Wealthy foreigners should be allowed to keep slaves
Whilst I understand that, technically, you might be liable for prosecution in this case I believe that it would not be in the public interest for the French police to pursue such a prosecution and the French authorities should turn a blind eye to such trifling matters.
Similarly, when when wealthy foreign nationals from one of the many countries where slavery is commonplace come to stay in Western countries, they should be able to bring their slaves with them without having to worry about the police knocking on the door of their penthouse in London, Paris, New York, or wherever.
My view is that, provided that the slaves' owner does not bring them into the country for the sole purpose of trading them, I do not believe it is in the public interest to interfere in the private affairs of wealth-creating visitors from abroad by prosecuting them just because they happen to be possession of a few unpaid workers.
Thanks for the debate. It is an interesting topic. I would like to begin by thanking my opponent. While understand the sentiment to espoused by the other side, and realize it is not a view held personality. However, even as a theoretical idea Con fundamentally rejects it. First, slavery is not only is anathema to democratic society and civilized society but on principle should not be sanctioned by any governments anywhere on earth, and in fact should be condemned categorically.
Turning another person into a commodity not only demeans a person’s basic humanity but is a perversion of sacrifices, prolonged bloody wars fought to over centuries within individual countries and among nations for the explicit purpose of eradicating the practice of slavery. Slavery will present is not the pervasive ill it once was, and rightly so, it should remain in the dust bin of history rather than something to refashion, even to accommodate the accepted norms of individuals elsewhere in the world.
Second, my opponent wants to construe domestic help with the institution and practice of slavery, which is misleading because it lures people into the believing to equating benign labor violations with the various and pernicious forms of modern slavery.
Here is the difference overlooked by my opponent that provides a more realistic and rounded understanding of modern slavery. Below I have taken data from the international labour organization. This information is recently compiled, roughly a week ago.
Forced labour takes different forms, including debt bondage, trafficking and other forms of modern slavery. The victims are the most vulnerable – women and girls forced into prostitution, migrants trapped in debt bondage, and sweatshop or farm workers kept there by clearly illegal tactics and paid little or nothing.
Facts and figures
As the famous American politician, Ernest Istook, put it "Our economic freedom is founded on individual property rights; government should never be permitted to take those away."
Now, whatever you your moral stance on slavery is, you cannot deny that the slaves belonging to wealthy foreigners are their property - bought and paid for - and to deprive them of their assets amounts to little more than government-sanctioned theft.
Yes, I know some people reading this while sitting in their comfortable homes in the UK, the US and other developed countries might be opposed to the concept of slavery, even though it was deemed acceptable by their own predecessors in the only a dozen or so generations ago, but the fact is that many people today choose to become slaves.
That's right, if you are living a parched, desolate, sun-baked country where food, water and shelter are hard to come by, you would be a fool to pass up the opportunity to become a slave and, instead, die of thirst, hunger or heatstroke - third world countries don't have welfare systems like we have and there are precious few jobs available.
Finally, we must not impose our own socio-political beliefs on people from other cultures. What right have we to say our opinions are superior to theirs just because our skin is white? We must shed our imperialistic instincts and start respecting other races' cultural values, even if they do not match our own.
Friendly note to my opponent, Brian Eggleston (voters can skip to next section to read argument):
[Thanks for the debate. My only regret is that it wasn’t a five round debate. By the way, looking at your profile I came to three conclusions based on the following: “Travelling first class around the world doing fit birds in deluxe hotels but when I'm not working I like to spend time in my local pub.” So from that I concluded three things about you, ordered from most likely to least likely:
(1) You are an extremely lucky individual, whose life I would steal if it were a tradable commodity—by the way, if your ever sick and need someone to fill in for you, please get in contact with me at any time; I know the time difference makes are schedules incongruent but I am willing to sacrifice myself and face whatever hardships I might find while leapfrogging from luxury hotel to luxury hotel. I think with firm resolve I could manage that lifestyle. So night or day, around the calendar, if you need a surrogate self, you have someone in the states willing to fill in.
(2) Second, you are actual in some time of clandestine services, likely MI6, but I can’t rule out other groups. This is also based on your profile which sounds like the kind of profile James Bond might have if James Bond were on DDO.
(3) Third, you’re in fact not Brian Eggleston but a member of the British upper-class (likely with a well-tended and well-oiled handlebar mustache, whose closet is filled with spare walking canes and monocles) taking to gauge what peasants like myself think about returning to a kind of nineteenth century notion of gentility. In fact, if that is the case, I would concede the debate based on the fact that nobleman British gentlemen cannot be burdened or beset by problems that might arise by interacting with the riff-raff and modern chimneysweeps like myself. Anyway, sorry for the protracted personal note. I have been quietly laughing to myself for the last few days imagining you wearing a top hat, lighting a cigar a stack of British pounds still wrapped in their currency belt, while you dictate you thoughts to a peasant sitting at a computer while another peasant functions as a footrest, and another is meticulous fanning you with antique folding fan].
[End of personal comment to my opponent]
[BACK TO THE DEBATE] [Voters can begin here]
Rebuttal to the claims made last round:
(1) “‘Our economic freedom is founded on individual property rights; government should never be permitted to take those away."’
(2) “…you cannot deny that the slaves belonging to wealthy foreigners are their property…”
(3) “…people today choose to become slaves.”
(4) “…must not impose our own socio-political beliefs on people from other cultures.”
Let me briefly touch (3) first because I agree that people “choose” slavery, if you by “choice” you mean something like a Hobson’s choice [an eponym I’ve always liked, a contribution from those who speak proper English, the Queen’s English], a phrase meaning: “No real choice at all - the only options being to either accept or refuse the offer that is given to you.” [Don’t mistake this with Hobbesian choice, this is a common mistake people make].
Technically, the individuals are making decisions, but in the same way that during the bread riots before the outbreak of the French Revolution people stole food to feed their children. Voters, should accept the idea of choice, if they also accept the idea that a person threatened with a weapon is free in making the decision to either give up their wallet or give up their life. It is exactly the same, the only difference being the time, place, and manner and not the substance.
(1) (2) and (4) are related, in that they make a definitional claim that equates slavery with property, or more generally, an economic liberty based claim—a position very familiar to my side of the pond given that it was this argument that lead to our gruesome Civil War. Basically, if people are property then rape, violence, and murder do not exist. By way of example, it is impossible to rape, torture, or murder by IPhone, specifically, I cannot do so because it is an inanimate thing devoid of anything.
So I can to return to something Pro mentioned in Round 1. Wealthy individuals, in the sense defined by Pro and accepted by Con as individuals who have the mean to travel, accompanied by “chauffeurs, butlers, chefs, housemaids, valets” [lucky enough to own their own] “chateau…in the south of France.”
Anyway, I enjoyed the debate. Thanks. It was fun.
 As a show of solitary with my friend Mr. Eggleston, I selected a UK based website for the citation: http://www.phrases.org.uk...
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|