Well, Alinsky had Marxist philosophy and his methods were used by Obama. I think this is pretty well established. If you wish to try to defend it, fine, that is your privilege, but don't lie to us, okay. Present it for what it is. I am merely pointing out the facts of it.
So, we fight to give access to health care to everyone, not just the rich or upper middle class; that's our version of equality of opportunity, that everyone has the opportunity to see a doctor when they are sick, not just those who are lucky.
Why should you be responsible for the choices I made for the last going on seven decades? And why should I be obligated to provide what you chose not to provide for yourself?
Here is a "... summary" of the RADICAL dreams for an American democracy:
-> equality,
-> justice,
-> peace,
-> cooperation,
-> equal and full opportunities for education,
->full and useful employment,
-> health, and
-> the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life.
Could these things be the epitome of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that our revolutionary founders had in mind when they revolted from England and created this country? when later generations fought the civil war and enacted the civil war amendments to our Constitution?
okie, You make a lot of accusations without providing any evidence. You are a loser!
Cycloptichorn wrote:
On the contrary; he is exceedingly honest with you, Okie. You simply refuse to listen or believe what he says.
Cycloptichorn
There is the basic disagreement. I do not trust Obama at all. He has not earned trust at all. Few people even know what Obama is about, who he is, or what he wants, and I believe very very little that he says. Why should I trust him to now favor something that he has said in the past he does not support.
okie wrote:
Well, Alinsky had Marxist philosophy and his methods were used by Obama. I think this is pretty well established. If you wish to try to defend it, fine, that is your privilege, but don't lie to us, okay. Present it for what it is. I am merely pointing out the facts of it.
You're peddling lies. Alinsky used community organizing as a means to implement that RADICAL idea called DEMOCRACY. He used community organizing to combat the horrendous working and safety conditions of stock yards and slaughter houses. That is pretty well established.
Your use of the word 'enslaved' when it comes to taxation - and the fact that yes, some of your taxes go to help other folks - really is inappropriate.
Quote:
Why should you be responsible for the choices I made for the last going on seven decades? And why should I be obligated to provide what you chose not to provide for yourself?
Because, Fox - we are all responsible for each other. That's how the interconnected society we live in works. See, if I take no responsibility for others, who then get sick, they go into hospitals, who then treat them, and eat the cost, rising all of our costs. I am responsible for you whether you believe I should be or not, because we have chosen to live in a society which has placed a higher value on human life than it does on maximizing personal property ownership.
I sometimes think that Conservatives disagree with this fundamental, American value - that life is more important than property.
Cycloptichorn
Debra Law wrote:
okie wrote:
Well, Alinsky had Marxist philosophy and his methods were used by Obama. I think this is pretty well established. If you wish to try to defend it, fine, that is your privilege, but don't lie to us, okay. Present it for what it is. I am merely pointing out the facts of it.
You're peddling lies. Alinsky used community organizing as a means to implement that RADICAL idea called DEMOCRACY. He used community organizing to combat the horrendous working and safety conditions of stock yards and slaughter houses. That is pretty well established.
Whos the liar again, Debra? Here is the fact:
"Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) was one of the nation’s foremost community organizers, publishing several books and creating organizations which continue today. He gave a wide ranging Playboy Magazine interview shortly before his death. In it he gives a detailed description of his 1930s life as a communist fellow-traveler.
Alinsky told Playboy, “I knew plenty of Communists in those days, and I worked with them on a number of projects. Back in the Thirties, the Communists did a hell of a lot of good work…. Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=27822
PLAYBOY: How close was the country to revolution during the Depression?
ALINSKY: A lot closer than some people think. It was really Roosevelt's reforms that saved the system from itself and averted total catastrophe. You've got to remember, it wasn't only people's money that went down the drain in 1929; it was also their whole traditional system of values. Americans had learned to celebrate their society as an earthly way station to paradise, with all the cherished virtues of hard work and thrift as their tickets to security, success and happiness. Then suddenly, in just a few days, those tickets were canceled and apparently unredeemable, and the bottom fell out of everything. The American dream became a nightmare overnight for the overwhelming majority of citizens, and the pleasant, open-ended world they knew suddenly began to close in on them as their savings disappeared behind the locked doors of insolvent banks, their jobs vanished in closed factories and their homes and farms were lost to foreclosed mortgages and forcible eviction. Suddenly the smokestacks were cold and lifeless, the machinery ground to a halt and a chill seemed to hang over the whole country.
People tried to delude themselves and say, "None of this is real, we'll just sleep through it all and wake up back in the sunlight of the Twenties, back in our homes and jobs, with a chicken in every pot, two cars in every garage." But they opened their eyes to the reality of poverty and hopelessness, something they had never thought possible for themselves, not for people who worked hard and long and saved their money and went to church every Sunday. Oh, sure, poverty might exist, far off in the dim shadowy corners of society, among blacks and sharecroppers and people with funny names who couldn't speak English yet, but it couldn't happen to them, not to God's people. But not only did the darkness fail to pass away, it grew worse. At first people surrendered to a numbing despair, but then slowly they began to look around at the new and frightening world in which they found themselves and began to rethink their values and priorities.
We'll always have poor people, they'd been taught to believe from pulpit and classroom, because there will always be a certain number of misfits who are too stupid and lazy to make it. But now that most of us were poor, were we all dumb and shiftless and incompetent? A new mood began stirring in the land and a mutual misery began to eat away the traditional American virtues of rugged individualism, dog-eat-dog competition and sanctimonious charity. People began reaching out for something, anything, to hang on to -- and they found one another. We suddenly began to discover that the ruthless law of the survival of the fittest no longer held true, that it was possible for other people to care about our plight and for us to care about theirs. On a smaller scale, something similar occurred in London during the blitz, when all the traditional English class barriers broke down in the face of a common peril.
Now, in America, new voices and new values began to be heard, people began citing John Donne's "No man is an island," and as they started banding together to improve their lives, they found how much in common they had with their fellow man. It was the first time since the abolitionist movement, for example, that there was any significant black-white unity, as elements of both races began to move together to confront the common enemies of unemployment and starvation wages. This was one of the most important aspects of the Thirties: not just the political struggles and reforms but the sudden discovery of a common destiny and a common bond of humanity among millions of people. It was a very moving experience to witness and be part of it.
PLAYBOY: You sound a little nostalgic.
ALINSKY: Yeah, those were exciting days to be alive in. And goddamn violent days, too. Whenever people wail to me about all the violence and disorder in American life today, I tell them to take a hard look back at the Thirties. At one time, you had thousands of American veterans encamped along the Anacostia petitioning the Government for a subsistence bonus until they were driven out at bayonet point by the Army, led by "I shall return" MacArthur. Negroes were being lynched regularly in the South as the first stirrings of black opposition began to be felt, and many of the white civil rights organizers and labor agitators who had started to work with them were tarred, feathered, castrated -- or killed. Most Southern politicians were members of the Ku Klux Klan and had no compunction about boasting of it.
The giant corporations were unbelievably arrogant and oppressive and would go to any lengths to protect their freedom -- the freedom to exploit and the freedom to crush any obstacle blocking the golden road to mammon. Not one American corporation -- oil, steel, auto, rubber, meat packing -- would allow its workers to organize; labor unions were branded subversive and communistic and any worker who didn't toe the line was summarily fired and then blacklisted throughout the industry. When they defied their bosses, they were beaten up or murdered by company strikebreakers or gunned down by the police of corrupt big-city bosses allied with the corporations, like in the infamous Memorial Day Massacre in Chicago when dozens of peaceful pickets were shot in the back.
Those who kept their jobs were hired and fired with complete indifference, and they worked as dehumanized servomechanisms of the assembly line. There were no pensions, no unemployment insurance, no Social Security, no Medicare, nothing to provide even minimal security for the worker. When radicals fought back against these conditions by word or deed, they were hounded and persecuted by city police and by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover, who back in those days was already paranoid, while in Washington the House Un-American Activities Committee hysterically sounded the alarm against the gathering Bolshevik hordes. As bloody strikes and civic disorder swept the nation, the big cry was for law and order. Nobody talked about pollution then; yet the workers in coal and steel towns were shrouded in a perpetual pall of soot and black dust, while in cities like Chicago, people in the meatpacking areas grew up amid a stench so overpowering that if they ever ventured out into the country, the fresh air made them sick. Yeah, those were the good old days, all right. ****, the country was far more polarized and bitter then than it is today.
* * *
PLAYBOY: What was your own relationship with the Communist Party?
ALINSKY: I knew plenty of Communists in those days, and I worked with them on a number of projects. Back in the Thirties, the Communists did a hell of a lot of good work; they were in the vanguard of the labor movement and they played an important role in aiding blacks and Okies and Southern sharecroppers. Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line. Without the Communists, for example, I doubt the C.I.O. could have won all the battles it did. I was also sympathetic to Russia in those days, not because I admired Stalin or the Soviet system but because it seemed to be the only country willing to stand up to Hitler. I was in charge of a big part of fund raising for the International Brigade and in that capacity I worked in close alliance with the Communist Party.
When the Nazi-Soviet Pact came, though, and I refused to toe the party line and urged support for England and for American intervention in the war, the party turned on me tooth and nail. Chicago Reds plastered the Back of the Yards with big posters featuring a caricature of me with a snarling, slavering fanged mouth and wild eyes, labeled, "This is the face of a warmonger." But there were too many Poles, Czechs, Lithuanians and Latvians in the area for that tactic to go over very well. Actually, the greatest weakness of the party was its slavish parroting of the Moscow line. It could have been much more effective if it had adopted a relatively independent stance, like the western European parties do today. But all in all, and despite my own fights with them, I think the Communists of the Thirties deserve a lot of credit for the struggles they led or participated in. Today the party is just a shadow of the past, but in the Depiession it was a positive force for social change. A lot of its leaders and organizers were jerks, of course, but objectively the party in those days was on the right side and did considerable good.
PLAYBOY: Did you consider becoming a party member prior to the Nazi-Soviet Pact?
ALINSKY: Not at any time. I've never joined any organization -- not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what judge Learned Hand described as "that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right." If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide. The great atomic physicist Niels Bohr summed it up pretty well when he said, "Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question." Nobody owns the truth, and dogma, whatever form it takes, is the ultimate enemy of human freedom.
Now, this doesn't mean that I'm rudderless; I think I have a much keener sense of direction and purpose than the true believer with his rigid ideology, because I'm free to be loose, resilient and independent, able to respond to any situation as it arises without getting trapped by articles of faith. My only fixed truth is a belief in people, a conviction that if people have the opportunity to act freely and the power to control their own destinies, they'll generally reach the right decisions. The only alternative to that belief is rule by an elite, whether it's a Communist bureaucracy or our own present-day corporate establishment. You should never have an ideology more specific than that of the founding fathers: "For the general welfare." That's where I parted company with the Communists in the Thirties, and that's where I stay parted from them today.
I didn't use the word taxes. It might be over your head, but I was dealing with a principle. Maybe if you looked really hard, you might see it? Probably not.
Okay fine. Then let's say that I provide the toilet paper your household and my household needs--hell, I'll even throw in the paper towels and napkins. And you furnish everything else your household needs and my household needs. Then we can both be responsible for each other. Works for me.
False rumors influencing health care debate
(By Tom Cohen, CNN.com, August 20, 2009)
A woman asked Rep. Allen Boyd at a town hall meeting the other day if health care reform proposals would force people to let the government access their bank accounts.
"That's not true," the Florida Democrat responded. "When someone sends you something on the Internet that sounds crazy, how about just checking it a little bit?"
The CNN Truth Squad, which fact-checks political claims, has debunked the bank-access rumor as false. Yet that claim, and others that have been disproved, keep coming up in the national debate on health care reform, inflaming an already emotional issue.
Heated protests have disrupted town hall meetings nationwide, with people shouting at legislators and venting anger at President Obama.
While the anger is genuine, some of it is based on misunderstandings of the actual proposals, said Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy expert at Emory University.
"People are freaked out because there's a lot of bad information and misinformation being ... put out there by opponents of health care reform," Thorpe told CNN.
Obama and the Democrats say misleading information sows fear and anger, particularly among senior citizens who are worried about how changes in health care could affect Medicare. The White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have set up Web campaigns to refute what they describe as provably false information.
"It is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue," Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer wrote in a recent commentary.
Republican opponents respond that the emotional reaction is due to Democratic efforts to rush through legislation that amounts to a government takeover of the health care system. They say the proposals eventually will lead to a system that rations treatment based on an individual's ability to contribute to society.
"We've actually started a national debate about exactly what is at stake here," Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said Wednesday.
Speaking on MSNBC, Steele said the town hall meetings across the country are reflecting that debate. However, when asked directly about one of the most controversial statements by some Republicans -- that a House bill would create so-called "death panels" to decide who gets treatment -- Steele refused to acknowledge that such language was misinformation.
The CNN Truth Squad determined the "death panel" claim was false, along with others spread by conservative commentators and activist groups who say Democratic proposals would promote euthanizing elderly Americans and mandate free health insurance for illegal immigrants.
One of the most disputed provisions, contained in a House health care proposal, would pay doctors for consultations with patients on end-of-life issues, such as living wills. The proposal is similar to one originally written by Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia.
Opponents have implied or said outright that consultations would be required -- even though the proposal says they would be voluntary.
Some Republicans and Democrats have rejected the "death panel" language, but the issue keeps coming up. At a town hall meeting Tuesday night in Dartmouth, Massachusetts, powerful House Democrat Rep. Barney Frank called the notion that health care legislation required killing elderly people "the single stupidest thing I've heard."
Obama says the misinformation confuses people over an already complex issue that requires public understanding.
"The notion that somehow I ran for public office or members of Congress are in this so that they can go around pulling the plug on grandma ... when you start making arguments like that, it's simply dishonest," the president recently said.
Wendell Potter, a former insurance company communications executive, told CNN that the insurance industry deliberately spreads false information with the goal of disrupting the debate.
The insurance industry hires public relations firms that create front groups to try to "destroy health care reform by using terms like 'government takeover of the health care system' or we are heading down toward a 'slippery slope toward socialism' or 'we're going to kill your grandpa' because of these health care regulations," said Potter, now a senior fellow at the Center for Media and Democracy, which calls itself a nonpartisan watchdog group on public relations spin.
Asked to respond to Potter's accusation, the president of America's Health Insurance Plans, Robert Zirkelbach, acknowledged in an e-mail Wednesday that the group opposes some aspects of Democratic health care proposals.
"We have been very clear and up front since day one about our opposition to a government-run insurance plan that would dismantle employer coverage, bankrupt hospitals, and increase the federal deficit," Zirkelbach's e-mail said. He denied that employees of his group, which is the national association of health insurers, were "responsible for disruptive and inappropriate tactics at health care town hall meetings."
However, some of the language cited by Potter is used by politicians, including Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who told the NBC program "Meet the Press" on Sunday that "the Democrats want a government plan, where the government will take over health care."
Democratic proposals call for creating a government-funded health insurance plan for people who otherwise lack coverage. That is the so-called public option, which they say would compete with private insurers.
Hatch and other Republicans argue the public option would create a subsidized competitor that would drive private insurers out of business, leading to the government taking over the health care system.
Though Democrats deny that Republican assertion, it touches on broader fears among conservatives.
Many conservatives consider the proposed health care overhaul an irresponsible and dangerous expansion of the federal government. They liken it to socialist-style control over private issues, at a cost of nearly $1 trillion over 10 years.
At the same time, Americans facing an economic recession and costly government responses -- such as the $787 billion economic stimulus package and billions more paid to bail out the financial services and auto industries -- are fearful of further change and additional federal debt. Such concerns come up repeatedly at the town hall meetings held by Democrats and Republicans.
The deficit recently topped $1 trillion for the first time; Obama has said he hopes to cut it in half by the end of his first term.
"When the economy is hurting, people are more inclined, I think, to be skeptical, nervous," Frank said.
The misinformation, while refuted, has brought changes in the debate.
Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh exulted Monday when Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa said that Senate negotiators dropped the end-of-life consultation provision from their proposal because Grassley said he worried it "could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly."
Limbaugh said on his radio show that no matter what the health care proposals say, they will result in less money available for health care.
"It will forever transform the relationship between Americans," he said. "We will instantly become rivals. We're going to become competitors vying against each other for precious health care dollars."
Grassley, who is one of three Republicans negotiating a possible bipartisan health care agreement, has used controversial language himself. He told a town hall meeting last week he couldn't support a provision that would "pull the plug on grandma."
Former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle called such comments part of the problem.
"It's hyperbolic, it's fear-mongering, it's actually politics at its worst," Daschle said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "That's the kind of thing that generates the kind of anger and fear and anxiety that people have today."
Some rules for today’s column: Your questions and comments are important, so please raise your hand and wait your turn to speak. When you’re called on, don’t say things you know aren’t true.
Don’t interrupt, shout or point your finger while chanting, “Tyranny! Tyranny! Tyranny!”
If you were bused in from another state to read this column, please take your “Don’t tread on me” signs with you when your bus leaves.
We’re not going to run this column like we’ve run the national health care debate because, I’m proud to say, I got through first grade with high marks. If you also absorbed those elementary lessons " no name calling, good sportsmanship, share your toys, wait your turn " welcome, and let’s get on with today’s work.
It’s been hard to hear much as this wave of summer shouting matches has rolled across the country during the congressional recess. Most recently, it was New Mexico’s Jeff Bingaman, one of the most polite, self-effacing men in the U.S. Senate, getting shouted down in Clovis.
What has caught my ear over the din has been the high-pitched yowling over the nonexistent “death panels” that the health care proposals in the works in the House and Senate are accused of funding.
And what has caught my attention is how making something up and yowling about it can actually influence the debate.
And what has surprised me the most about the odd maneuvering around the nonexistent death panels is how scared people are of talking about the one thing we all " Republicans, Democrats, socialists, neocons " have in common: death.
The death panel hobgoblin, as my colleague Winthrop Quigley patiently explained in these pages last week, was an inflammatory label attached to a provision in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill. It was a new Medicare provision that would compensate physicians for the delicate and time-consuming discussions with elderly or terminally ill patients about end-of-life care.
You know former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s opinion of this provision if you’re her friend on Facebook: “Downright evil.”
Now let’s hear from someone who understands the importance of providing people with information about the choice between continuing medical treatment or ceasing medical treatment as their lives draw to a close.
“It’s a very necessary discussion to have,” says Stacey Williams Abdalla, a registered nurse at Hospice of the Sandias. “It’s not a fun conversation to have, but it’s a proactive way to address your health care.”
Talking about end-of-life issues and explaining that some steps that might prolong your life won’t necessarily make those remaining months or weeks pleasant is different from advocating the end of life, Abdalla says.
“It’s not offering euthanasia. It’s not encouraging decisions in either way. It’s showing options.”
Having the conversation in a relaxed atmosphere before a crisis, which the Medicare payment change would encourage, “is definitively beneficial for both the patient and family, because they absolutely have more control,” Abdalla says. “They are able to express their issues ahead of time when they have a clear head and are able to really think through the other options without being under duress.”
No one doing the yelling seems to have bothered to consider that some people, lots of people, accept the end of their lives as a natural consequence of having lived them. Or that those people might prefer unhooking from the expensive health care machine when it’s time to go. Or that 30 minutes of a doctor’s careful time to explain the pros and cons of that choice can allow a dignified end, one that a patient has some say in and a family can feel a part of.
Instead, the shouters confuse talking about death with hastening it. And they actually seem to be winning. The provision is now out of the Senate draft, with committee members saying it could be “misinterpreted.” Don’t be surprised if the entire Congress is shouted down on the end-of-life counseling payments and drops them.
These days in American politics, the votes are close. That means that a smidge more than half of us get the president we want and a smidge less than half of us don’t.
Democrats who spent the years between 2000 and 2008 locked in a dark closet of pain know that it’s no fun to be on the losing side. (Remember the protests against the Iraq war?) Now Republicans know that same pain.
So what to do when you lose? These days you shout, lie, push and make sure you don’t hear a thing the other side is saying. And amazingly, you tend to get your way.
“I don’t think we have bad attitudes,” one shouter at Sen. Arlen Specter’s debacle of a town hall in Pennsylvania said. “We’re just being Americans.”
More toast
In my, er, romp through the joys of Toastmasters last week, I failed to mention that there are, um, lots of Toastmasters groups in New Mexico. Go to www.district23.org to find a group meeting near you. UpFront is a daily front-page opinion column.
You can reach Leslie at 823-3914 or [email protected].
I wouldn't mind seeing national paper co-ops or collectives at all, now that you mention it. It would allow for more efficient distribution of what is really a very limited resource.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing national paper co-ops or collectives at all, now that you mention it. It would allow for more efficient distribution of what is really a very limited resource.
Cycloptichorn
No, no I'm not talking about co-ops. I would rather play than work. So since you don't mind working for both of us, let's just make that happen. The postman reports to our house six days a week and will be happy to deliver your checks. I think I would prefer to receive them weekly. You won't mind if the government insists that you do that either, right? And if I should develop a dependency mentality and decide it just isn't worth it to prepare for, find, and hold a job and thus give up all those lovely checks from you, well that's okay with you too right?
Going back to that original principle. What is the definition of slavery other than not being able to claim property as your own and being forced to work for others with or without compensation?
Foxfyre wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing national paper co-ops or collectives at all, now that you mention it. It would allow for more efficient distribution of what is really a very limited resource.
Cycloptichorn
No, no I'm not talking about co-ops. I would rather play than work. So since you don't mind working for both of us, let's just make that happen. The postman reports to our house six days a week and will be happy to deliver your checks. I think I would prefer to receive them weekly. You won't mind if the government insists that you do that either, right? And if I should develop a dependency mentality and decide it just isn't worth it to prepare for, find, and hold a job and thus give up all those lovely checks from you, well that's okay with you too right?
Well, I'll play along with your Appeal to Extremes, just for fun.
It's fine with me if you want to do this, but I don't think you will like it very much, as the checks you will receive are exceedingly small and likely will not support the standard of living you are used to. For some reason, you seem to believe that those who receive assistance are living some sort of 'good life.' I think you would find out very, very quickly that life on the dole - while better than starving - is not one which is full of the options you probably have become used to.
Given the fact that you had the initiative to work to get the life you have right now, I doubt you would be very happy with the alternative. But, I'm willing to give it a go if you are; just walk on down to your gov't office and file unemployment, or disability, or whatever, and the gov't will handle the rest. Let me know how it works out for ya.
Quote:
Going back to that original principle. What is the definition of slavery other than not being able to claim property as your own and being forced to work for others with or without compensation?
Oh, maybe little things like, being kidnapped, held as a prisoner, beaten, malnourished, and killed at will by your captors? Watching your family be split up, daughters raped, sons worked from the time they are 8 years old, disease and the fields killing you all young?
I think most people would agree, that slavery doesn't mean you pay a small portion of your income to help poor folks, Fox. It means what I said above. Your use of hyperbole doesn't help your argument.
slav·er·y [ sláyvəree ]
noun
Definition:
1. system based on enslaved labor: the practice of, or a system based on, using the enforced labor of other people
2. condition of being enslaved laborer: the state or condition of being held in involuntary servitude as the property of somebody else
3. hard work: very hard work, especially for low pay and under bad conditions
4. state of being dominated: a state of being completely dominated by another
Let's focus on the pure, simple definition of slavery.
1) You have no right to your own property.
2) You are forced to work not for your own benefit, but for the benefit of somebody else.
How is this definition of slavery incorrect?