There are many forms of slavery --- we also suffer from a form often referred to as 'indentured servitude'. In past days, this was a one-sided contract that enslaved a human in order to pay a past debt of some sort.
Today it is more commonly referred to as 'taxes'. Yes, as we celebrate the 4th of July, let's reflect on having come full circle to 'taxation without representation', and to the ignoble servitude that accompanies the involuntary redistribution of wealth.

Agency - whether it is used or not determines who is a slave. If someone has no agency, in other words, if that person is totally controlled by another, he is a slave.

If a person has agency to do as he wishes, then he is not a slave. He may be indolent. He may be an addict. He may choose to waste and ruin his life, but he made that choice himself.

Agency is God's greatest gift. Without it we could not choose to follow Him or his Son, Jesus Christ. With it, we can do exactly as we please, until the consequences of those choices interfere with future choices.

If our choices result in self-slavery, then we, as the slave-master, also have the ability to exit that slavery.

And some people are slaves to made up gods.

Re Anonymous
And some people are slaves to their narrow-mindedness.

Is there any aspect of human existence in which the famous Mr. Larsen does not feel fit to instruct us all each week?

Mike Richards,

Often someone stops resisting during rape. Does that mean it ceases to be rape, because she has been forced into submission? No.

If someone does not realize that an option is available, or is under the threat of torture, they are not at liberty to exercise their agency. Someone who is being held and decides to leave, only to be tortured for having left, is less likely to leave again. It is incumbent upon us to track down these works of darkness and stop them.

The psychological damage wrought by torture alters the ability to choose.

Society allows form of slavery."

You got that right. Members of the NFL, NBA, etc., are all indentured (i.e., under contract) to go out and beat themselves up each year chasing balls of various shapes. This practice should be stopped, and now.

Mike Richards 8:27 a.m. July 3, 2008:

"Agency is God's greatest gift."

What? How is it then, that He gives the gift to some and not others?

This country unfortunately, was founded on slavery.
It split in two once upon a time over this monstrous ideology.
The Founding Fathers owned slaves.
Conservatives worship whatever the Founders did, good or bad.
And this is why conservatism as we know it is taking on water and sinking like a stone.
Thank God!

To 11:08,

Everyone has the right of agency. You might mistake Freedom for Agency. Agency is the right to choose. Freedom might be defined as the right to choose without consequences from the Government for those choices.

We all have the right to choose. Sometimes that choice comes down to "live" or "die", but it is still a choice and a choice that we are free to make for ourselves. If we choose to "live", then we have already decided to accept the circumstances that will govern our "living". If we choose to "die", then we have obviously stated that to live was not worth the compromise. BUT, the choice is ours. The AGENCY is ours.

God has given that gift to all people. The choices may be hard, but the choices exists.

Face it.
We are all slaves to something or another.
Our jobs.
Our bosses.
Our mortgage companies.
Our credit card companies.
Our churches.
And now there are those who want us to be slaves to the U.S. Government.

What is Mr. Larsen's thesis? Prostitution, most drugs, and domestic abuse are already unlawful. They continue to be social scourges because simply making something unlawful doesn't prevent people from doing it. Drug addicts and abused wives may well be labled "slaves", but what was Mr. Larsen advocating as a remedy to these conditions?

Did they just edit his letter to the point of incomprehensibility?

Hatuletoh,

As the letter says, these people are targets for sadists. The so-called "masochists" are slaves to sadists. Literally, they are bound and tortured and ordered around.

I don't doubt that there are true masochists. But sadists don't just target masochists - they target the vulnerable, whomever they may be. Having no self-respect makes one vulnerable.

Trouble is, our society assumes that anyone living as a slave under the thumb of a sadist is a masochist. I'm saying that I believe there are people living in that situation who are not there by choice but who see no way out.

Thanks Ryan, that makes it clearer. I think the title assigned by the editor to your letter confused me, because society does not exactly "allow" those forms of slavery. As I said, those things are already illegal, which is to say not allowed.

You are saying, rather, that society is complacent to the suffering people in other forms of servitude; and these sufferings and our complacency to them is no different than our complacency towards an illegal immigrant abused by her employers on Long Island.

Thanks for the clarification.

Hatuletoh,

Society does indeed allow this form of slavery. In places like San Francisco, they are quite open about it. People "legally" beat and torture other people every day in America, keeping them as slaves under the guise of consent.

The problem is the meaning of "consent." One person may submit to another, and by all outward appearances seem to be choosing a life of slavery, but there is no way to judge from the outside whether it is truly consent. Society merely assumes that it is.

It is similar to, but worse than, the example you raise of illegal immigrants abused by "employers" (by which I assume you mean they are abused by being compensated meagerly for their work).

at 11:03am you wrote:
"Society allows form of slavery."
You got that right. Members of the NFL, NBA, etc. all all indentured...."

Maybe you should take a remedial reading course. Yo mixed points from different posts, and missed the sub-point of indentured servitude as being one-sided.
Also, I might add, non-profitable, unlike the overpaid "stars" of professional sports.

Actually Ryan, the immigrant reference is to a recent case in Long Island, wherein a couple of immigrants were literally held as slaves, degraded, and forced to work.

As for the masochism: I understand you, but I don't know what you want. Undoubtedly some people are involved in that sort of thing for the "wrong" reasons, but what are we to do about this? Do we want the government telling people that they're not allowed to hit each other in the bedroom? I guarantee that you personally know couples who engage in bondage fantasies--are those to be outlawed? Or rather, do we expect the government to try to enforce existing prohibitions on those activities, since many states already have laws that prohibt that type of behavior. And if so, how would this be done? Random inspections?

Again, I take your point that people may be emotionally and even physically enslaved in ways we might not immediately think of, but if a couple of guys want to don leather chaps and smack each other around for some mutual jollies, how are we going to stop them?

country founded on slavery 11:17 a.m. July 3, 2008:

"This country unfortunately, was founded on slavery."

Here's an idea. Why don't you ask the descendants of slaves if they would prefer that their ancestors were never brought to the US in the first place. Start with Oprah, then on to Kobe or Shaq. Give it a go. I'd be interested in the answers.

(PS: I wouldn't be surprised if this post got tossed. Nonetheless, it is a good question to ponder to show how blessed this country is.

Ouch, wrz!
That's some pretty racist stuff there ol' buddy!
Or doesn't that matter to neocons?

I didn't realize cotton picking founded this country.

And I though was a brutal revolutionary war.

And wisemen created an inspiring governing document.

IS cheap illegal immigrant labor slavery?

To wrz 3:49 p.m. July 3, 2008:

"at 11:03am you wrote:
"Society allows form of slavery."
You got that right. Members of the NFL, NBA, etc. are all indentured...."

Maybe you should take a remedial reading course. You mixed points from different posts, and missed the sub-point of indentured servitude as being one-sided.
Also, I might add, non-profitable, unlike the overpaid "stars" of professional sports."

I wish I could understand what you're trying to say.

I think it's apparent from these posts that the use of the term "slavery" doesn't serve the discussion. The term is too loaded with baggage and controversy to be useful. RL will be writing next week (or maybe tomorrow) so he'll have lots of chances to come up with something else.

Mark B,

"(or maybe tomorrow)"

lol