Elite: Lore
08 Dec 2020, 3:13am
I dunno what conditions are like in the Alliance - probably world by world at that point - but Elite definitely loves toeing that dystopian line.
08 Dec 2020, 4:21am
It's not a coincidence that all the arguments in favor of Imperial slavery appear to be taken from 19th century U.S. proslavery propaganda. Examples can be found here. Imp slaves are better off than "wage slaves" in Federation space? Check. Slave owners take good care of the needs of their slaves? Check. Slaves are provided with free housing, clothing, food? Check. Slaves are happy and protected from abuse? Check.
08 Dec 2020, 5:55am
SakashiroThat's what I was talking about. In the eyes of their supporters, Imps can get away with pretty much anything. They can turn their slaves into friggin' bile bears and still get a pass, because someone says it's OK.
It's not a coincidence that all the arguments in favor of Imperial slavery appear to be taken from 19th century U.S. proslavery propaganda. Examples can be found here. Imp slaves are better off than "wage slaves" in Federation space? Check. Slave owners take good care of the needs of their slaves? Check. Slaves are provided with free housing, clothing, food? Check. Slaves are happy and protected from abuse? Check.
And the argument that "Well they chose to be slaves, and can pay off their debts" is iffy. Lets put some historical practice into use to lightly analyse this:
1- When your 'choice' is to starve and become an outcast, or to work for someone under dubious terms with the vague promise of "you'll have some money at the end and I will treat you well" it's not a choice. This is historical social transaction 101; you identify who holds the power in the negotiation, and weigh it against costs of the side without the power if they don't agree. Many, if not most, of these slaves are going to be desperate (the codex even says this), and if they only have one option for getting out of the problem they're in they'll likely take it - the alternative is a high chance of death. When you have two options and one is effectively death it is not a choice. In modern, or even in some cases medieval, law the argument that these people had a choice would be dismissed - in modern English law this could be seen as duress, which is illegal. Several medieval historians I have personally met would argue this too, including the one that lectured me on medieval slavery and hostageships.
1.1 - The codex, for example, mentions that a citizen can be sentenced to become a slave or have a fine so large that there is no choice. Again, neither of these are a choice. The first instance also suggests a lack of contract, as the sentence simply strips them of their citizenship.
1.2 - The codex also states that "Slaves may also be taken prisoner following a conflict, abducted from their home, or even captured in a hijacking." and while this is unclear if it refers to someone who is already a slave, or if it means one can be made a slave in such a manner, the next sentence in that paragraph suggests that this refers to the taking of slaves (i.e making someone a slave forcefully) as it sates that taking new slaves outside of wartime is illegal without the blessing of a Senator. Being taken as a slave is not a choice, and runs completely counter to any and all "Imperial slavery is voluntary" arguments.
2- Source analysis. Lore wise, who is it talking about slavery? Is it primarily the slaves? Or is it the mostly out of touch Imperial high society? This should always be taken into consideration, and frankly, I don't see it talked about much. Consider the motives a member of Imperial high society would have for presenting slavery as a noble and good thing - nothing should be taken at face value, and even with somewhat impartial sources such as the codex you must read between the lines - there is always more meaning in a text document than just the words it contains, and often a good portion of this hidden meaning contradicts the face value information. Hidden meaning is also inherently more valuable than face value meaning - but I don't want to write another 2000 word essay on historiography for at least a few years.
2.1 - Lets's take the Empire's talk of honour for example. Who is talking about honour? Who cares about honour? I doubt your average, barely making a living wage, imperial citizen really cares that much about somehting as high class as honour when their family is at risk of starving, and considering this situation is almost certainly the primary background for imperial slaves, I would argue honour is not worth considering in the vast majority of cases of imperial slavery.
3 - Arguing that it is not slavery, and it is a misleading term is pointless. In every source it is referred to as such. Further "indentured servitude" is considered by both historians and practitioners of law to be "slavery with extra steps". Further, it is believed to be based on the roman practice of Nexum, which is considered slavery and debt bondage. Debt bondage was branded as slavery in 1930.
4 - The main driving force behind Imperial slavery is debts, and it follows that it is most likely that the person or entity to whom one would contract themselves to as a slave in order to pay off these debts would be whoever or whatever they owe the debt to. This was the case in Roman debt slavery and modern debt slavery. What is also the case with both of these is that the controller of the debt can (and in the modern case, do) increase the inflation rate on a slave's debt to the point where it becomes impossible to actually pay off the debt. I have not seen any evidence of this in lore concerning imperial slavery thus far, but nonexistent evidence is not evidence of nonexistence, and I would argue that it's not unreasonable to assume that debt inflation also occurs in the Empire, although I can not reasonably suggest the degree to which it occurs.
08 Dec 2020, 10:01am
ErisSakashiroThat's what I was talking about. In the eyes of their supporters, Imps can get away with pretty much anything. They can turn their slaves into friggin' bile bears and still get a pass, because someone says it's OK.
It's not a coincidence that all the arguments in favor of Imperial slavery appear to be taken from 19th century U.S. proslavery propaganda. Examples can be found here. Imp slaves are better off than "wage slaves" in Federation space? Check. Slave owners take good care of the needs of their slaves? Check. Slaves are provided with free housing, clothing, food? Check. Slaves are happy and protected from abuse? Check.
And the argument that "Well they chose to be slaves, and can pay off their debts" is iffy. Lets put some historical practice into use to lightly analyse this:
1- When your 'choice' is to starve and become an outcast, or to work for someone under dubious terms with the vague promise of "you'll have some money at the end and I will treat you well" it's not a choice. This is historical social transaction 101; you identify who holds the power in the negotiation, and weigh it against costs of the side without the power if they don't agree. Many, if not most, of these slaves are going to be desperate (the codex even says this), and if they only have one option for getting out of the problem they're in they'll likely take it - the alternative is a high chance of death. When you have two options and one is effectively death it is not a choice. In modern, or even in some cases medieval, law the argument that these people had a choice would be dismissed - in modern English law this could be seen as duress, which is illegal. Several medieval historians I have personally met would argue this too, including the one that lectured me on medieval slavery and hostageships.
1.1 - The codex, for example, mentions that a citizen can be sentenced to become a slave or have a fine so large that there is no choice. Again, neither of these are a choice. The first instance also suggests a lack of contract, as the sentence simply strips them of their citizenship.
1.2 - The codex also states that "Slaves may also be taken prisoner following a conflict, abducted from their home, or even captured in a hijacking." and while this is unclear if it refers to someone who is already a slave, or if it means one can be made a slave in such a manner, the next sentence in that paragraph suggests that this refers to the taking of slaves (i.e making someone a slave forcefully) as it sates that taking new slaves outside of wartime is illegal without the blessing of a Senator. Being taken as a slave is not a choice, and runs completely counter to any and all "Imperial slavery is voluntary" arguments.
2- Source analysis. Lore wise, who is it talking about slavery? Is it primarily the slaves? Or is it the mostly out of touch Imperial high society? This should always be taken into consideration, and frankly, I don't see it talked about much. Consider the motives a member of Imperial high society would have for presenting slavery as a noble and good thing - nothing should be taken at face value, and even with somewhat impartial sources such as the codex you must read between the lines - there is always more meaning in a text document than just the words it contains, and often a good portion of this hidden meaning contradicts the face value information. Hidden meaning is also inherently more valuable than face value meaning - but I don't want to write another 2000 word essay on historiography for at least a few years.
2.1 - Lets's take the Empire's talk of honour for example. Who is talking about honour? Who cares about honour? I doubt your average, barely making a living wage, imperial citizen really cares that much about somehting as high class as honour when their family is at risk of starving, and considering this situation is almost certainly the primary background for imperial slaves, I would argue honour is not worth considering in the vast majority of cases of imperial slavery.
3 - Arguing that it is not slavery, and it is a misleading term is pointless. In every source it is referred to as such. Further "indentured servitude" is considered by both historians and practitioners of law to be "slavery with extra steps". Further, it is believed to be based on the roman practice of Nexum, which is considered slavery and debt bondage. Debt bondage was branded as slavery in 1930.
4 - The main driving force behind Imperial slavery is debts, and it follows that it is most likely that the person or entity to whom one would contract themselves to as a slave in order to pay off these debts would be whoever or whatever they owe the debt to. This was the case in Roman debt slavery and modern debt slavery. What is also the case with both of these is that the controller of the debt can (and in the modern case, do) increase the inflation rate on a slave's debt to the point where it becomes impossible to actually pay off the debt. I have not seen any evidence of this in lore concerning imperial slavery thus far, but nonexistent evidence is not evidence of nonexistence, and I would argue that it's not unreasonable to assume that debt inflation also occurs in the Empire, although I can not reasonably suggest the degree to which it occurs.
That's why the Imperial Slave Association exists: It's them that you make the deal with, not the one who's going to "own" you. So no, points 1 and 4 are mute. Once the time of your agreed on terms ends you're a free Imperial Citizen again, even being provided with everything you need to start anew.
Imperial honor, according to the FDevs, is based on Roman dignitas and Japanese bushido. Both concepts were held high in their respective societies, hell, bushido still is highly revered in Japan to this day. So it should be fair to assume that even the most basic Imperial citizen would care about it.
About 1.1: Those who get sentenced with such fines and/or sentences are usually guilty of a very specific crime: the mistreatment of slaves.
08 Dec 2020, 11:57am
Amata LireinThose who get sentenced with such fines and/or sentences are usually guilty of a very specific crime: the mistreatment of slaves.
Funny how Imperial slavery is all voluntary and non-abusive, except when you get sentenced to it. Then it suddenly turns into a form of punishment that can be forced upon you.
Question: How is it even possible to mistreat a slave if bile extraction doesn't count?
08 Dec 2020, 12:33pm
SakashiroAmata LireinThose who get sentenced with such fines and/or sentences are usually guilty of a very specific crime: the mistreatment of slaves.
Funny how Imperial slavery is all voluntary and non-abusive, except when you get sentenced to it. Then it suddenly turns into a form of punishment that can be forced upon you.
Question: How is it even possible to mistreat a slave if bile extraction doesn't count?
Well, I think that is what the description of Burnham Bile Distillate is supposed to point out: If it really happens voluntarily that it is not mistreatment as you have the slave's consent. If it does not then the those who feel uneasy about it are right in that the ISA needs to examine this process much closer and hand out punishments according to Imperial law.
ooc:
At this point I guess I really need to point out the real, true flaw of the Empire:
[...]Senators are above the law, subject only to a decree from the Emperor[...]
Source
I highly doubt that Arissa is able to keep a close eye on all 1,000 senators, so who knows who and how many of them are just all talk and don't live up to Imperial standards?
08 Dec 2020, 1:27pm
Amata LireinSakashiroAmata LireinThose who get sentenced with such fines and/or sentences are usually guilty of a very specific crime: the mistreatment of slaves.
Funny how Imperial slavery is all voluntary and non-abusive, except when you get sentenced to it. Then it suddenly turns into a form of punishment that can be forced upon you.
Question: How is it even possible to mistreat a slave if bile extraction doesn't count?
Well, I think that is what the description of Burnham Bile Distillate is supposed to point out: If it really happens voluntarily that it is not mistreatment as you have the slave's consent.
Mistreatment does not depend on consent. Someone can consent to their mistreatment and abuse, and it'd still be mistreatment and abuse. On top of that, you're not talking of a even relationship here, you're talking of a master-servant relationship, where power is inherently uneven distributed which makes any given consent questionable at best.
If it does not then the those who feel uneasy about it are right in that the ISA needs to examine this process much closer and hand out punishments according to Imperial law.
I'm sure that helps the imperial slaves who were sold to the Kumo Crew by the thousands.
Any system that removes peoples rights is prone to abuse. Punishing those that abuse it, treats only the symptoms of the problem, the root cause of the problem, that people are treated like property and are being bought and sold, is still there.
ooc:
At this point I guess I really need to point out the real, true flaw of the Empire:
[...]Senators are above the law, subject only to a decree from the Emperor[...]
Source
I highly doubt that Arissa is able to keep a close eye on all 1,000 senators, so who knows who and how many of them are just all talk and don't live up to Imperial standards?
I very much doubt that imperial intelligence services have not at least one informant in every senators office. The Emperor as the highest instance in the Empire has to be informed about anything. And that is the next flaw of the Empire: The Emperor as highest instance can simply choose to ignore wrongdoing by their senators by claiming that they didn't know until it is public. If the circumstances are right, the Emperor could even move to hide the wrongdoings of senators to ensure their continued support and there's literally nothing the rest of the population could do, since the Empire is at heart an authoritarian state.
08 Dec 2020, 1:39pm
As pointed out in the article I linked the powerbase of a senator are the patrons he represents, who in turn represent clients who represent the citizens. If enough of those decide to no longer support a senator by switching to another the senator's power vains, making him a lame duck. So ultimately the senators have to answer to the citizens regarding their actions...
...which might be happening very soon if Patreus keeps f'n up his handling of the NMLA. IMO it is one of the possible outcomes of the current storyline.
08 Dec 2020, 1:52pm
08 Dec 2020, 1:58pm
Vinh KruczekEvery kind of service can be abused in the end, be it military or civil, Federation or the Empire. At the end of the day - greedy people are utter bullshit regardless of political option.
^this
Of course you'll find black sheep inside the Empire. Otherwise there would be no need for the ISA to exist. But as with everything outright criminal it will just be a small percentage of the population who will not live up to the ideals set up by the respective societies.
That being said I still think the safety net Imperial slavery provides makes it a better system then what the Federation is offering.
08 Dec 2020, 2:59pm
Amata LireinThat being said there's one control measure for senators that might even force the Emperor's hand to move against a senator: The public.
As pointed out in the article I linked the powerbase of a senator are the patrons he represents, who in turn represent clients who represent the citizens. If enough of those decide to no longer support a senator by switching to another the senator's power vains, making him a lame duck. So ultimately the senators have to answer to the citizens regarding their actions...
...which might be happening very soon if Patreus keeps f'n up his handling of the NMLA. IMO it is one of the possible outcomes of the current storyline.
What is the public going to do against the Emperor? Be angry for a couple of weeks before imperial media distracts them with new trivialities of yet another personality cult?
I mean, don't get me wrong, it's not that different in the Federation, but pretending that the public could actually force the Emperors hand is a very silly thing to say and simply not realistic.
Amata LireinVinh KruczekEvery kind of service can be abused in the end, be it military or civil, Federation or the Empire. At the end of the day - greedy people are utter bullshit regardless of political option.
^this
Of course you'll find black sheep inside the Empire. Otherwise there would be no need for the ISA to exist. But as with everything outright criminal it will just be a small percentage of the population who will not live up to the ideals set up by the respective societies.
That being said I still think the safety net Imperial slavery provides makes it a better system then what the Federation is offering.
Some services are way more easily abused than others and among those are generally services that strip people of their rights.
At the end of the day, what you describe as wage slavery (which is still a silly term) in the Federation and Imperial Slavery in the Empire are exactly the same thing, with the exception that the Imperial Slave cannot legally escape and is stripped of the majority of their rights.
People don't employ/keep imperial slaves out of the goodness of their heart and if they don't net the profit they expect, they get sold to someone who'll think that they do. This cycle repeats until they either net a profit to their owner or until their living standards are cut back to the bare legal minimum (and probably a good bit below). Let's be honest here, when it comes to profit honour is worth about as much in the Empire as it is in the Federation. They might have different cultures, but human thinking when it comes to profit is surprisingly similiar throughout the world.
At the end of the day Imperial slavery isn't worth shit as a social security program, since it propagates the exact same issues a social security program should prevent, namely a shitty living standard. You can go on about how honourable it is to treat your slaves well, but it boils down to the simple logic of: if it doesn't net a profit, you cut costs. Otherwise the imperial economy wouldn't work.
08 Dec 2020, 4:28pm
Last edit: 08 Dec 2020, 5:05pm
08 Dec 2020, 5:58pm
"Wage slavery", as example, is more reality than fiction - and I really wish it was fiction. There are countries within EU which had been having wages so low forcing people to go abroad and fuel the low-paid jobs in "more developed" countries (with more and more vocal opinions that had been made on purpose for over a decade). The shit kinda hit the fan, to say it bluntly, when entire pandemic hit. I come from such a country, therefore I have sad experience as unemployed without a stable job, living from the odd jobs' money that are too low for self-sustained existence. There is a lot of reasons why its a thing, but it would take me a long, looooong essay to explain the implications after 1989 - plus it would be very... political. And I think we don't want to delve into that.
Needless to say, this is why my character holds a strong disdain towards Federation, with Zachary Hudson calling all the poor, whining people as "unsuccessful because of their laziness". Situation over there, at least according to the Codex, seems to be very copy of what I've just described above.
08 Dec 2020, 6:10pm
Vinh KruczekThat statement sounds like Federation didn't have any appalling attitudes within and had no abuse.
"Wage slavery", as example, is more reality than fiction - and I really wish it was fiction. There are countries within EU which had been having wages so low forcing people to go abroad and fuel the low-paid jobs in "more developed" countries (with more and more vocal opinions that had been made on purpose for over a decade). The shit kinda hit the fan, to say it bluntly, when entire pandemic hit. I come from such a country, therefore I have sad experience as unemployed without a stable job, living from the odd jobs' money that are too low for self-sustained existence. A lot of reasons why its a thing, but it would take me a long, looooong essay to explain the implications - plus it would be very... political. And I think we don't want to delve into that.
Needless to say, this is why my character holds a strong disdain towards Federation, with Zachary Hudson calling all the poor, whining people as "unsuccessful because of their laziness". Situation over there, at least according to the Codex, seems to be very copy of what I've just described above.
At no point did I imply let alone say any of that. If you want to fight a strawman, go fight it somewhere else.
10 Dec 2020, 6:42pm
Sakashiro(...) It's not a coincidence that all the arguments in favor of Imperial slavery appear to be taken from 19th century U.S. proslavery propaganda. Examples can be found here. Imp slaves are better off than "wage slaves" in Federation space? Check. Slave owners take good care of the needs of their slaves? Check. Slaves are provided with free housing, clothing, food? Check. Slaves are happy and protected from abuse? Check.
You are aware that Imperial Slavery is not based on 19th C. slavery but Roman (debt) slavery, which was a wholly different social construct that had no ethnic bias and was ran by different ideas, unlike slavery maintained by colonial powers and the countries with colonial heritage, right?
Historical note:
As for American slavery of the Black people, this could be averted if United States at its very inception outright banned slavery and educated the freed slaves, like Thaddeus Kosciusko vowed for (and even spent majority of his fortune in that direction) However, Thomas Jefferson not only opposed emancipation but outright rejected Kosciusko's deathbed testament - with his fortune (in fact, illegally in accordance to Roman law principles of civil law relating to the will) distributed to different less-critical areas.
Last edit: 10 Dec 2020, 6:58pm