Saturday, March 18, 2017

The brutal efficiency of slavery

The articles this in in reply to are here and here. These were linked to me during a blog discussion which can be found here.

Dear Dr. Murphy,

If you genuinely believe that non-slave labor is more efficient, what would you have to lose by joining anti-slavery boycotts? Say something specific, where there is relatively decent documentation, such as buying slave-free chocolate instead of slave chocolate?

Mr. Mises wrote and you quoted, "If one treats men like cattle, one cannot squeeze out of them more than cattle-like performances." Human beings can use tools like shovels and looms and whatnot. Cattle can't. A great example is forced prostitution, a widely practiced form of modern chattel slavery.(1)(2) In this case, human beings utilizes tools and aspects of humanity to deliver an experience that could never be manufactured by cattle. Moreover, in Roman arenas and colosseums, fights between talented human gladiators were considered far more entertaining than fights between animals, a living testimony that humanity presents an aspect distinguished from animalistic nature.(3)(4)

Why should any of these concern us? A comparison between aforementioned analysis and Mr. Mises would suggest a contradiction between his study and empirical evidence. It is perhaps due to the fact that Mr. Mises was never a chattel slave, or did not witness chattel slavery, and so far as I know, never interviewed a former chattel slave. As a result, he possess no more familiarity with chattel slavery than other Austrians or his academic contemporaries.

Aristotle, a Greek slave owner, considered slaves the most valuable of possessions, and considered oxen to be inferior to human slaves, "Now instruments are of various sorts; some are living, others lifeless; in the rudder, the pilot of a ship has a lifeless, in the look-out man, a living instrument; for in the arts the servant is a kind of instrument. Thus, too, a possession is an instrument for maintaining life. And so, in the arrangement of the family, a slave is a living possession, and property a number of such instruments; and the servant is himself an instrument which takes precedence of all other instruments. For if every instrument could accomplish its own work, obeying or anticipating the will of others, like the statues of Daedalus, or the tripods of Hephaestus, which, says the poet, 'of their own accord entered the assembly of the Gods;' if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves. Here, however, another distinction must be drawn; the instruments commonly so called are instruments of production, whilst a possession is an instrument of action. The shuttle, for example, is not only of use; but something else is made by it, whereas of a garment or of a bed there is only the use. Further, as production and action are different in kind, and both require instruments, the instruments which they employ must likewise differ in kind. But life is action and not production, and therefore the slave is the minister of action," and, "the ox is the poor man's slave."(5)

Even setting aside for the moment the question of the wide variety of things that humans can do that animals can't (excepting in some cases other primates), Mises seems to be implying here that slaves are naturally inclined to be lazy or otherwise unmotivated. That might be the case if slaves were merely unpaid, or rather, paid at around the subsistence level (food/water). But that's not quite what we mean when we say chattel slavery. There are people who voluntarily, without the threat of violence (at least, not by the employer), accept jobs that pay nothing but food and water. While the desperation that drives people to accept such jobs is another interesting and not unrelated topic, for it is often people who have recently escaped violence, that's not what we're talking about here. While it's not my intention to delineate the exact distinction between chattel slavery and other types of violence, as if they could all be divided into neat little boxes, the chattel slave is generally regarded by the master as a tool to be used, and the use of this particular tool often involves inflicting pain and fear. There are many ways to inflict pain, beating, whipping, etc etc. Some leave little or no trace of physical damage.(6) The way Kevin Bales explains it is, "Slavery is what slavery has always been. It's about one person completely controlling another person using violence and then exploiting them economically, paying them nothing. That's what slavery is about." (7, 7:52-8:05)

Necessity is the mother of invention." And great necessity arises from pain and fear, which activates our survival instincts. In these moments of desperation, our talents for innovation, creativity, and efficiency are greatly heightened. Our capability frequently extends beyond our knowledge of such capabilities.

Also from your Mises quote, "The upper limit beyond which it is impossible to lift the quality and quantity of the products and services rendered by slave and serf labor is far below the standards of free labor."

This has been proven untrue repeatedly throughout history. I already quoted some examples for you. Did you read them?

To repeat one, from an interview with a freed carpet slave in modern-day India, “In the morning at 5 o’clock I wake up, then start to work. Then at night at 12 o’clock we stop working. […] Here, you know, here, they [the fingers] are cut. The loom is so tight, then we do like that. Then this finger moves, and here it’s cut. And here also it’s cut. […] He had one big stick. […] Then if we are not working he beats. […] Okay, I’m working I’m working, don’t beat me.” (7, 40:34-41:40)

Go watch the interview for yourself if you don't believe me. Better yet, watch the whole documentary. 5 AM to 12 midnight is a 19-hour workday. A 133-hour workweek. For no pay other than food and water, and under threat of beating. Have you ever heard of a non-slave willing to work those kind of hours for that kind of pay? If only one could solve the problem of figuring out how to escape, one can get a better deal from Nature, just by foraging, assuming the local Nature hasn't been destroyed by polluting corporations or whomever. Or dumpster-diving in a city environment, either way. You know what, even if you aren't confident in your ability to forage, dumpster-dive, barter, pickpocket, busk, shoplift, or find some other way to make it without an employer, plenty of people have chosen hunger over violence.(8) (And yes, I realize libertarians would object to some or all of the possible methods I listed for making it without an employer post-escape, doesn't matter, the point is, it happens whether you like it or not. Austrianism is about modelling human behavior, no? Well, crime is part of human behavior, and escaping violence is a strong incentive to commit crime. Thomas Hobbes understood this, hence his handy list of "Totall Excuses."(9) In fact, on page 172 of Mr. Mises' Human Action, he does indeed mention that people can choose to withdraw from civilization, though I would disagree with Mr. Mises equating civilization to peace. Civilization is quite violent.)

I also gave you several quotes from the book, "The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism." Edward Baptist's book is well-researched, based on interviews and other sources, and gives details on how torture was used on African American slaves to inspire them to new heights of productivity. I hate repeating myself, but since you don't seem to have read them before, on pages 142-143, “Hard forced labor multiplied US cotton production to 130 times its 1800 level by 1860. Slave labor camps were more efficient producers of revenue than free farms in the North. Planter-entrepreneurs conquered a subcontinent in a lifetime, creating from nothing the most significant staple-commodity stream in the world economy. They became the richest class of white people in the United States, and perhaps the world.”(10) Page 144, “The whip drove men and women to turn all of their bodies and much of their minds to the task of picking faster and faster.” Pages 129-131, “And perhaps most conclusively, after the Civil War, when many cotton planters would pay pickers by the pound at the end of a day’s work, free labor motivated by a wage did not produce the same amount of cotton per hour of picking as slave labor had. What enslavers used was a system of measurement and negative incentives. Actually, one should avoid such euphemisms. Enslavers used measurement to calibrate torture in order to force cotton pickers to figure out how to increase their own productivity and thus push through the picking bottleneck. The continuous process of innovation thus generated was the ultimate cause of the massive increase in the production of high-quality, cheap cotton: an absolutely necessary increase if the Western world was to burst out of the 10,000-year Malthusian cycle of agriculture. This system confounds our expectations, because, like abolitionists, we want to believe that the free labor system is not only more moral that systems of coercion, but more efficient. Faith in that a priori is very useful. It means we never have to resolve existential contradictions between productivity and freedom. And slave labor surely was wasteful and unproductive. Its captives knew it wasted the days and years and centuries extorted from them. They would never get those days back. Yet those who actually endured those days knew the secret that, over time, drove cotton-picking to continually higher levels of efficiency.”(10) Page 142, “Thus torture compelled and then exposed left-handed capacities, subordinated them to the power of the enslaver, turned them against people themselves. And thus untold amounts of mental labor, unknown breakthroughs of human creativity, were the keys to an astonishing increase in cotton production that required no machinery–save the whipping-machine, of course. With it, enslavers looted the riches of black folk’s minds, stole days and moths and years and lifetimes, turned sweat, blood, and flesh into gold. They forced people to behave in the fields as if they themselves were disembodied, mechanical hands that moved ever more swiftly over the cotton plant at the wave of the enslaver’s hand. Enslavers forced the sleight of the left hand to yield to the service of their own right-handed power.”(10)

You wrote, "Well, in order to compel the slaves to produce (such as picking cotton), the owners and their subordinates would have to announce minimum standards of output, below which the slaves would be punished. In setting this threshold, the owners couldn’t be too unreasonable, because frequent physical punishments would reduce the health of the slaves. Yet this means that all of the slaves who actually were 'above average' would have no reason to excel. They would have the incentive to do the bare minimum to avoid punishment."

First off, slaveowners and overseers were quite capable of setting individual quotas for slaves. To pull another quote from Edward Baptist's book, from page 133, "The overseer, wrote one owner in the rules he created for his Louisiana labor camp in 1820, 'shall see that the people of the plantation that are fit to pick cotton shall do it and Pick clean as much as possible and quantity conforming [to] their age[,] Strength & Capacitys.' Sarah Wells remembered that near Warren County, Mississippi, where she grew up, some slaves picked 100 pounds a day, some 300, and some 500. But if your quota was 250 pounds, and one day you didn't reach it, 'they'd punish you, put you in the stocks,' and beat you. If a new hand couldn't meet the set quota, that hand would have to improve his or her 'capacity for picking,' or the whip would balance the account. 'You are mistaken when you say your negroes are ignorant of the proper way of working,' wrote Robert Beverley about a new crew transported from Virginia to Alabama. 'They only need to be made to do it... by flogging and that quite often.' A few years later, having received another batch of people, he wrote, 'They are very difficult negroes to make pick cotton. I have flogged this day, you would think if you had seen it[,] without mercy.' Learning how to meet one's quota was difficult, and those who met it before sunset had to keep picking. As William Anderson moved toward his quota in a Mississippi field, his new enslaver repeatedly knocked him down with a heavy stick, claiming William was lagging."(10) Furthermore, these quotas increased over time, from page 134, "After Israel Campbell figured out how to meet his quota, Belfer raised Campbell's requirement to 175 pounds per day. John Brown remembered that 'as I picked so well at first, more was extracted of me, and if I flagged a minute the whip was applied liberally to keep me up to my mark. By being driven this way, I at last got to pick a hundred and sixty pounds a day,' after starting at a minimum requirement of 100. Cotton-picking increased because quotas rose. In 1805, Wade Hampton and his henchmen gradually increased their demands on Ball until he was picking 50-odd pounds a day. By the late 1820s, enslavers in Mississippi and Tennessee demanded 100 pounds. Five years later, that total had gone up by another 30 pounds. Hands now moved 'like a bresh heap afire'--'as if,' a Mississippi planter wrote, 'some new motive power was applied in the process.' As if, in other words, mechanical engines hummed inside the enslaved, as if the disembodied hands of whites' language moved by themselves over the cotton plants in the field. By the 1850s, ex-slaves reported, enslavers demanded 200 pounds or more of most slaves on some places, and even 250 on others."(10)

Secondly, slave owners typically feel no need to be reasonable or worry about "reducing the health of the slaves". Slaves these days are regarded by their masters as disposable, and they have throughout much of history as well. Slaves die all the time, either from the hard work or the punishment itself. "The health of the slaves" is simply not a concern most of the time, and even when it is, see discussion of inflicting pain without leaving a trace above. Kevin Bales says, "There is a glut of slaves, and when you use them, you throw them away if you don't want them anymore. They're disposable." (7, 8:45-8:53)

In Qatar, slaves often die from heart attacks.(11) In a period of 3 years (2011-2013), there were 1,239 documented Indian and Nepali deaths in Qatar. If Bangladeshi workers are included, the number jumps to around 1,800.(12)

According to a Burmese man who escaped slavery in the seafood industry, "People said, anyone who tried to escape had their legs broken, their hands broken or were even killed."(13)

From Bharti Tapas, a former prostitute, "When I arrived at the brothel, I refused to do what they told me to and they beat me and starved me for 10 days. I thought I would rather kill myself than be forced to work as a prostitute." From the same article, "She was just a schoolgirl when she found herself in Bombay, along with thousands of other girls who are beaten, locked in tiny cages or hidden in attics. Some are forced to have sex with as many as 20 men a day under the watchful eyes of madams and pimps. [...] It can take 10 years for a woman to buy her freedom — if she doesn't first succumb to AIDS, other STDs, complications from repeated abortions, malnourishment, malaria, or TB. Most don't make it to the age of 40."(1) Does it sound like these madams and pimps care about "the health of the slaves"?

There's a whole book called "Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy" with numerous examples of how little regard modern masters have for "the health of the slaves". For example, in an e-mail the author received, "We had a rescue operation and rescued seven children from a carpet loom in Allahabad. All seven children are aged between ten and twelve years. Two of them are very sick, suffering from jaundice, and the others look malnourished."(14)

Tell me, does this description from an Ivory Coast chocolate slave sound "reasonable" to you? "Some of the bags were taller than me. It took two people to put the bag on my head. And when you didn't hurry, you were beaten. The beatings were a part of my life. Anytime they loaded you with bags and you fell while carrying them, nobody helped you. Instead, they beat you and beat you until you picked it up again."(15) From another former Ivory Coast chocolate slave, "When we were rescued he had been beaten so much he couldn't walk. After you were beaten your body had cuts and wounds everywhere. Then the flies would infect the wounds, so they'd fill with pus. You had to recover while you worked. [...] When he beat someone to the point that he couldn't move, he took him out of the plantation. He took the person away. We never saw that person again." (7, 19:15-19:57) It costs about 15 British pounds to buy a slave in the Ivory Coast. That's how little human life is valued on the market, when the human is not counted as a person.(7, 1:04:58-1:07:25)

The disposability of slaves is nothing new, Roman gladiators were disposable too. From Cicero, "Just look at the gladiators, either debased men or foreigners, and consider the blows they endure! Consider how they who have been well-disciplined prefer to accept a blow than ignominiously avoid it! How often it is made clear that they consider nothing other than the satisfaction of their master or the people! Even when they are covered with wounds they send a messenger to their master to inquire his will. If they have given satisfaction to their masters, they are pleased to fall. What even mediocre gladiator ever groans, ever alters the expression on his face? Which one of them acts shamefully, either standing or falling? And which of them, even when he does succumb, ever contracts his neck when ordered to receive the blow?"(16) It wasn't only the gladiators, according to Galen, "When I was a young man I imposed upon myself an injunction which I have observed through my whole life, namely, never to strike any slave of my household with my hand. My father practiced this same restraint. Many were the friends he reproved when they had bruised a tendon while striking their slaves in the teeth; he told them that they deserved to have a stroke and die in the fit of passion which had come upon them. They could have waited a little while, he said, and used a rod or whip to inflict as many blows as they wished and to accomplish the act with reflection. Other men, however, not only (strike) with their fists but kick and gouge out the eyes and stab with a stylus when they happen to have one in their hands. I saw a man , in his anger, strike a slave in the eye with a reed pen. The Emperor Hadrian, they say, struck one of his slaves in the eye with a stylus."(17)

The master sees himself as the owner of the slaves, not as a steward. An owner, in the Western sense of the word, has the right to destroy. And slave owners often do destroy their slaves.(18)

You wrote, "In this environment, one plantation owner perceives the problem. He makes the rounds and gives speeches to all of the slaves held by his neighbors. He says, 'I know the conditions you face here, and I know some of you have the ability to produce much more, if only it were in your self-interest. So if you volunteer, you can come to my plantation for a trial period of one month. I will expect you to pick twice as much cotton as your current master expects. However, if you do so, then I will give you twice the standard of living you currently enjoy here. Further, if you don’t live up to my expectations, you won’t be punished; I will simply return you here. You will find that the slaves at my plantation are all treated with courtesy, because I’m running a business. I have made an arrangement with your current owner, so that if you end up staying with me permanently, I’ll pay him a price 50% above your current market value for you. He wins, but so do I, because you’ll produce double at my plantation what you would produce anywhere else under their existing framework.'"

Okay, there are so many problems with this... first off, consider the carpet slave above. He was already working a 133-hour workweek.(7) A 266-hour workweek would be impossible. There's only 168 hours in a week, and that's if you never sleep. And I've already covered the allegation that slaves don't work that hard. You realize slave-made carpet prices undercut free-made carpet prices? Go watch the documentary if you don't believe me. Also, twice the standard of living? What, twice the food? Double of almost nothing is still almost nothing, certainly not enough to inspire someone to break the laws of time. Also, while not being beaten would be nice, threatening to return someone to a violent situation is still a sort of violence. Certainly, dragging them back is a sort of violence. (This does happen in the shadow economy when some employers threaten to call immigration if their employees do not agree to very bad terms.) Also, the carpet slave would have absolutely no way of enforcing this contract. Contracts are ultimately useless to those who do not have the power to enforce them. Indeed, broken promises/contracts are how a lot of people are lured into slavery to begin with. See Qatar for example, though it happens everywhere.

Regarding Qatar, from one interview, "They promised me $600 a month. But in Delhi [in transit], they tore up my contract and threw it away. On the plane I saw my new contract was for just 900 riyal a month. It was for a construction job. Even then, I didn't get paid for five months. I took a loan to come here, [but without a salary] I couldn't pay it back."(19, 3:32-3:55) (900 riyal is about 240 USD.)

This sort of thing, broken promises or contracts or treaties or whatever, is one of the common motifs in chattel slavery and other forms of violence. According to a former slave named Roseline here in the United States, "She made a promise. While I'm her [inaudible] she was going to send me to school. So I came here. I was helping her, and I've been here so long but she didn't do what... she didn't send me to school. [...] I get up at around like um 6 o'clock something 6:30. I go back to bed like around 2, 2:30. [...] I wasn't allowed to use the phone, and um, I can't write. If I write, they were going to open it and look what's inside. [...] They used to hit me. I can't go for three days without them hitting me up. [...] She calls me, she says um, you motherfucker. You're so dumb. You're stupid. Asshole." (7, 35:30-38:20)

In the second article you linked, you wrote, "Besides being immoral, it would be ridiculously inefficient if TODAY the black surgeons, dentists, accountants, musicians, etc. were instead transported by gnomes into the hands of large landowners, to be put to work in the fields picking cotton under threat of whipping."

This argument is ridiculous. First of all, you realize most of the chattel slaves these days have not received much if any formal education? I'm sure there are exceptions, but generally speaking, surgeons, dentists, and accountants are not currently being targeted. These are typically people who were born into slavery or fell into it after receiving little or no formal education. Secondly, not all chattel slaves work in fields and not all who work in fields are chattel slaves. Even in the narrow context of US racial slavery, not all the slaves actually worked in the fields. George Washington's cook was a slave, for example.(20) In ancient Rome, some slaves were in fact used as doctors and accountants.(21)(22) Aristotle, an ancient Greek, considered the public performance of music to be the domain of slaves, being too vulgar for free persons to engage in.(23)

You also wrote, "Why did slavery persist so long, if market forces should have abolished it quickly? The answer is that we didn’t have an otherwise free market, within which the slave system operated. There were all sorts of regulations on slave holders; they weren’t actually able to do whatever they wanted with 'their property.' For example, there were state laws regulating or banning outright manumission (the practice of an owner freeing his slave), and in some places it was illegal to teach your slaves how to read."

You realize chattel slavery was never abolished? I mean, I've given a bunch of examples already and you can find more in my sources. The victims have changed and the form has morphed, more of it happens overseas than actually in the US, but chattel slavery is quite common. You realize all the slave masters in the Ivory Coast and India and most other places are operating illegally? There's no legal slave system helping them -- this is part of the shadow economy. The dark, violent part. Though the products are still legal to buy. In any case, they could manumit or educate their slaves any time they wanted. In fact, in some cases it is more efficient for them to release worn out slaves and get new ones.(24) That doesn't result in slavery ending, though. Regarding the situation in the Ivory Coast, some abolitionists blamed the removal of the price floor on chocolate for worsening the slavery situation. "Until last year, the price farmer's got for their cocoa was guaranteed by the government, but the World Bank felt farmers were being cheated, and believed they'd do better dealing directly with the cocoa buyers. So the World Bank made the government scrap the price guarantee system for the Ivory Coast to qualify for partial debt relief. Since then, the cocoa price has plummeted reaching a record low this February. Farmers now get less than ever before for their cocoa. One of the ways they can deal with the squeeze that puts on them, the pressure that puts on them, is to pay even less for the labor they use in the fields, in the plantations, or, if they're unscrupulous to enslave the labor. And the situation of structural adjustment has put the pressure on the farmers to use slave labor to produce cocoa." (7, 27:40-28:44) I know Austrolibertarians are hypersensitive on the topic of price controls, so, perhaps you'd care to respond to that?

Look at yourself -- you are probably still buying slave-made chocolate rather than free-made chocolate (or whatever other good, if you do not buy chocolate), and it's not because the government is telling you which to buy. (Feel free to object if I am wrong.) Many abolitionists, including myself, blame hedonistic consumer habits for the prevalence of slavery, "[Sachs?] estimates that as many as nine out of ten carpets that don't carry the Rugmark may have been touched by the small hands of slavery. With so many child slaves involved, it's perhaps surprising that so few UK retailers support the Rugmark scheme." (7, 54:25-55:33) From Kevin Bales, "Why is it, when I go to big department stores, aren't all the rugs carrying the Rugmark? You know, why doesn't, why aren't all the consumers saying, 'we want to only buy rugs with the Rugmark label.' Because, it's a very simple thing to do, to be able to say, 'I'm only going to buy a good if you can show me that it's not made by slaves,'" and, "We have to make it clear to the multinationals that slavery is too high a price to pay for cheap goods."(7, 54:25-55:33, 1:08:40-1:08:46)

Historically, the Romans allowed manumission and educating of slaves. Epictetus was an educated and manumitted slave.(25) Slavery was still common in ancient Roman society -- manumission and education were the exceptions, not the norms. I believe most ancient Greek cities permitted manumission.

In Qatar, you actually can blame the government for not allowing the slaves to leave the country or switch employers... but oh, wait, you don't actually believe in freedom of movement.(19)(26) Seriously, can you explain what definition of "self-ownership" you have that does not include freedom of movement? I genuinely don't understand this point. Unless you are using the Stoic definition of merely owning one's own will but not one's actual physical person, and that was really a practical argument, an acknowledgement of how much in life is not under our control -- it was not a moral argument. Though given your apparent lack of concern for landowners harmed by eminent domain, split estates, and forced pooling, it is hard to believe you even think all landowners deserve this "self-ownership" of which you speak, let alone landless escapees fleeing violence. I suppose only some landowners count as human beings to you?

It's worth noting that in the post-war south, anti-vagrancy laws were passed in which the allegedly freed slaves could be condemned to forced labor simply for being homeless or unemployed or whatever.(27) Supporting free movement is a simple matter of not standing in the way of people fleeing from war, slavery, other types of violence, or any situation sufficiently undesirable to them that they would rather sleep outdoors in the elements.

I have personally fled, more than once. Relative to my physical person being regarded as an outlet for the benefit of other people's PTSD or whatever the latest excuse was, storms seemed kind by comparison. Nature, at least, is not angry. A storm does not try to make you hate yourself, does not try to tell you how to live your life, does not blame you for things that happened decades before you even met the storm, does not tell you not to fight for yourself, does not tell you the world would be a better place without you, and while there is physical discomfort in a storm, it is not an attack specifically targeted at you, your family, or your community. A storm simply is, and you simply figure out how to survive it as best you can, without need for all of the emotions frequently associated with countering a human threat. Nature also frequently provides some sort of shelter, if only a tree to lean against. Nature also provides a variety of edible plants and insects, such as dandelions and ants.

I understand that this most likely makes me some sort of non-violent criminal by libertarian standards -- probably trespassing and theft of plants to start with. So what are you going to do about it? I'm pretty sure y'all don't have those hyper-draconian libertarian police yet (more moderate libertarians excluded). Whatever, it doesn't really matter, seeing as how a number of you don't seem to count us "externalities" as human anyway. I simply want you to understand that I am not at all impressed with your violent "civilization". That I fear neither chocolate shortages nor electric power outages. I realize that you have some sort of inhibition against offending students, so I want you to understand that I am no student. I am a non-violent enemy scout (and most likely a criminal by libertarian standards) attempting to get you to defect for the purpose of waging non-violence against whatever form of severe violence I can get your attention on (at the moment, chattel slavery). So please, don't worry about offending me. Whether or not I feel offended is irrelevant. It's too late to worry about it anyway, I already read your little anti-loitering spiel on page 73 of Lessons for the Young Economist, among other things.(28) (Just so we're clear on semantics, you are aware that loitering, as the police generally use the term, can include sleeping, playing music, and bleeding out the back of one's head, right?) So, if you wouldn't mind being direct and forthright, that might increase the productivity of this conversation.

Your most humble servant,

1. Raphael, Rebecca et al. "Girls Forced Into Prostitution." ABC News. (accessed March 16, 2017).
2. Kristof, Nicholas, and Manaal. "7 Agonizing Stories From Within The Brothels That Will Literally Shake You." Emlii. (accessed March 16, 2017).
3. Keith, Hopkins, and Beard, Mary. The Colosseum. 2005. Reprint, London: Profile Books, 2006.
4. Kyle, Donald. Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge, 1998.
5. Aristotle. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. “Book One.” In Politics. The Internet Classics Archive. (accessed February 27, 2017).
6. Payne-James, Jason et al. "Medical Examination." In Encyclopedia of Forensic and Legal Medicine. Second edition. Amsterdam: Academic Press. "Torturers may select methods of torture because they leave no physical evidence, or they may modify methods of torture to reduce the possibility of producing physical evidence."
7. True Vision of London. Slavery: A Global Investigation. Vimeo/Free the Slaves, 2001. (accessed January 10, 2017).
8. Seneca. "Moral letters to Lucilius/Letter 17." Wikisource. (accessed March 15, 2017). "Men have endured hunger when their towns were besieged, and what other reward for their endurance did they obtain than that they did not fall under the conqueror's power? How much greater is the promise of the prize of everlasting liberty, and the assurance that we need fear neither God nor man! Even though we starve, we must reach that goal. [...] Will any man hesitate to endure poverty, in order that he may free his mind from madness?"
9. Hobbes, Thomas. "Totall Excuses." In Leviathan. Project Gutenberg. (accessed March 14, 2017). "If a man by the terrour of present death, be compelled to doe a fact against the Law, he is totally Excused; because no Law can oblige a man to abandon his own preservation. And supposing such a Law were obligatory; yet a man would reason thus, "If I doe it not, I die presently; if I doe it, I die afterwards; therefore by doing it, there is time of life gained;" Nature therefore compells him to the fact. When a man is destitute of food, or other thing necessary for his life, and cannot preserve himselfe any other way, but by some fact against the Law; as if in a great famine he take the food by force, or stealth, which he cannot obtaine for mony nor charity; or in defence of his life, snatch away another mans Sword, he is totally Excused, for the reason next before alledged."
10. Baptist, Edward. The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism. New York: Basic Books, 2014.
11. ESPN UK. "'A 21st Century slave state' | Qatar World Cup 2022." Youtube. (accessed January 10, 2017).
12. Stephenson, Wesley. "Have 1,200 World Cup workers really died in Qatar?" BBC, June 6, 2015. (accessed March 14, 2017).
13. BBC. "What does modern slavery look like?" BBC News, May 31, 2016. (accessed March 14, 2017).
14. Bales, Kevin. "Preface to the Revised Edition." In Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy. 1999. Revised edition, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012. p. xiii
15. Raghavan, Sudarsan, and Chatterjee, Sumana. "A Taste of Slavery." Knight Ridder Newspapers, June 24, 2001. (accessed January 10, 2017).
16. Imber, Margaret. "Spectacles of Blood: Roman Gladiators and Christian Martyrs, Primary Sources for Gladiatorial Games." Bates College. (accessed March 16, 2017).
17. Galen. Translated by Harkins, Paul. On the Passions and Errors of the Soul. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1963. (accessed March 16, 2017).
18. Academic Affairs Library. "A Slave is Tortured." PBS. (accessed March 15, 2017). "I could tell of more slaveholders as cruel as those I have described. They are not exceptions to the general rule. I do not say there are no humane slaveholders. Such characters do exist, notwithstanding the hardening influences around them. But they are 'like angels' visits -- few and far between."
19. Pattisson, Pete. "Revealed: Qatar's World Cup 'slaves.'" The Guardian, September 25, 2013. (accessed January 10, 2017).
20. Lenhart, Chelsea. "Hercules." Digital Encyclopedia of George Washington. (accessed March 15, 2017).
21. Kobayashi, Masao. "The Social Status of Doctors in the Early Roman Empire." In Forms of Control and Subordination in Antiquity. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986. p. 416.
22. Bradley, Keith. Slavery and Society at Rome. 1994. Reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. p. 161.
23. Aristotle. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. “Book Eight.” In Politics. The Internet Classics Archive. (accessed March 17, 2017).
24. Bales, Kevin. Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy. 1999. Revised edition, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2012. p. xiii
25. Daily Stoic. "Who Is Epictetus? From Slave To World’s Most Sought After Philosopher." Daily Stoic. (accessed March 16, 2017).
26. Murphy, Robert. "Law without the State." Mises Daily Articles, November 4, 2011. (accessed March 17, 2017).
27. Tarter, Brent. "Vagrancy Act of 1866." Encyclopedia Virginia. (accessed March 15, 2017).
28. Murphy, Robert. Lessons for the Young Economist. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010. (accessed March 15, 2017).

No comments:

Post a Comment