AbandonedSakashiro(...) 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.
Did you read this post?
Just because it's "another kind" of slavery doesn't make it good.
All the sources I've seen on imperial slavery appear to be written from the perspective of someone in power. I think Eris outlined well why the "choice" of going into slavery in many situations aren't an actual choice.