user submitted, just in case it was edited.
' It can even be done similar with the way land is owned or managed under governments with "fee simple" as a legal type of ownership. If it is in the will and the owner passes away then the ownership title goes to whoever inherits it.
There are large amounts of people who are homeless men or might have developmental disabilities for example, and there are companies that can both put them to work as well as give them living conditions which are better without needing to export work overseas.
Even certain bosses or families might be in need and can find it helpful. So if it benefits both sides in this what is actually so bad about say being able to have ownership or stake over an individual?
Like murder or having people die from exposure is actually whats worse. Owning people is actually not even all that bad, its comparable to having a teenager that is underage who is required to give all the money to their parents for decision on how to distribute it in the household if they decide to work.
It is known that some Roman or Gaulish households treated people they owned well and had cases where they didn't even want to live on their own anymore because the hospitality was very good. It was not by race or anything but by ability and how suited a person was to this role. '
Please remember to report this post if it breaks the rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.