From: Timothy Byrd (timbyrd@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu 11 Mar 1999 - 21:49:15 EET
Ian Gorlick:
> > Or, consider the case of a slave who has been accumulating the
> > capital to purchase his freedom, but dies before he has quite
> > enough. Can a portion of his "freedom fund" be used to secure
> > the slave a higher status in the after-life? (and provide some
> > compensation to the slave-owner for the loss of his property.)
David Weihe:
> What makes you think that the slave could pass along its
> capital? This would imply that the slave could properly keep
> property from its owner, which is absurd on the face of it.
> When a horse dies, does its foal get its tack, or is it the
> master's property to use on whichever horse he deems best?
Whether it's absurd depends on what model you are using for slavery.
The only printed source I can think of is "The Richest Man in
Babylon", and IIRC, the assumption there is that slaves can own
property (and even other slaves) of their own. Of course if a slave
who is sold to the King to work on the city walls, may never get a
chance to earn back his freedom. It also seems to me that slavery
worked somewhat this way in Rome.
It might be a difference of attitude coming from "these slaves are
captured enemy soldiers from that big battle - it could have happened
to me" instead of "this entire clan/nation/culture is inferior to us
and fit for nothing better than slavery".
- -- Tim
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 19:41:20 EEST