STO: Well meant and unintentional slavery

[Diana]

There is a very successful private school in Russia that has a curriculum designed by the students, and they teach each other. One of the things they do is go all the way through a subject (all grades from say, 7-12) at one shot. The name of the video is "The School." They also live there and participate in everything, including the cleaning and cooking.

[kycahi]

What would you say it means to be a slave? I have been framing it in terms of forced response, which would appear to be by definition a violation of free will.

In Ra terms, enslavement means STSers using guile to get people to follow them. They convince their minions that they have Power and Truth and will share it.

The best current example is how the kleptocratic Kim family has control of North Korea. After Kim Jong Il died, thousands of his people were weeping and gnashing teeth over his death, even though they depend on China and South Korea for enough food to eat. They are willing slaves, just as Soviet Communists enslaved themselves to Stalin.

Of course, Stalin and Kim would be brutal to any who tried to be free, but still huge majorities went along from "love," not fear.

[Steppingfeet]

Here Ra states the the "intention of law" is to protect. To protect something, I presume, in genera, involves the stoppage of one entities free will in order to preserve another entity's free will.

What if said protection was originally intended by the self toward the other, rather than the reverse? For example, as a healer/physician one might swear to an oath to abide by a certain sort of conduct. By taking this oath, it might grant a certain protection to the people against charlatanism.

Great example of this principle, I would say. And in a non-veiled situation, this oath wouldn't be necessary.

--An entity makes a unique product. They wish to have their work protected from infringement. They receive a patent prohibiting the will of other entities who may wish to duplicate the product for their own gain.

The inventor's free will is protected, the will of the entity intending infringement is stopped.

Why would said entity feel that it is an infringement to have their work duplicated by others? And why would said entity feel they have an exclusive right to gain from such a contribution?

The inventor's will may have many motivations, including pure service-to-others, but likely in the mix of motivations is the desire for livelihood, or in the event of larger institutional entities, pure profit and market-share.

The "why's" are many, it would seem, and law in general feels that it is fair to the protect the inventor/creator vs. the other individual or group who would duplicate the inventor/creator's work. Would you agree?

Doesn't Entity A continue to live despite what actions Entity B may take toward their body?

Let me rephrase that then to indicate Entity A's continued enjoyment of his/her current physical incarnation in the third-density illusion. : )

I wonder: If there were no veil, would the whole notion of "protecting" the self from other-self make any sense?

I agree. So much of our third-density experience, legal code and the desire to protect included, is predicated upon the existence of the veil.

I also wonder: Even if we allow for the defense of one's own body or intentions against the actions of another- by what principle does it make sense to assign the responsibility for self-protection to a third party?

Such a question and the one that followed it is beyond the scope of my simple post. : ) I leave it for better minds. (Being sincere.)

With the veil, and subsequent confusion regarding the true nature of the self, inevitably follows law, it would seem, because entities in their confusion seek to infringe upon the free will of others. At base then the spirit of the law is to protect from infringement.

I wonder if- in a very literal sense- the law is a physical manifestation of the veil. I don't seem to be able to identify a legal concept which is not predicated upon the separation of self and other.

My rough guess would be that law is not a physical manifestation in the way that mountains are a physical manifestation of plate tectonics, or wind is a physical manifestation of the equalization of warm and cold fronts, or cancer is a physical manifestation of anger. Rather I would call law a manifestation of culture - that invisible domain within which peoples relate to one another and form collective identities.

[Tenet Nosce]

The "why's" are many, it would seem, and law in general feels that it is fair to the protect the inventor/creator vs. the other individual or group who would duplicate the inventor/creator's work. Would you agree?

I agree to an extent. I think people deserve compensation for their work, so long as we continue to abide by this paradigm of working and being compensated.

However, I would raise a subtle point- are we really the inventors/creators of anything? Or are things invented/created through us? There are just so many ideas out there that seem to occur to multiple individuals simultaneously. In that respect, it would appear somewhat silly to assign "ownership" of ideas to one individual over another, simply because they were the first to file papers with the patent office.

Let me rephrase that then to indicate Entity A's continued enjoyment of his/her current physical incarnation in the third-density illusion. : )

Yes! My apologies if I appeared glib in my comment. However, I was serious in that I believe the way we use words to frame things makes all the difference in the world. We say things like "killing" or "taking a life" but are we really capable of these kinds of acts?? I suggest not.

My rough guess would be that law is not a physical manifestation in the way that mountains are a physical manifestation of plate tectonics, or wind is a physical manifestation of the equalization of warm and cold fronts, or cancer is a physical manifestation of anger. Rather I would call law a manifestation of culture - that invisible domain within which peoples relate to one another and form collective identities.

Yes... I tend to agree. Though previously I was thinking more in terms of how the actual words we use to write our laws literally reinforce the veil... "ownership of information", "taking a life", etc. My general thought is that, to the extent that we have laws, it would be wise to write them in congruence with our best knowledge of how the universe operates on the other side of the veil. Thus, we would speak of "stewardship of information", "interrupting a life", etc.

[Oceania]

patents are wrong. that's how the pharma industry and others thrive by keeping medicine from others.

[Lavazza]

What would you say it means to be a slave? I have been framing it in terms of forced response, which would appear to be by definition a violation of free will.

I may be getting lost in semantics here, but for me to use the word slavery in the context of western life is highly inappropriate. The term has an emotional component and brings to my mind images and concepts that are completely outside of my experience. To be a slave in my view is to have almost all of your freewill abridged on a constant basis. Thinking of black people in America 200 or so years ago, Central American Indians who were enslaved by Columbus and friends, prisoners of war in ancient Asia whom were forced to work until death- also Jews in concentration camps. To me that is what it means to be a slave- having nearly no free choice and being forced until the will of another.

That one does not have the freedom to legally drive without a drivers license does not make that person a slave. It's just not the right word for the situation. Furthermore, if we do not agree with the law about having to have a drivers license we are free not to drive, or maybe move to another country where it isn't illegal. A true slave would have no other alternative but to obtain a drivers' license.

[unir 1]

I would believe that in protecting one self from the will of another, the protected self must abide by the limits of that very protection, i.e.: you can not leave a certain area or the security guards may not be able to fully establish protection against an attacking other self. This is where the entity must be willing to follow this protection of law, and so I believe the protected self becomes imprisoned or enslaved unintentionally. The entity is freed of the enslaving law when it no longer uses it, which many have not done to societal restrictions as shown in the quote.

Questioner: I would say that a very high percentage of the laws and restrictions within what we call our legal system are of a nature of enslavement of which I just spoke. Would you agree with this?

Ra: I am Ra. It is a necessary balance to the intention of law, which is to protect, that the result would encompass an equal distortion towards imprisonment. Therefore, we may say that your supposition is correct.This is not to denigrate those who, in green and blue-ray energies, sought to free a peaceable people from the bonds of chaos but only to point out the inevitable consequences of codification of response which does not recognize the uniqueness of each and every situation within your experience.

There is still always a choice to abide or not, so at any time the attacking entity may continue it's attack careless of the law. Just the same, the protected entity may love the other self and accept it's actions. As either abides by the law I think it becomes unintentional enslavement- following the will of another entity, and not you're own- if you are not in accordance with the parameters of the law. But is to infringe to be infringed, where stopping one entity from doing such an act infringes that very will?

[Plenum]

great first post unir1 !!

welcome to the forums

[unir 1]

great first post unir1 !!

welcome to the forums

Thank you, I very much welcome all of your presence.

[Snowflower]

In the book, "Ishmael," by Daniel Quinn, he talks about the slavery of every single one of us that was done by "locking up the food." As long as we are free to find our own food (hunter/gatherer) then we also have the freedom to choose what we are going to do with the rest of our lives. If we are not free to find food, we therefore become slaves to who ever it is that has control over the food. We must do whatever "they" want us to do in order to obtain food.

We believe we are free because we can choose between this job or that job, or this career, or between poverty and wealth according to our choices of employment and money-acquisition, but we are not free when we must take an action to generate the money to buy food. (And, although food is the item specified, the principle would apply equally to all necessities of life: shelter, clothing, medicine, water.)

[Tenet Nosce]

I may be getting lost in semantics here, but for me to use the word slavery in the context of western life is highly inappropriate. The term has an emotional component and brings to my mind images and concepts that are completely outside of my experience. To be a slave in my view is to have almost all of your freewill abridged on a constant basis.

We all certainly don't have to fully agree on the context, however as you indicated the word slavery sometimes carries a strong emotional charge with it. Thanks for your contributions thus far. I do have a couple of clarifying questions.

It would appear from your comments that there is a certain degree of free will abridgment which is necessary to meet the criteria of "slave". What word would you use to characterize that gap between being a slave, according to your view, and being totally free to do as one will?

Three examples for clarification:

1. We are all forced to use paper currency to discharge our public debts. Moreover, we are forced to take this debt upon ourselves as "citizens" of various cities/counties/states/nations. What would you call this?

2. A given slave working on a plantation 200 years ago had the "free will" to choose to run away and attempt to make a life foraging for food and shelter in the mountains or woods. Does that detract from their enslavement?

3. Americans may not be forced to get a Driver License, but we are forced to get Birth Certificates and Social Security Cards. Also- any land that we may happen to "own" is subject to forced taxation (payable only in US Dollars) to various municipalities. What word would you use to describe these types of situations?

[Oceania]

we ARE slaves. Eric. what you defined is ours.

[Lavazza]

Hey Tenet, I appreciate your thoughtful conversation!

It would appear from your comments that there is a certain degree of free will abridgment which is necessary to meet the criteria of "slave". What word would you use to characterize that gap between being a slave, according to your view, and being totally free to do as one will?

It's a good question. I don't know for sure. I think "citizen" may be a good one- I'll elaborate under your examples:

Three examples for clarification:

1. We are all forced to use paper currency to discharge our public debts. Moreover, we are forced to take this debt upon ourselves as "citizens" of various cities/counties/states/nations. What would you call this?

So, currency is one of the facets of the technological society we collectively agree to live in. But at the risk of going off topic, why do you say that we are forced to take on debt? Western society may encourage it, but it is in no way obligatory- in fact there are many people who live debt free as financial philosophy.

2. A given slave working on a plantation 200 years ago had the "free will" to choose to run away and attempt to make a life foraging for food and shelter in the mountains or woods. Does that detract from their enslavement?

I think I might be missing the intention behind your example- If they ran away and were not caught again, then they would no longer be slaves. Of course, up to the point that they actually do run away, they would be slaves. The cost of being caught could bring extreme pain in the form of torture, separation of loved ones or death, so I don't really see that they are free to leave whenever they choose.

3. Americans may not be forced to get a Driver License, but we are forced to get Birth Certificates and Social Security Cards. Also- any land that we may happen to "own" is subject to forced taxation (payable only in US Dollars) to various municipalities. What word would you use to describe these types of situations?

I'm keen on this example because my wife and I both just renewed our drivers' licenses. The ladies who run our DMV are slave drivers in their own right. Kidding

Anyways, for the above situations I simply view these as facets of the society in which we live. I don't know how to describe them except as aspects of participatory citizenship in a society with some form of structured governmental system. We might discuss how such things are for the betterment or detriment of humans, but at the end of the day it is a system with voluntary participants. We can leave the system if we chose to, we have freedom to do so. Contrarily the slave on a plantation could chose the same, but not freely, and it might end terribly.

As for social security cards, taxes and et cetera- yes, those things are included in our society today. You can't have the American society without those things in the same way that you can't get physically fit without working out. You don't have to be an American though, and you don't have to be physically fit (not in any way trying to imply those things go hand in hand, lol)

There is one caveat though. Conspiracy theories about shadowy supreme lords running everything behind the scenes aside, we exist in a participatory government. If enough people want to change the law, the law will change. We elect officials, vote on referendums and et cetera. Even public demonstration (protests, movements, etc.) that does not directly participate with government can change the societal climate and sway political leaders (E.g. backlash against Veitnam war and military draft, more recently Arab spring).

To sum up my feelings on the matter, slavery exists where entities are forced under pain of death, etc. to do the bidding of another or group of others, as a loose definition. It's a strong term and has a specific meaning, and IMO it's a disservice to people who exist under *real* slavery systems to say that tax laws, etc, make one a slave. I don't think there are any qualities of American society that meet the definition. Even people who have been accused of crimes are always afforded a trial. I might go as far as saying that present day western societies may be the most free in Earth history, desite our abundance of codified laws and regulations. That isn't to say that all governments meet this standard- I have serious questions about North Korea for example. Have you read the book, 1984? There are remarkable similarities.

Anyways, this is the opinion I have at the present- of course it's just my opinions and may not be correct. And I'm open to being shown the error of my ways.

Love and Light
Eric

[Tenet Nosce]

So, currency is one of the facets of the technological society we collectively agree to live in. But at the risk of going off topic, why do you say that we are forced to take on debt? Western society may encourage it, but it is in no way obligatory- in fact there are many people who live debt free as financial philosophy.

Perhaps this seems an obtuse or overly technical point- but currency is not real money. It is a representation of money. I will try to stay on point myself, but this is one of those little details that I think gets easily overlooked.

But beyond this- taking on personal debt such as credit cards or student loans are definitely not obligatory. Near obligatory debt would be a mortgage or lease contract. And fully obligatory debt would be anything charged to you by the IRS- collectively known as taxes.

I think I might be missing the intention behind your example- If they ran away and were not caught again, then they would no longer be slaves. Of course, up to the point that they actually do run away, they would be slaves. The cost of being caught could bring extreme pain in the form of torture, separation of loved ones or death, so I don't really see that they are free to leave whenever they choose.

The intention is to point out that even a "slave" has free will. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, however you seem to be arguing that free will is what separates a "slave" from a "citizen". I am only pointing out that that slave being forced to work on a plantation has free will as well. There are consequences, as you mentioned. Equally are there consequences- including imprisonment- for those who do not adhere to the debt-based financial system. So who is really free? It is interesting that you are contrasting the terms "slave" and "citizen".

Consider this:

United States Code: Title 18, Section 1581. Peonage; Obstructing enforcement

(a) Whoever holds or returns any person to a condition of peonage, or arrests any person with the intent of placing him in or returning him to a condition of peonage, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If death results from the violation of this section, or if the violation includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or the attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, the defendant shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

(b) Whoever obstructs, or attempts to obstruct, or in any way interferes with or prevents the enforcement of this section, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in subsection (a).

What is "peonage"? According to West's Encyclopedia of American Law:

1. The condition of being a peon.
2. A system by which debtors are bound in servitude to their creditors until their debts are paid.

Here is some further background/commentary from the Gale Encyclopedia of US History:

Peonage is involuntary servitude, under which a debtor is forced to make payment to a master through labor. It differs from slavery, serfdom, and contract labor by both the necessary element of indebtedness and the indefinite term of service. Prior to 1800, the system was prevalent in Spanish America, especially Mexico and Guatemala. While not wholly confined to blacks in the United States, peonage developed in the South after the abolition of slavery in 1865, just as it had in the Southwest following its acquisition from Mexico. An employer paid fines imposed for a petty crime in exchange for work by the sentenced person. And when agricultural laborers and tenants were advanced cash and supplies, any attempt to leave was interpreted as having obtained credit under false pretenses, which, under state law, was a criminal offense.

Peonage did not lose its legal sanction until 1910, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared such state laws to be in violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments (Bailey v. Alabama,219 U.S. 219). In spite of the laws, as late as 1960, sharecroppers in the Deep South were pressured to pay off old debts or taxes through peonage. Peonage is interpreted in the Constitution (Title 18, U.S.C., Section 1581), as holding a person in debt servitude. This practice, though illegal, is being found again in the U.S. in relation to the smuggling of illegal immigrants into the country. The immigrants are then placed in garment "sweat shops" or other small businesses to work off their transportation debt. The current law states that those found enforcing peonage on another can be fined or imprisoned up to ten years.

I will concede that, according to these somewhat massaged legal definitions, we are neither slaves nor peons. However, I don't believe that most people would have voluntarily taken all these debts upon themselves if they really knew what debt was, and where it came from.

There is a massive amount of propaganda and manipulation aimed at the masses to make this system out to be something different than what it really is. Somebody, somewhere, is responsible for that.

When an 18-year old kid is coerced into taking out large student loans- which will take them the next 10-30 years to pay off- with the impression that there is going to be some kind of "job" waiting for them out there which employs their degree- and then finds that there really is none- that is sounding very close to "obtaining credit under false pretenses" to me.

When the "average American couple" signs their name to a mortgage contract that they can't afford to pay, under coersion from banks, the government, and the media, who are all encouraging them to do so... saying it is the "American" thing to do... all the while setting these families up for a massive collapse resulting in being upside-down on one's mortgage or foreclosure... that is sounding very close to "obtaining credit under false pretenses" to me.

Anyways, for the above situations I simply view these as facets of the society in which we live. I don't know how to describe them except as aspects of participatory citizenship in a society with some form of structured governmental system. We might discuss how such things are for the betterment or detriment of humans, but at the end of the day it is a system with voluntary participants. We can leave the system if we chose to, we have freedom to do so.

We can? Please describe how one could leave the system.

Contrarily the slave on a plantation could chose the same, but not freely, and it might end terribly.

I am not seeing this contrarily. The 9-5er could choose to leave their corporate cubicle job. But many don't. I wonder why this is? I suppose it is because they are not really as "free" as we would like to believe. The American societal structure is specifically designed to get people into so much debt between the ages of 18 and 25, that it will take them the next 40 years AT LEAST to get out from under it, if they are not dead of some chronic disease of "modern society" by then.

As for social security cards, taxes and et cetera- yes, those things are included in our society today. You can't have the American society without those things in the same way that you can't get physically fit without working out.

You can't? Then what do you mean by "American society"? My understanding- or at least what I have learned- is that liberty and freedom are the core principles of "American society". It is more than a bit odd to me when I see/hear people arguing that we "need" social security, taxes, etc., in order to be free. That is nonsensical to me.

A ponderance: There was a time in American history where neither federal taxes nor social security existed. Are we more or less free now, as compared to then?

I would submit that all of the services and pleasantries that Americans have come to enjoy can be provided for under a completely voluntary system.

You don't have to be an American though, and you don't have to be physically fit (not in any way trying to imply those things go hand in hand, lol)

Saying that I "don't have to" be an American is like saying that slave "doesn't have to" work on the plantation. Frankly, I find this attitude which says, "If you don't like America, then leave." is quite antithetical to the core principles upon which this nation was founded. It is curious to me how things have become flip-flopped such that desiring even greater levels of liberty and freedom has become "un-American" in the eyes of many card-carrying, flag-waving, citizens.

There is one caveat though. Conspiracy theories about shadowy supreme lords running everything behind the scenes aside, we exist in a participatory government. If enough people want to change the law, the law will change. We elect officials, vote on referendums and et cetera.

Most respectfully- I find this "participatory government" bit to be mostly a sham. In consideration of all the shenanigans that have gone on- and continue to go on- in our political process, it seems rather obvious to me that strings are being pulled in the background. What is more- back in the early days of America, everybody knew about this, and expected it. It is only fairly recently that this idea has come about that there is really nobody lurking in the shadows and that the government is really in control.

And it is even more recently that anybody who would suggest otherwise is labeled as a "conspiracy theorist" and "un-American". If such is the case, then all of the "Founding Fathers" of America are equally "un-American". How does that make any sense?

Do the people have the power to change the law? No- actually that power is delegated to Congress. This is exactly what I mean by people thinking we have one system, when we actually have another. For example, we do not live in a "democracy", we live in a "constitutional republic". Why, then, are all Americans taught this lie in school?

Even public demonstration (protests, movements, etc.) that does not directly participate with government can change the societal climate and sway political leaders (E.g. backlash against Veitnam war and military draft, more recently Arab spring).

I agree with this. But for the sake of discussion... what makes you so sure that these protests and movements you describe aren't successful only to the degree that they are "allowed" to be successful?

To sum up my feelings on the matter, slavery exists where entities are forced under pain of death, etc. to do the bidding of another or group of others, as a loose definition.

Got it!

It's a strong term and has a specific meaning, and IMO it's a disservice to people who exist under *real* slavery systems to say that tax laws, etc, make one a slave.

I would suggest it is a disservice to create a false separation between the "enslaved" and the "free" people of the earth.

[Lavazza]

Hey again!

I sort of see this discussion as having many, many elements that could veer the subject in to any number of different areas. It's hard to avoid since many of those things need to be discussed to understand the main theme... I will try and stay on topic. The main thrust of my response here is that life in a western society is not slavery. I feel this way after reading all of your responses, some of which are very thoughtful and that I appreciate.

The intention is to point out that even a "slave" has free will. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, however you seem to be arguing that free will is what separates a "slave" from a "citizen". I am only pointing out that that slave being forced to work on a plantation has free will as well. There are consequences, as you mentioned. Equally are their consequences- including imprisonment- for those who do not adhere to the debt-based financial system. So who is really free? It is interesting that you are contrasting the terms "slave" and "citizen".

Well, I'm not contrasting the terms as much as I am attempting to replace what I consider to be the incorrect term with the correct one. I do not think there are similarities between them.

To your point, I agree slaves have free will, we do not disagree here, bearing in mind consequences for actions which result in a much more limited range of possibilities. You are (unless I am mistaken) saying that essentially because citizens of a western society are bound to laws and taxation that we are slaves. I posit that this is an error of semantics and not even remotely in the same category.

Do you really feel that "slave" is the correct term, that we should all consider ourselves slaves? Or is there a better term, if not citizen something else? Do you think if we could time warp a slave from a plantation in to our present day society he would say words to the effect of things not really having changed at all?

I am not saying that as humans living in such a society we are completely free. (see post #10) But I disagree that that automatically puts us in to the slave category. It's a sliding scale with lots of gray area.

We can leave the system if we chose to, we have freedom to do so.

We can? Please describe how one could leave the system.

I don't know But that doesn't disprove my statement. I do know that if one were to try and do so, a squad of soldiers would not be dispatched to hunt you down and bring you back or kill you, as might happen in a slavery paradigm.

Contrarily the slave on a plantation could chose the same, but not freely, and it might end terribly.

I am not seeing this contrarily. The 9-5er could choose to leave their corporate cubicle job. But many don't. I wonder why this is? I suppose it is because they are not really as "free" as we would like to believe. The American societal structure is specifically designed to get people into so much debt between the ages of 18 and 25, that it will take them the next 40 years AT LEAST to get out from under it, if they are not dead of some chronic disease of "modern society" by then.

I think on the whole you and I agree on many more things than we disagree. I just don't call this slavery, I would say perhaps, and with sympathy, ignorance on the part of those individuals.

As for social security cards, taxes and et cetera- yes, those things are included in our society today. You can't have the American society without those things in the same way that you can't get physically fit without working out.

You can't? Then what do you mean by "American society"? My understanding- or at least what I have learned- is that liberty and freedom are the core principles of "American society". It is more than a bit odd to me when I see/hear people arguing that we "need" social security, taxes, etc., in order to be free. That is nonsensical to me.

A ponderance: There was a time in American history where neither federal taxes nor social security existed. Are we more or less free now, as compared to then?

I would submit that all of the services and pleasantries that Americans have come to enjoy can be provided for under a completely voluntary system.

I am not in any way saying we need anything here. I am simply pointing out that this is the American structure as it exists today, without calling it good or bad. As it happens at the present time these things are requisite in that society- I did not mean to imply that they were needed fundamentally.

Saying that I "don't have to" be an American is like saying that slave "doesn't have to" work on the plantation. Frankly, I find this attitude which says, "If you don't like America, then leave." is quite antithetical to the core principles upon which this nation was founded. It is curious to me how things have become flip-flopped such that desiring even greater levels of liberty and freedom has become "un-American" in the eyes of many card-carrying, flag-waving, citizens.

This is absolutely not what I am trying to say. I find the "like it or leave it" statement cold and quite heartless, even arrogant. I am merely pointing out that one could leave it without fear of death or other inhuman punishment, which you would expect with the slave / plantation scenario. (My main point in all of these responses). Rather than leave, I would suggest changing it! Be it through voting or other official channels, or through more alternative measures such as protesting, petitions and so forth.

There is one caveat though. Conspiracy theories about shadowy supreme lords running everything behind the scenes aside, we exist in a participatory government. If enough people want to change the law, the law will change. We elect officials, vote on referendums and et cetera.

Most respectfully- I find this "participatory government" bit to be mostly a sham.
...
I agree with this. But for the sake of discussion... what makes you so sure that these protests and movements you describe aren't successful only to the degree that they are "allowed" to be successful?

I will respectfully leave it at that, primarily because it's one of those extra arms of the discussion that could derail things, but also because it's impossible to prove a negative.

To sum up my feelings on the matter, slavery exists where entities are forced under pain of death, etc. to do the bidding of another or group of others, as a loose definition.

I would suggest it is a disservice to create a false separation between the "enslaved" and the "free" people of the earth.

We may simply have to agree to disagree. A totally acceptable outcome of this discussion.

Much love,
Eric

[Tenet Nosce]

You are (unless I am mistaken) saying that essentially because citizens of a western society are bound to laws and taxation that we are slaves. I posit that this is an error of semantics and not even remotely in the same category.

Do you really feel that "slave" is the correct term, that we should all consider ourselves slaves? Or is there a better term, if not citizen something else? Do you think if we could time warp a slave from a plantation in to our present day society he would say words to the effect of things not really having changed at all?

But the context of the thread is Ra's use of the phrase "well meant and unintentional slavery". I originally posted a list of things which I thought might mean what they were referring to. Slavery, though "well meant and unintentional", is slavery nonetheless. I really don't think Ra was referring to forced labor with this, but something more subtle.

It sounds like you don't agree with Ra's use of the word "slavery". Unless you had something else in mind? Otherwise- your disagreement with their word choice is a totally valid viewpoint.

[Zaxon]

I find both he STO and STS paths are capable of dark/negative manifestations and consequences. In many respects the STO path requires the servitude or enslavement of the strong or more progressed to the weakest or least developed. The end result is a homogenization of energies, or evening out of the peaks and valleys so that there is a consistent energy capable of forming a social/memory complex. Similarly, a negative manifestation of STS results in domination of the strong/more developed over the weak/less developed. The negative and positive aspects of these polarities are often played out in our 3D reality with the competing libertarian/capitalist and communist/socialist philosophies. Both have utopian and distopian potentiality.

I should clarify that my understanding of "enslavement" may differ from that of a 3D perspective. I view STO enslavement as a constant giving of energy to those in need to a point of equalization or harmonization, while STS enslavement is viewed as the flow of energy from weaker entities to stronger entities, which has the effect of diminishing one and increasing the other, thus exacerbating the disparity.

-Zaxon

[Diana]

Do you really feel that "slave" is the correct term, that we should all consider ourselves slaves? Or is there a better term, if not citizen something else? Do you think if we could time warp a slave from a plantation in to our present day society he would say words to the effect of things not really having changed at all?

But the context of the thread is Ra's use of the phrase "well meant and unintentional slavery". I originally posted a list of things which I thought might mean what they were referring to. Slavery, though "well meant and unintentional", is slavery nonetheless. I really don't think Ra was referring to forced labor with this, but something more subtle.

Slavery may seem a harsh word, but there is slavery today in the form of unconsciousness and intent to control. The kind of slavery we are talking about here is an outcome of most humans being asleep for much of history and being content to follow and be lead. This set up ripe ground for STS entities to herd the humans (catholic religion, monarchy, transnational corporations, media). STS entities may have the idea that they are doing sleeping humans a favor by leading them, as so many are sheep-like. The slavery is reciprocal, in that the enslaved allow the slavery. The first step is to wake up to it and direct one's own life based on one's own thoughts. One may still have to pay taxes in order to stay in a country that currently requires it, but one can be aware consciously that one is agreeing to it for now (which takes a step out of enslavement) while envisioning, and working toward, in some way, a freer society.

[irpsit]

True STO society does not need such threating rules.

No one is obliged. Much like when you kiss your spouse, she or he is not obliged to kiss you back on that moment. Love is free. Serving should be free as well.

So, yes, we are all slaves of some kind, and one day when some of these laws are layed down, then we will see how ridicule it was. Example, nowadays no one will emprision another just because he or she falls in love with someone else. But centuries ago you would. One day, there will be no copyright, no taxes, no mortgages, no contracts. Just the concept of these are slavery.

Contributing to the collective is different than enforced taxes. Being born on this planet, we are all obliged to earn money and pay taxes, to pay for food, pay for water, pay for land and housing, that is slavery, because other species do not do that.

Some people cannot realize this because of two reasons:
- first they do not have other framework to compare with (slavery-free and enforcement-free societies).
- second, because they are STS and benefit of such enforcements.

Ra: I am Ra. It was our understanding that your query concerned conditions before the veiling. There was no unconscious slavery, as you call this condition, at that period. At the present space/time the conditions of well-meant and unintentional slavery are so numerous that it beggars our ability to enumerate them.

83.12 Questioner: Then for a service-to-others oriented entity at this time meditation upon the nature of these little-expected forms of slavery might be productive in polarization I would think. Am I correct?
Ra: I am Ra. You are quite correct.

Consider what would happen if you:

1. Refuse to pay your taxes. Or mortgage.
2. Attempt to bypass your mobile carrier's signal with your smartphone.
3. Choose not to have children against your spouse's wishes.
4. Dis-enroll your children from school.
5. Send gold in the U.S. mail in payment to a debt collector.
6. Drive your vehicle without a license, and get pulled over.
7. Get caught sending or receiving copyrighted information over the Internet.
8. Accidentally harm another person's body with your vehicle.
9. Attempt to cross a border without identification.
10. Attempt to commit suicide.

In my somewhat ludicrous opinion, we are all slaves. To the degree we agree to live "under law" is to the degree we literally make ourselves out to be hypo-crites, or slaves. As Ra suggested, it is well to ponder upon this, for one who is unwilling to acknowledge the reality of their own slavery cannot perceive what it truly means to be free. In other words, that we are all slaves is one thing. That some of us believe we are free, is quite another.