14A009 The Slave Traffic by Jim Davies, 5/10/2014    

Slavery - total or partial - goes directly to the question of who owns a human being. Ownership is about the right to control property, or in this case, persons; and it is a binary matter. Either a person does, or does not, have the right to own, operate and control all aspects of the life he or she is living. If he does (and that is the premise on this Blog) then it follows directly that everyone has the right not to be ruled by someone else and, hence, that nobody has any right to rule anyone else, ie to enslave them in any slight degree.

If, however, the opposite premise is somehow taken (that a person does not have the unqualified right to own himself) then slavery will be commonplace in society.

The practice of total ownership of human beings has for so long been properly despised in the civilized "West" that the proud proclamation last week by Abubakar Shekau, leader of the Muslim group Boko Haram in Nigeria that it had "abducted [200-300 schoolgirls]" and would "sell them in the market, by Allah" was startling indeed. Evidently, Islam has no prohibition against slavery and, expressly, no doctrine of self-ownership. Its premise is, rather, that persons are owned by Allah - and no doubt by his agents like Shekau. "Allah" is what Muslims call the supposed creator of the universe, whose very existence is incapable of proof.

Islam is the dominant religion in North Africa, so it's no surprise that slavery was long endemic in that very same region; as that Wiki article acknowledges, its abolition has not been total: "In some parts of Africa, slavery and slavery-like practices continue to this day."

Before Christian readers rub hands in self-satisfaction that no such slavery exists in areas where that religion prevails, recall that abolition in America is only 150 years old, and only 180 years old in the British Commonwealth; also that the 17th and 18th Century slave trade which brought millions across the Atlantic in utterly miserable conditions for a life of total slavery in the New World was operated by Christians from start to finish. It's true that abolition was spearheaded by such Christians as Lord Wilberforce, and that the horror of the shipments was brought home by John Newton, whose self-loathing produced what became the popular hymn "Amazing Grace." All credit to them; but the purchasers of his cargoes were Christian gentlemen in the South and the New Testament does at least condone slavery, in such texts as Colossians 3:22: "Servants [δουλοι, the Greek word for "slaves"], obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God..."

That too is not hard to understand; for like Islam, Christianity has no doctrine of self ownership. Instead, everyone's owner is said to be the alleged creator of the universe.

So much for a couple of prominent religions: next consider governments. These ephemeral entities not only omit any premise of self ownership, they expressly deny it in and by their very nature; for their whole function is to govern, or rule, those in their domain. Being also parasitic, they also depend for their living on the production of goods and services by those subjects and find that they can leach most off them by allowing a degree of liberty, as nicely illustrated by the Laffer Curve. The slavery (rule) imposed by most governments is 50% to 60% - not because they favor subjects with self-rule for the other 40%, but because they can squeeze most out of them at those rates. They recognize that total slavery (100%) is inefficient; the returns (for themselves) diminish, over 60%.

The trick pulled by all these is successfully to promulgate a myth. The myth of a God, who needs to be appeased or obeyed; the myth of a Government, said to be "necessary" even when "evil." And worst of all, by having both myths operate together, each supporting the other.

In contrast comes the rational premise of self ownership. It's impossible to refute, for if you do not rightly own you, who does and how? In order to try to refute it explicitly, one would have to assume it implicitly, by attributing to someone else the right of ownership. Thus, the premise qualifies as an axiom - a sound foundation. And if human beings each own our own lives exclusively, there is no possible room for slavery in any degree.

The slave traffic, by which some live as parasites upon the labor of others, has a very long history - and myths like government and god, which support the disgusting practice, are ancient and strong and so take a lot of busting. It is being done one at a time, with the exponential process associated with the Freedom Academy. Perhaps you are taking part already, so you know that. If not, join now. It's the only way to do it.