distortion of your ethics

We also should always be aware that every serious discussion of slavery must begin with the question: what do you mean by "slavery", for the term is used in wildly different ways.

But pondering further. If you have a successful revolt what do you believe the punishment for the perpetrators should be. Would death be a just punishment? What if the empowered slaves offered enslavement of their former masters as an alternative?

   Could you give examples of this.

   Would death be a just punishment?
   What if ...

The Haitian slave revolution of the late 18th, early 19th century lead to immediate genocide of the remaining whites and and mixed race inhabitants [2]. Haiti, which was once the wealthiest Caribbean island has been a basket case ever since.

Coincidentally, after the successful revolution, the black leadership reinstituted slavery, albeit symbolically abolishing the whip [3].

The Haitian slave rebellion teaches us a large number of lessons about humanity, most not very palatable.

[1] Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realencyclop%C3%A4die_der_clas...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution#Free_republ...

We should be able to have a reasoned, intellectual discussion about the economic side of slavery whilst still agreeing it shouldn't be done.

I'd like to read arguments on both sides for the economic effects of, say, slavery in America. Did America benefit? If so, over what timescales? Were there benefits in the short term but the ongoing divisions now hurt the economy more? And I can wonder about these things while still not thinking it was good.

Of course, some people in this thread are probably ready to laud Hitler's economic acumen, while ignoring his economic gains were due to public spending building a war machine and taking Jewish people's stuff.

You're not allowed to comment like this on HN.

HN is one of those places where, as frustrating as it might be, the rules of discourse encourage thoughtful interchange. Here, we at least have the hope that we can be educated or enlightened, and in some cases we may be able to show others the errors in their thinking in a manner that doesn't close off communication.

Most arguments I can come up with are reasonably close to contemporary arguments for socialism or basic income. Do you consider those arguments (far more socially acceptable) to be similarly "messed up"?

(Note that most of those who have advocated for slavery in recent years, e.g Obama and Rangell, did so from a socialist perspective. Slaves would serve the state, either as "volunteers" for social programs or in the military. I'm not the only one who finds the cases to be pretty close.)

I appreciate you supporting my case.