This is a fascinating and thought-provoking piece, but I have to confess, has an air of nightmare, to my mind. It recalls ancient slave societies in which most slaves were taken in war. There is a certain logic to your arguments, but I would suggest that a) pretty much all sides in all wars regard *their* war as 'just' b) surely any concept of individual liberty must rest on 'self-ownership', and thus the idea of any human 'owning' other humans is repugnant c) in any case I can't really see how this rather complex system could ever be put into practice - any attempt would probably degenerate into purely rapacious and inhuman exploitation of human beings by force, as in the various slave trades of history. It's an interesting idea, though.
Thank you for this Laurence. Let me address each point. a) This is true, but, this does not invalidate the fact one side is indeed just. I suppose the issue is if you keep your prisoners of war they will keep theirs. I think this is a price worth paying. b) Self-ownership is the basis of individual freedom, but, this individual freedom can be forfeited by committing injustice, e.g., as murderers are currently locked away. If this idea is repugnant, I am prepared to bite that bullet. c) I think the system would basically be the tax system we have today but collecting funds exclusively from prisoners of war. I do not think it would be exploitative as the private militaries will wish to maximise income from the slaves, and, as I say the ownership over them need not be full at all.
But this all relies on the assertion that in war one side is 'just' and other not. I feel this is questionable, as being a subjective judgement. Clearly people in prison for murder and soldiers held as prisoners of war are both having their freedoms curtailed, but the understanding is normally that this is temporary, lasting until their 'punishment' is over - that is surely not the same as a state of slavery, which implies actual *ownership* (usually permanent) of one human being by another? Prisoners of war can be, and have been, required to work, but they still have human rights under the Geneva Convention (though these has historically of course been abused by barbaric regimes such as Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, etc.)
But this all relies on the assertion that in war one side is 'just' and other not. I feel this is questionable, as being a subjective judgement. Clearly people in prison for murder and soldiers held as prisoners of war are both having their freedoms curtailed, but the understanding is normally that this is temporary, lasting until their 'punishment' is over - that is surely not the same as a state of slavery, which implies actual *ownership* (usually permanent) of one human being by another? Prisoners of war can be, and have been, required to work, but they still have human rights under the Geneva Convention (though these has historically of course been abused by barbaric regimes such as Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, etc.)
The justness of war is objective, because, justice itself is objective, i.e., independent of the attitudes and opinions of individuals. I believe you implicitly concede this point by admitting to the injustice of slavery. I am proposing slavery for the POWs, nonetheless, as I argue this slavery is not full slavery because not all there rights are stripped from them. Instead only some of their liberty rights and all of their income rights are stripped from them. I would not allow for the whipping of POWs and cutting off their limbs. This would go too far for the injustice they have committed in war. I don't think any of the concerns you imagine will arise will then, and, if they do, they are injustices.
This is a fascinating and thought-provoking piece, but I have to confess, has an air of nightmare, to my mind. It recalls ancient slave societies in which most slaves were taken in war. There is a certain logic to your arguments, but I would suggest that a) pretty much all sides in all wars regard *their* war as 'just' b) surely any concept of individual liberty must rest on 'self-ownership', and thus the idea of any human 'owning' other humans is repugnant c) in any case I can't really see how this rather complex system could ever be put into practice - any attempt would probably degenerate into purely rapacious and inhuman exploitation of human beings by force, as in the various slave trades of history. It's an interesting idea, though.
Thank you for this Laurence. Let me address each point. a) This is true, but, this does not invalidate the fact one side is indeed just. I suppose the issue is if you keep your prisoners of war they will keep theirs. I think this is a price worth paying. b) Self-ownership is the basis of individual freedom, but, this individual freedom can be forfeited by committing injustice, e.g., as murderers are currently locked away. If this idea is repugnant, I am prepared to bite that bullet. c) I think the system would basically be the tax system we have today but collecting funds exclusively from prisoners of war. I do not think it would be exploitative as the private militaries will wish to maximise income from the slaves, and, as I say the ownership over them need not be full at all.
But this all relies on the assertion that in war one side is 'just' and other not. I feel this is questionable, as being a subjective judgement. Clearly people in prison for murder and soldiers held as prisoners of war are both having their freedoms curtailed, but the understanding is normally that this is temporary, lasting until their 'punishment' is over - that is surely not the same as a state of slavery, which implies actual *ownership* (usually permanent) of one human being by another? Prisoners of war can be, and have been, required to work, but they still have human rights under the Geneva Convention (though these has historically of course been abused by barbaric regimes such as Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, etc.)
But this all relies on the assertion that in war one side is 'just' and other not. I feel this is questionable, as being a subjective judgement. Clearly people in prison for murder and soldiers held as prisoners of war are both having their freedoms curtailed, but the understanding is normally that this is temporary, lasting until their 'punishment' is over - that is surely not the same as a state of slavery, which implies actual *ownership* (usually permanent) of one human being by another? Prisoners of war can be, and have been, required to work, but they still have human rights under the Geneva Convention (though these has historically of course been abused by barbaric regimes such as Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, etc.)
The justness of war is objective, because, justice itself is objective, i.e., independent of the attitudes and opinions of individuals. I believe you implicitly concede this point by admitting to the injustice of slavery. I am proposing slavery for the POWs, nonetheless, as I argue this slavery is not full slavery because not all there rights are stripped from them. Instead only some of their liberty rights and all of their income rights are stripped from them. I would not allow for the whipping of POWs and cutting off their limbs. This would go too far for the injustice they have committed in war. I don't think any of the concerns you imagine will arise will then, and, if they do, they are injustices.