[SUBMITTED 6/12/18] The Properties of Property

[Candlewhisper Archive]

FOURTH:

TITLE:

The Properties of Property


VALIDITY:

Slavery. Not for class nations.


DESCRIPTION:

A city patrician walking down a narrow street found his path blocked by a slave, and the slave - carrying a delicate antique vase for @@HIS@@ master - refused to give way. The patrician struck the slave down with his cane, which thanks to the silver lion head adorning its tip struck with sufficient force to instantly kill the slave, and broke the vase as well. While the patrician has offered to pay for both destroyed properties, there are questions being raised over what constitutes proper behaviour by and towards slaves.


OPTION ONE

"This @@BOY@@ was precious to me, been in my family since daddy got @@HIM@@ in lieu of an old business debt. Why, the idea of some callous son of a gun raising his hand to @@HIM@@ simply makes my blood boil burgundy!" rages the slave's master, shaking his soft-skinned fists in anger. "Nobody's got the right to beat a @@BOY@@ except @@HIS@@ rightful owner! This should be treated as a case of murder, or the very least, manslaughter."

OUTCOME:

attempting to create ethical slavery laws has government doublethinkers working overtime


OPTION TWO

"With respect to my fellow citizen and slave-owner, that is ridiculous," complains the rotund patrician, taking a seat on the back of a wincing arthritic slave who has knelt down for this purpose. "To be a slave is to be a lower class of creature, owned by one's master, but also in fetters to the state and to society as a whole. A slave should always defer to every citizen, and a slave should also obey the orders of any citizen while still recognising its own master's ultimate authority. Likewise, a slave is not a human being, but is mere physical property. Have the law codify the lowly status of the helot, and we can all proceed in a more civilised manner." He breaks wind noisily, to the discomfort of his human stool.

OUTCOME:

posh children are encouraged to throw stones at the underclasses


OPTION THREE

"I'm not going to suggest we abolish slavery," starts known abolitionist @@randomname@@, "but maybe we could put in some sort of bill of rights recognising universal humanity and the protection of the law? Something like making sure that no slave can be forced to work against their will, and that financial compensation should be offered for all work, and that no man or woman may be the property of another. Not abolishing slavery, nothing so radical. Just giving slaves some basic freedoms, like the right to self-determination. That sounds reasonable, right? No-one could call that abolition!"

OUTCOME:

slavery has been abolished

THIRD:

TITLE:

The Properties of Property


VALIDITY:

Slavery. Not for class nations.


DESCRIPTION:

A city patrician walking down a narrow street found his path blocked by a slave, and the slave - carrying a delicate antique vase for @@HIS@@ master - refused to give way. The patrician struck the slave down with his cane, which thanks to the silver lion head adorning its tip struck with sufficient force to instantly kill the slave, and broke the vase as well. While the patrician has offered to pay for both destroyed properties, there are questions being raised over what constitutes proper behaviour by and towards slaves.


OPTION ONE

"This was no ordinary slave, rather @@HE@@ was the child of a friend, passed to me in indentured servitude for a five year period in exchange for an owed debt," explains the slave's owner. "While I was free to do with @@HIM@@ as I pleased, that right doesn't extend to anybody else! Slaves should be afforded all the legal protections and human being is entitled to under the law. This patrician should be tried for murder, or the very least, manslaughter."

OUTCOME:

attempting to create ethical slavery laws has government doublethinkers working overtime


OPTION TWO

"With respect to my fellow citizen and slave-owner, that is ridiculous," complains the rotund patrician, taking a seat on the back of a wincing arthritic slave who has knelt down for this purpose. "To be a slave is to be a lower class of creature, owned by one's master, but also in fetters to the state and to society as a whole. A slave should always defer to every citizen, and a slave should also obey the orders of any citizen while still recognising its own master's ultimate authority. Likewise, a slave is not a human being, but is mere physical property. Have the law codify the lowly status of the helot, and we can all proceed in a more civilised manner." He breaks wind noisily, to the discomfort of his human stool.

OUTCOME:

posh children are encouraged to throw stones at the underclasses


OPTION THREE

"I'm not going to suggest we abolish slavery," starts known abolitionist @@randomname@@, "but maybe we could put in some sort of bill of rights recognising universal humanity and the protection of the law? Something like making sure that no slave can be forced to work against their will, and that financial compensation should be offered for all work, and that no man or woman may be the property of another. Not abolishing slavery, nothing so radical. Just giving slaves some basic freedoms, like the right to self-determination. That sounds reasonable, right? No-one could call that abolition!"

OUTCOME:

slavery has been abolished

SECOND:

TITLE:

The Properties of Property


VALIDITY:

Slavery. Not for class nations.


DESCRIPTION:

A city patrician walking down a narrow street found his path blocked by a slave, and the slave - carrying a delicate antique vase for @@HIS@@ master - refused to give way. The patrician struck the slave down with his cane, which thanks to the silver lion head adorning its tip struck with sufficient force to instantly kill the slave, and broke the vase as well. While the patrician has offered to pay for both destroyed properties, there are questions being raised over what constitutes proper behaviour by and towards slaves.


OPTION ONE

"This was no ordinary slave, rather @@HE@@ was the child of a friend, passed to me in indentured servitude for a five year period in exchange for an owed debt," explains the slave's owner. "Of course as @@HE@@ was my slave, I was free to do with @@HIM@@ as I pleased, but that right doesn't extend to anybody else! To anybody else, @@HE@@ was a human being, and should be afforded all the legal protections and human being is entitled to under the law. Indeed, @@HE@@ was under no obligation to follow anyone's orders but mine, and owed no deference or respect to anyone but me. This patrician should be tried for murder, or the very least, manslaughter."

OUTCOME:

attempting to create ethical slavery laws has government doublethinkers working overtime


OPTION TWO

"With respect to my fellow citizen and slave-owner, that is ridiculous," complains the rotund patrician, taking a seat on the back of a wincing arthritic slave who has knelt down for this purpose. "To be a slave is to be a lower class of creature, owned by one's master, but also in fetters to the state and to society as a whole. A slave should always defer to every citizen, and a slave should also obey the orders of any citizen while still recognising its own master's ultimate authority. Likewise, a slave is not a human being, but is mere physical property. Have the law codify the lowly status of the helot, and we can all proceed in a more civilised manner." He breaks wind noisily, to the discomfort of his human stool.

OUTCOME:

posh children are encouraged to throw stones at the underclasses


OPTION THREE

"I'm not going to suggest we abolish slavery," starts known abolitionist @@randomname@@, "but maybe we could put in some sort of bill of rights recognising universal humanity and the protection of the law? Something like making sure that no slave can be forced to work against their will, and that financial compensation should be offered for all work, and that no man or woman may be the property of another. Not abolishing slavery, nothing so radical. Just giving slaves some basic freedoms, like the right to self-determination. That sounds reasonable, right? No-one could call that abolition!"

OUTCOME:

slavery has been abolished

FIRST:

TITLE:

The Properties of Property


VALIDITY:

Slavery. Not for class nations.


DESCRIPTION:

A city patrician walking down a narrow street found his path blocked by a slave, and the slave - carrying a delicate antique vase for @@HIS@@ master - refused to give way. The patrician struck the slave down with his cane, which thanks to the silver lion head adorning its tip struck with sufficient force to instantly kill the slave. While the patrician has offered to pay for the destroyed properties (both vase and slave), there are questions being raised over whether his actions were, in fact, criminal.


OPTION ONE

"This was no ordinary slave, rather @@HE@@ was the child of a friend, passed to me in indentured servitude for a five year period in exchange for an owed debt," explains the slave's owner. "Of course as @@HE@@ was my slave, I was free to do with @@HIM@@ as I pleased, but that right doesn't extend to anybody else! To anybody else, @@HE@@ was a human being, and should be afforded all the legal protections and human being is entitled to under the law. Indeed, @@HE@@ was under no obligation to follow anyone's orders but mine, and owed no deference or respect to anyone but me. This patrician should be tried for murder, or the very least, manslaughter."

OUTCOME:

attempting to create ethical slavery laws has government doublethinkers working overtime


OPTION TWO

"With respect to my fellow citizen and slave-owner, that is ridiculous," complains the rotund patrician, taking a seat on the back of a wincing arthritic slave who has knelt down for this purpose. "To be a slave is to be a lower class of creature, owned by one's master, but also in fetters to the state and to society as a whole. A slave should always defer to every citizen, and a slave should also obey the orders of any citizen while still recognising it's own master's ultimate authority. Likewise, a slave is not a human being, but is mere physical property. Have the law codify the lowly status of the helot, and we can all proceed in a more civilised manner." He breaks wind noisily, to the discomfort of his human stool.

OUTCOME:

posh children are encouraged to throw stones at the underclasses


OPTION THREE

"I'm not going to suggest we abolish slavery," starts known abolitionist @@randomname@@, "but maybe we could put in some sort of bill of rights recognising universal humanity and the protection of the law? Something like making sure that no slave can be forced to work against their will, and that financial compensation should be offered for all work, and that no man or woman may be the property of another. Not abolishing slavery, nothing so radical. Just giving slaves some basic freedoms, like the right to self-determination. That sounds reasonable, right? No-one could call that abolition!"

OUTCOME:

slavery has been abolished

[Jutsa]

I've loved pretty much every one of your drafts, CWA; this one's no exception.

[Trotterdam]

While the patrician has offered to pay for the destroyed properties (both vase and slave), there are questions being raised over whether his actions were, in fact, criminal.

Maybe rephrase? Vandalism is a crime in almost every country.

a slave should also obey the orders of any citizen while still recognising it's own master's ultimate authority

Got a stray apostrophe there.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Thanks, fixed both in second draft.

[Chan Island]

I think more should be made of the fact that the patrician also destroyed the vase. I can easily imagine some morally warped society being outraged about a precious bit of pottery being destroyed for no reason while completely ignoring the human cost of the slave being killed.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I think more should be made of the fact that the patrician also destroyed the vase. I can easily imagine some morally warped society being outraged about a precious bit of pottery being destroyed for no reason while completely ignoring the human cost of the slave being killed.

Good point. I've modified the opening a bit to account for that:

A city patrician walking down a narrow street found his path blocked by a slave, and the slave - carrying a delicate antique vase for @@HIS@@ master - refused to give way. The patrician struck the slave down with his cane, which thanks to the silver lion head adorning its tip struck with sufficient force to instantly kill the slave, and more importantly broke the vase as well. While the patrician has offered to pay for both destroyed properties, there are questions being raised over what constitutes proper behaviour by and towards slaves.

[Australian rePublic]

What's a partician?

[Chan Island]

What's a partician?

It's another way of saying a rich person or aristocrat. It's the flip side of the famous video game slang term 'pleb' (short for plebeian) from ancient
Rome.

[Australian rePublic]

What's a partician?

It's another way of saying a rich person or aristocrat. It's the flip side of the famous video game slang term 'pleb' (short for plebeian) from ancient
Rome.

When I read "partician" I thought it was a wall. Also, there should be an option questioning why the slave was unaccompanied. Not by master, but by supervisour

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Aussie, that's a partition.

This is patrician, which is spelt differently. Also, dictionaries do exist online, you know.

As to being unaccompanied, I don't think that's an issue. Historically most slave-owning cultures have used slaves in unsupervised capacities. Not every chain needs to be a literal one, and often the fear of punishment for escape attempts (plus the common situation of friends and family also being chattel, and thus effectively hostages) keeps unsupervised slaves from attempting escape.

In fact, going by the model of many ancient empires trusted slaves often were quite loyal to their masters, as while I'm sure most would have preferred freedom, the privileges they gained from trusted status were worth them continuing to act in a way that promoted their masters' trust.

The crux of this issue is, of course, the Roman way vs. the Spartan way, hence the use of the words "patrician" and "helot", to subconsciously frame the issue around those cultures. The Romans used slaves, and were not a nice people, but they had laws protecting slaves to a limited degree, and recognised them as being the property of a private owner rather than a subhuman class. The Spartans, in contrast, had helots as being subservient to state as well as individuals, and saw them as needing to be kept in their place. In fact, it's likely they even had "murder days" when young warriors were - as a rite of passage - let loose on the helot population and encouraged to kill the strongest amongst them, both to promote a healthy sense of fearful respect of Spartan strength, and to eliminate future problems from the strongest of the helot population - a sort of deliberate reverse Darwinism.

It's all pretty fascinating stuff!

[Australian rePublic]

Aussie, that's a partition.

This is patrician, which is spelt differently. Also, dictionaries do exist online, you know.

You misunderstood. I was wondering why walls related to the issue

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I think we may be two people having two different conversations here, Aussie.

Never mind: I accept that the word patrician does sound and look a bit like the word partition, and that someone who misreads it as that -- and who doesn't know the spelling of either word -- could read the wrong meaning into the sentence.

I don't think that necessitates any change to the issue, of course.

[Chan Island]

For what it's worth, I think the word patrician is fine.

[Trotterdam]

I think more should be made of the fact that the patrician also destroyed the vase. I can easily imagine some morally warped society being outraged about a precious bit of pottery being destroyed for no reason while completely ignoring the human cost of the slave being killed.

Good point. I've modified the opening a bit to account for that:

A city patrician walking down a narrow street found his path blocked by a slave, and the slave - carrying a delicate antique vase for @@HIS@@ master - refused to give way. The patrician struck the slave down with his cane, which thanks to the silver lion head adorning its tip struck with sufficient force to instantly kill the slave, and more importantly broke the vase as well. While the patrician has offered to pay for both destroyed properties, there are questions being raised over what constitutes proper behaviour by and towards slaves.

The problem with using "more importantly" in the description is, more importantly according to who?

The speech of the slave's owner gives the impression that he doesn't feel that's the most important part (though he doesn't deny that it is still important, too).

Since the entire point of this issue is asking which charge here is more important (murder/manslaughter, or destruction of both living and unliving property), I disagree with Chan Island and don't think you should outright give an answer to that question in the opening. Sure, acknowledge that breaking the vase was also a crime (which you already did in the first version), but any value judgement on that crime should be reserved for character voices.

As to being unaccompanied, I don't think that's an issue. Historically most slave-owning cultures have used slaves in unsupervised capacities. Not every chain needs to be a literal one, and often the fear of punishment for escape attempts (plus the common situation of friends and family also being chattel, and thus effectively hostages) keeps unsupervised slaves from attempting escape.

Not to mention you'd need somewhere to go. Being a slave at least means your master provides you with (bland) food and (cramped) housing. In many ancient societies, being a slave was preferable to being a penniless free person.

[Australian rePublic]

How did the person ordering the slave around know that he was a slave

[Krogon]

Jee, CWA, you seem to be going a bit crazy on drafts, huh?

I think the first option's narrator rambles a bit. Maybe be a bit more concise.

[Krogon]

I think we may be two people having two different conversations here, Aussie.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

The problem with using "more importantly" in the description is, more importantly according to who?

The speech of the slave's owner gives the impression that he doesn't feel that's the most important part (though he doesn't deny that it is still important, too).

Since the entire point of this issue is asking which charge here is more important (murder/manslaughter, or destruction of both living and unliving property), I disagree with Chan Island and don't think you should outright give an answer to that question in the opening. Sure, acknowledge that breaking the vase was also a crime (which you already did in the first version), but any value judgement on that crime should be reserved for character voices.

Yeah... I think you're right. Dropped "more importantly".

[Candlewhisper Archive]

How did the person ordering the slave around know that he was a slave

Most cultures that used slaves try to make them readily identifiable as such, so such things can be taken as assumed.

Having said that, an issue about a slave being mistaken for a respected freedman (or vice versa) could actually be really hilarious, and could ask an interesting question about HOW @@NAME@@ identifies its slaves.

If it's okay with you, I'm going to go draft that now. Thanks for inspiration!

edit:
and done. viewtopic.php?f=13&t=454072 Though it took unexpected turns as I wrote it.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Jee, CWA, you seem to be going a bit crazy on drafts, huh?

I hit a lull where I was waiting for sign-offs on my edits back stage, so went back to authoring. The rate of drafting there was actually pretty typical of me back in my pre-editing days, and Sedgistan admitted that one of his main motivations for offering me an editing post was just to stop me submitting issues on a daily basis.

I think the first option's narrator rambles a bit. Maybe be a bit more concise.

The options are pretty similar in length now, though I see your point. I'll put up a third draft with some snipping.

[Australian rePublic]

How did the person ordering the slave around know that he was a slave

Most cultures that used slaves try to make them readily identifiable as such, so such things can be taken as assumed.

Having said that, an issue about a slave being mistaken for a respected freedman (or vice versa) could actually be really hilarious, and could ask an interesting question about HOW @@NAME@@ identifies its slaves.

If it's okay with you, I'm going to go draft that now. Thanks for inspiration!

edit:
and done. viewtopic.php?f=13&t=454072 Though it took unexpected turns as I wrote it.

Go for it

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Thanks, have already done it, as you can see. You're forever a source of great ideas, Aussie.

[Australian rePublic]

Thanks, have already done it, as you can see. You're forever a source of great ideas, Aussie.

[Palos Heights]

I feel like you're missing so much untapped potential here with the style of speaking in your options. Like, in my head, I'm expecting Southern drawls or posh WASP arrogance. This is a slavery-based issue right? So then the speakers should really be talking about the slaves as if they were no better than a beloved family pet.

For example, in option 2 you've got a great set up with the portly patrician sitting on the back of their arthritic slave, and the dialogue is fantastic. Compare that to option 1, however, and it's hard to believe that the speaker in option 1 is in the same boat as the person in option 2.

"Lil bastard's been in our family ever since his Father sold them to me over a racing debt. The idea of some callous individual spitting on all my happy memories of all the leash-bound walks we had simply makes my blood boil burgundy!"

Something like that for option 1 might fit better with the general tone of the issue, at least in my opinion.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Huh, I had Romans in mind more, which in British media means British accents.

However, that deep south plantation owner style does work a lot better. Will use that for next draft.

Edit: And done, fourth draft up. Took out references to gambling, and watered down the rudeness.