Love is Slavery?

Philosophy Forums Psychology and Mind
1

Over the years, a few people mentioned to me that people can’t be owned.

But people own other people all the time. White Southern Americans used to own black people. And parents own their children. Infants are like objects and assets. In fact, human babies, eggs, sperm all have dollar amounts attached to them. Recently in the news, there was an article about how East Asian female eggs are worth the most money. This demonstratively proves that people are, sometimes, assets to be bought and sold on an open market. A slave market.

But, let’s become liberals for a moment, and pretend human ownership does not exist. Let’s say there’s a mother and her daughter at the local park and playground. Then there’s a guy in a hat, dark sunglasses, looks suspicious. He comes over while the mother is not there, and “kidnaps” the child. How is this kidnapping? It’s not, unless, the mother, or the State, owns the child. Nobody “owns” the child. Except some people will say the “guardian” has “responsibility” for the child.

This is just clever wording, designed to trick people. What “responsibility” means, is slavery. Children are owned, by parents.

Now, let’s make this topic more advanced. Why and how do parents “own” their children? Children are a responsibility. Let’s pretend for a moment, that this responsibility does not mean ownership. Why do parents care for their children? It’s “love”, right? Right. That’s what you’re thinking. It’s love. A mother “loves” her daughter, feels attached to her, probably because she gave birth to her, and she doesn’t want the kidnapper to “have” her. She doesn’t want the kidnapper to own her daughter.

So she wants to kidnap her daughter back. She wants to steal her daughter back, since her daughter was stolen for her.

If ownership of people is synonymous with love, in this context, then what does this say about love?

Love is possessive. Is it not an act of attempting to control, manipulate, dominate, and enslave another person?

This post is a jumble. Let’s cut to the chase. Love is an attempt to own other people.

Love is enslavement. Love is slavery, of human beings and people. If you love somebody, then you want to enslave them, or, you already have.

Don’t argue with this, just accept it. No need to respond to this thread, except to agree with me. You know I’m right on the mark about this one. Let’s just keep this thread at 1 post count and 1000 views. Nobody else respond, just read, accept, nod at your computer, and mention this thread to your friends.

2

Hm. Seems a Little like clever wording the other way by you. I own my bicycle. I can rip it to pieces, sell, pee on it, have sex with it - um, this is theoretical, I can’t know this for sure, really, though, man, she is a nice bike - and so on. Even in places where there is Little law enforcement, people will leap out of their cars and beat you, potentially to Death, for doing various things even to your own Children. So we don’t own out Children in the sense we own our stuff.

I do agree that there are facets of owning present, but even these are not isolated.

It’s a bit like saying my relationship with my wife is elastic collisions. (Think two rubber balls bouncing off each other)
Well, yes, to an extent, but that is hardly the relationship. It does happen. It is a facet, sometimes a very nice facet of the relationship, but to take this portion of it and say it is what the relationship is, is misleading.

Now this may sound like I am simply saying ownership is a subset of parenting a Child. At best, sort of. Because the other facets of being a parent radically affect the dynamic of relation such that saying ownership, even when it best applies, is misleading.

Hell, to say I owned my dog would have been misleading. It was more like having a roommate. And often I felt owned. But mostly it was pretty laissez faire politics all around. Live and let live. He was a bit embarrassed by my eating habits. Not that I ever rolled around in dead fish, don’t know why he was so superior sometimes.

Some parents might fit ownership much better than others. They treat their Children primarily as objects. Don’t really acknowledge the internal experience of the Child. Control the Child to an extent other parents do not come near to doing. And so on.

Or she doesn’t want her daughter to be owned, period. And some kidnappers and human trafficers do want to own.

There are elements of this. Is this all you experience?

This certainly happens. But as a rule it’s missing stuff.

Love is enslavement. Love is slavery, of human beings and people. If you love somebody, then you want to enslave them, or, you already have.

Oh, shit. You should have started with this. Though, fortunately, you don’t own me. Which, sadly, also means you don’t think you love me. Depressing, but then I have my freedom.

I Think what you are presenting as all, is a part, and a part that most people do not want to look at. So kudos for that, polemics and all. Fear and guilt often sit on top of really noticing and feeling this and it does need to be dealt with. Nice people often Think they have none of this, since they are, well, nice. But niceness can be just as controlling as standing by the front door with a baseball bat. Whatever works.

To me the important next issue is, how do we reduce this facet of relating to others.
Most people, it seems to me, have two main methods - don’t notice it in oneself and others. Suppress it and pretend this solves the problem.

3

Reno, you ruined it!

Maybe if I loved you more, and you accepted my love, then I could impose more control over you?

4

It wouldn’t feel like love if I couldn’t be the ass I am.

5

We’re both trying to love each other, and your love is trying to overcome my love. I see what you’re doing here…I know what you’re up to!

6

LOL. It feels like utterly hopeless to slip back to serious here, but…
I get your Point, however, I Think one can really enjoy the freedom of Another and want to be around that and have them want to be around you when you are free. Not claiming any purity. Because if the other person is not free, then any attention, sex, Comfort, Company, conversation, whatever, you get is not coming from their naked desire. So they really don’t want you, you have just forced them to act as if they do. Perhaps even making them fool themselves about the issue. And that is not desirable. Who wants to feel you have to artificially make the other love you?
Now, of course, many people do primarily try to Control the other, and all of us, all I have met, have this as part of what they do. I Think this can be reduced with intention and confrontation and honesty and incredible bravery, but it is there, so far. But it is not all and it can become less. I’ve experienced this. I only wish my wife and I could get paid to do this.

7

Thanks, as that saved a lot of time.

With love,
sanjay

8

Reno,

I had an insight since the time you responded here. Love is mutual. Two people can “build” love together. It’d be like working together to build a house or skyscraper. This is possible. But what most, or everybody does with love, is throw in “expectations” and conditions. One party eventually becomes too tempted to throw in an expectation. Once one side throws in an expectation or condition, then this throws in the monkey wrench to the building process. The building can be corrupted. Its foundation can be cracked and destroyed, due to these subtle, hidden conditions.

It’s like the prisoner’s dilemma. One party, either the man or woman, wants to take advantage of love. So the first side to throw in a tiny, little, eensy weensy expectation, “wins” in a way. He or she begins to take more than give.

This is how love is abused, and eventually, destroyed, through expectations. Problem is, every person alive, or will be alive, forms expectations unconsciously and subconsciously. We expect other people to act certain ways. This is obvious with stereotyping, and most obvious with trust. You trust your friends, your family, your loved ones. This trust is built on expectations.

We can also bring hate into this conversation. Hate is the rejection of love, and the deconstruction or destroying of the building. Hate is the opposite direction, the freeing up of love. In order for two people in love to reject this balancing act of enslaving each other, one has to begin hating the other. Hate may begin to form when the expectations start piling up and up and up, and one party is clearly the loser. This loser, the slave, will begin to resent and hate the other, and want to abandon the building project.

9

You are dead wrong, and you know it.
Love is an emotional state.
Ownership is a legal position.
Love is determined but voluntary. Love for the most part is inalienable.
Ownership is determined by humans custom, and is alienable.

10

Let’s become liberals for a moment and pretend like ownership of people doesn’t exist.

What?

11 
 But that is what the difference of de-facto from de jure was distinguished, and when it comes to that (distinguished) the conservatives will see to that.
12

You lost me obe.

13

Liberals pretend slavery doesn’t exist. For example, liberals will claim that “slavery ended”, and black people aren’t slaves anymore. Liberals hoist Obama up as proof. See, there is no more black slavery because we have a black president! This is what they think. This was inspired mostly by “white guilt”, and feeling responsible for black slavery, and enslaving other people in general. Liberals don’t want to enslave anybody, don’t want to control anybody else. Because liberals value “freedom”.

Some liberals value “freedom” so much, that they don’t want slavery to exist, and claim it doesn’t exist in America. And at the first sign of slavery, liberals will all band together, and stamp out fascism.

This is the liberal baseline, which defines liberal politics and group solidarity. Liberals claim to be “pro freedom”. But, how can freedom exist without slavery? It’s like light without darkness, good without evil, pleasure without pain. Liberals are in firm control of United States, western history, and America, right now. They’re in power. They’re the power to topple. Part of toppling and revolting against liberal power, is arguing that slavery still exists.

The easiest way to point this out, is by comparing love to slavery, and a mother’s love of her child.

If a mother’s love is not “slavery”, then why does she care so much when her young daughter is kidnapped by the shady man at the playground, like the example above? She’s emotionally attached to her daughter. This emotional attachment is similar, or the exact same as, slavery.

14

Rununder, do you know what “equivocate” means?

15

My position as a hardline Conservative, is this.

Slavery has always exists, exists now, and will always exist in the future. You can’t get rid of it, and it’s futile to try. Liberals focus on “black slavery”. But there are many other forms of slavery, including economic slavery, not just class and race slavery. Many people are slaves to capitalism, slaves to their jobs.

Many white people are slaves, and black people, and hispanics, everybody. There is slavery all around the world.

Slavery isn’t necessarily a bad or evil thing. And people can choose to be slaves, like an indentured servant. That is what capitalism is all about, through public education, to prevent the average joe and average jane, from understanding and realizing that u.s. economics revolves around indentured servitude.

America still has many slave classes, but the rise and dominance of liberalism prevents children and adults from seeing this. Liberal control of the public education system convinces the children of this nation, into believing that slavery is a “thing of the past”, an ancient relic no longer applicable today.

This is regressive, not progressive. It’s regressivism. This forces society back into feudalism, and indentured servants back into a more slavish state of existence.

This also coincides with the u.s. job loss rates. We are falling back into feudalism, owned by corporatocracy at an exponential rate. Corporations are today’s nobility and noble class.

If you go against the corporations, then you’ll lose. They own the u.s. government. Democracy is also becoming useless and redundant. Because you can’t “vote out” corporations. Because corporations have been granted human rights, and count as people. A corporation is a person.

Libertarianism is the next “progression”, the next step of liberalism. This is done to protect the nobility, corporations and the coming corporatocracy (plutocracy).

16

I’m pretty sure that I’ve looked it up in the dictionary a few times before. But, I’ve forgotten.

Something like parallel meanings of terms, except used in a perverted way?

17 
  Smears: the story of my life :working on it.
18

So liberals are against slavery, but their actions are responsible for it.

Even though slavery is something that is just a part of nature.

And conservatives like yourself…you’re against corporations and slavery.

And you’re pro-progressivism, but you’re a conservative…

Dude, you’ve gotta work with me here. Are you fucking high?

19

Yeah all ii’sms a are power plays different costmes covering the same intent: to get their own definition of what slavery is::::

20

Haha, no. I’m not against slavery. I just think there are good and evil forms of slavery. If a slaveowner is a good master, then why go against this system?

Liberals want to end slavery, for the sake of slavery. Liberals don’t agree with “good and evil” slavery. To a liberal, all slavery is evil.

To me, a parent is the slavemaster of his or her own child, and liberals ignore this fact. You have to be a good slavemaster, to be a good parent.

You –legally– have to “own” your children. Otherwise who owns children? Liberals will say the State owns children. If you are a bad parent, a bad slavemaster, then the State will kidnap your children, and show you the proper way to be a slavemaster. The State is the ultimate slavemaster.