SLAVERY

So there's something you just HAVE to get off your chest, and it doesn't fit into any of the above catagories? All spam, rants, and random chatter belongs in here.
Post Reply
Publeus
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:36 pm

SLAVERY

Post by Publeus » Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:53 pm

CONSTITUTION

- 13th Amendment

-- Section 1 -- Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly CONVICTED, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

--- Section 2 --- Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

*** Contrary to popular opinion, this LAW did NOT end slavery, clearly. SLAVERY IS LEGAL, and persistent...
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: SLAVERY

Post by notmartha » Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:19 pm

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude… shall exist”
It is important to understand the meanings of “slavery” and “servitude”. The key word in the purported 13th Amendment, however, is “involuntary.”

From Webster’s Dictionary, 1828:
INVOL'UNTARY, adjective [Latin in and voluntarius. See Voluntary.]

1. Not having will or choice; unwilling.

2. Independent of will or choice. The motion of the heart and arteries is involuntary but not against the will.

3. Not proceeding from choice; not done willingly; opposed to the will. A slave and a conquered nation yield an involuntary submission to a master.

VOL'UNTARY, adjective [Latin voluntarius, from voluntas, will, from volo.]

1. Acting by choice or spontaneously; acting without being influenced or impelled by another.

2. Free, or having power to act by choice; not being under restraint; as, man is a voluntary agent.

3. Proceeding from choice or free will.

4. Willing; acting with willingness.

5. Done by design; purposed; intended. If a man kills another by lopping a tree, here is no voluntary murder.

6. Done freely, or of choice; proceeding from free will. He went into voluntary exile. He made a voluntary surrender.

7. Acting of his own accord; spontaneous; as the voluntary dictates of knowledge.

8. Subject to the will; as the voluntary motions of an animal. Thus the motion of a leg or an arm is voluntary but the motion of the heart is involuntary.
A voluntary escape, in law, is the escape of a prisoner by the express consent of the sheriff.
Voluntary jurisdiction, is that which is exercised in doing that which no one opposes; as in granting dispensations, etc.
Voluntary affidavit or oath, is one made in an extra-judicial matter.
Voluntary waste, is that which is committed by positive acts.
From Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, 1856:
INVOLUNTARY.

1. An involuntary act is that which is performed with constraint, (q. v.) or with repugnance, or without the will to do it. An action is involuntary then, which is performed under duress.

VOLUNTARY.

1. Willingly; done with one's consent; negligently..

2. To render an act criminal or tortious it must be voluntary. If a man, therefore, kill another without a will on his part, while engaged in the performance of a lawful act, and having taken proper care to prevent it, he is not guilty of any crime. And if he commit an injury to the person or property of another, he is not liable for damages, unless the act has been voluntary or through negligence, as when a collision takes place between two ships without any fault in either.

3. When the crime or injury happens in the performance of an unlawful act, the party will be considered as having acted voluntarily.

4. A negligent escape permitted by an officer having the custody of a prisoner will be presumed as voluntary; under a declaration or count charging the escape to have been voluntary, the party will, therefore, be allowed to give a negligent escape in evidence.
From Black's 1st Edition (post 13th amendment)
INVOLUNTARY.
An involuntary act is that which is performed with constraint (q. v.) or with repugnance, or without the will to do it. An action is involuntary then, which is performed under duress. Wolff. inst. Nat. § 5.
VOLUNTARY
Free: without compulsion or solicitation.
Without consideration; without valuable consideration; gratuitous.

The purported 13th amendment did not abolish voluntary slavery or servitude, only involuntary slavery or servitude. Free people have the right to contract out of their rights. People who willingly pledge themselves as surety, consent to contract and make agreements, and accept the services i.e. benefits of the “United States” are not in involuntary servitude, they are in voluntary servitude. It comes down to consent, plain and simple.

Now some people will claim that qualifying their signature on a contract with “under duress” will void that contract, keeping them free from any bondage. Sometimes it will, but not usually. Here is how “duress” is defined:

From Webster’s Dictionary, 1828:
DURESS, noun

1. Literally, hardship; hence, constraint. Technically, duress in law, is of two kinds; duress of imprisonment, which is imprisonment or restraint of personal liberty; and duress by menaces or threats [per minas] when a person is threatened with loss of life or limb. Fear of battery is no duress. Duress then is imprisonment or threats intended to compel a person to do a legal act, as to execute a deed; or to commit an offense; in which cases the act is voidable or excusable.

2. Imprisonment; restraint of liberty.
From Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, 1856:
DURESS.

1. An actual or a threatened violence or restraint of a man's person, contrary to law, to compel him to enter into a contract, or to discharge one.

2. Sir William Blackstone divides duress into two sorts:

Duress of imprisonment, where a man actually loses his liberty. If a man be illegally deprived of his liberty until he sign and seal a bond, or the like, he may allege this duress, and avoid the bond. But, if a man be legally imprisoned, and either to procure his discharge, or on any other fair account, seal a bond or a deed, this is not by duress of imprisonment, and he is not at liberty to avoid it. Where the proceedings at, law are a mere pretext, the instrument may be avoided.

Duress per minas, which is either for fear of loss of life, or else for fear of mayhem, or loss of limb, and this must be upon a sufficient reason. In this case, a man may avoid his own act. Lord Coke enumerates four instances in which a man may avoid his own act by reason of menaces: 1st. For fear of loss of life. 2d. Of member. 3d. Of mayhem. 4th. Of imprisonment.

4. In South Carolina, duress of goods, under circumstances of great hardship, will avoid a contract.

5. In Louisiana consent to a contract is void if it be produced by violence or threats, and the contract is invalid.

6. It is not every degree of violence or any kind of threats, that will invalidate a contract; they must be such as would naturally operate on a person of ordinary firmness, and inspire a just fear of great injury to person, reputation or fortune. The age, sex, state of health; temper and disposition of the party, and other circumstances calculated to give greater or less effect to the violence or threats, must be taken into consideration.

7. A contract by violence or threats, is void, although the party in whose favor the contract is made, and not exercise the violence or make the threats, and although he were ignorant of them.

8. Violence or threats are cause of nullity, not only where they are exercised on the contracting party, but when the wife, the husband, the descendants or ascendants of the party are the object of them.

9. If the violence used be only a legal constraint, or the threats only of doing that which the party using them had a right to do, they shall not invalidate the contract. A just and legal imprisonment, or threats of any measure authorized by law, and the circumstances of the case, are of this description.

10. But the mere forms of law to cover coercive proceedings for an unjust and illegal cause, if used or threatened in order to procure the assent to a contract, will invalidate it; an arrest without cause of action, or a demand of bail in an unreasonable sum, or threat of such proceeding, by this rule invalidate a contract made under their pressure.

11. All the above, articles relate to cases where there may be some other motive besides the violence or threats for making the contract. When, however, there is no other cause for making the contract, any threats, even of slight injury, will invalidate it.
In other words, there is no duress present if there is not sufficient proof (clear and present danger) that you will:
1. Lose your life
2. Lose a limb
3. Be imprisoned
4. Be subjected to mayhem (Violence causing you to be less able to defend yourself, i.e. depriving you of use of fingers, hands or eyesight)

Any acceptance of a privilege and/or benefit negates any claim of “duress” or involuntariness. There is no involuntary slavery or servitude if consent is present. And there is nothing in the 13th amendment that prohibits people from consenting to becoming bondservants of Caesar [STATE], or becoming bondservants of YHWH.

“Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.” 1 Corinthians 7:23

So, yes Publeus, I agree that slavery still takes place today, and will continue as long as people consent. BTW, just out of curiosity, is your username indicative of a federalist ideology?
Last edited by notmartha on Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Publeus
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:36 pm

Re: SLAVERY

Post by Publeus » Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:07 pm

--- Publeus, in one form or another, has a very long history. I have studied The Federalist, a bit, and the Antifeds. Spin!

--- Consent.............. Surely an unspoken/unsigned contract. While my parents may have made the agreement for me at birth, I certainly did not accept the terms. A contract agreed upon by proxy before the age of Consent is null and void at maturity. Clearly, most prisoners/slaves don't consent. Besides, if you can sign them away, they're obviously not rights; they're privileges. That is the basis of the problem. "... inalienable rights ..." should be more than clever and deceptive marketing. Look at all of our Gulags. We cage the most people, and sell their services. Legal slavery, and now, with the concentration camps full of immigrants, business is really booming. The 13th didn't change the behavior; only the name of the atrocity, as is standard in business when a name or title becomes too sullied.

--- Obviously, this is all academic, as the Constitution has been through a lot (What ... fourth version now? Questionable Amendments? Thousands of violations?). It has finally been suspended in most of the country with the implementation of the 'Constitution Free Zones' that have steadily merged, especially with the authorization of the Central American trucks to enter the country, thus converting every truck stop into an 'International Port' with a one hundred mile zone around it. The overlaps of all of the ports (air, water, land) combined with the one hundred mile zone within the borders has swamped the U.S. There is no Constitution here. No Law. No Bill of Rights. No Office of the President. No Legislature. (Technically. As they say, if it's not on paper, it's not real. If it's on paper, it's real, regardless of the reality.) We never were a real Constitutional Democracy, anyway. We were never meant to be. "It's a Republic, if you can keep it." Ben Franklin

................. We could not ..............

--- I just find it interesting that people point to the 13th as if............ Uninformed consent, achieved through fine print, word play, or general trickery, especially on behalf of others, seems the greatest danger. We know not what we do. Now, to even mention or question the issue invites an accusation of 'Constitutionalist!" The fact that such is considered subversive say's it all. We are Empire now, subject to a private contract. 'By using this service you agree to the terms ...' Walmart has more authority on the ground than the Feds do. Verizon endangers our freedom more than any nation. Facebook makes servitude trendy. To force compliance by requiring mandatory services and products to merely survive is blatant duress.True Government is to operate at a loss, in the provision of services, paid for by taxes. Business abhors a loss. Corporations don't provide governance, or working society. Corporations destroy societies, as the vine consumes the tree. That is the importance of regulation. What good is a car with no brakes? It's only self destructive.

--- Business Rule 1 ... Supply and demand.

--- Business Rule 2 ... Limit the supply to increase the demand.

--- This is how we rule. This is why we enslave each other. Slaves, by their nature, lower the acceptable wage. and conditions. Nothing personal, strictly business. Perfectly Legal. All of it under the threat of a gun. Consent by duress.

................ Hail Caesar !!! .................
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: SLAVERY

Post by notmartha » Sat Oct 17, 2015 12:51 pm

Publeus wrote: --- Consent.............. Surely an unspoken/unsigned contract. While my parents may have made the agreement for me at birth, I certainly did not accept the terms. A contract agreed upon by proxy before the age of Consent is null and void at maturity. Clearly, most prisoners/slaves don't consent. Besides, if you can sign them away, they're obviously not rights; they're privileges. That is the basis of the problem. "... inalienable rights ..." should be more than clever and deceptive marketing.
I posted about consent HERE. Yes, the consent given on a child's behalf is void, that is until the child becomes of age and animates the contract by his actions. You can revoke the consent - "it was a mistake"..."I call fraud"..."I was under duress". But then you can't partake of the benefits resulting from the consent.

“Rights” is a term of art in and of itself. Natural, civil, political, inalienable, unalienable, public, private, absolute, qualified, legal, equitable, etc. are all different rights and so are their origins. The law you depose will determine to a large extent what rights you have to hold. All rights are revocable by the creator of those rights.

Those who depose their Law as the Law of God have rights, aka duties, given to them by God and are alienable by Him.

Some depose their law as the “Organic Laws” including the unanimous Declaration which recognizes unalienable rights:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
And then there are those who depose the U.S. Constitution with all its amendments as their law, claiming inalienable rights, such as the political rights mentioned in FDR’s January 11, 1944 State of the Union Address:
“This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights--among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however--as our industrial economy expanded--these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.”
Unalienable is “the state of a thing or right which cannot be sold. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.” (Bouvier’s 1856)

Inalienable “is applied to those things, the property of which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are of this kind; there are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty, or of speech.” (Bouvier’s 1856)

There is nothing prohibiting people from waiving their rights, or converting their rights to privileges in exchange for some benefit. They just can’t sell or transfer their rights to others. And if you are part of the body politic that deposes the US Constitution as your law, your "civil" rights can be taken away via the 14th amendment "due process clause".

"
Publeus wrote:................ Hail Caesar !!! .................
Nope, I do not consent. :lol:

I'll respond to other points when I have more time.

From here down was added 10-20
Publeus wrote: --- Obviously, this is all academic, as the Constitution has been through a lot (What ... fourth version now? Questionable Amendments? Thousands of violations?). It has finally been suspended in most of the country with the implementation of the 'Constitution Free Zones' that have steadily merged, especially with the authorization of the Central American trucks to enter the country, thus converting every truck stop into an 'International Port' with a one hundred mile zone around it. The overlaps of all of the ports (air, water, land) combined with the one hundred mile zone within the borders has swamped the U.S. There is no Constitution here. No Law. No Bill of Rights. No Office of the President. No Legislature. (Technically. As they say, if it's not on paper, it's not real. If it's on paper, it's real, regardless of the reality.) We never were a real Constitutional Democracy, anyway. We were never meant to be. "It's a Republic, if you can keep it." Ben Franklin

................. We could not ..............
Yep, on the Federal Plane there is no rule of law, just “public policy’, the result of the merging of Common Law and Equity. It is all about State protecting its interests, and well…if you lose a right or two in the process, so be it.. A good reason to stay out of the Federal Plane, yes?
Publeus wrote: --- I just find it interesting that people point to the 13th as if............ Uninformed consent, achieved through fine print, word play, or general trickery, especially on behalf of others, seems the greatest danger. We know not what we do. Now, to even mention or question the issue invites an accusation of 'Constitutionalist!" The fact that such is considered subversive say's it all. We are Empire now, subject to a private contract. 'By using this service you agree to the terms ...' Walmart has more authority on the ground than the Feds do. Verizon endangers our freedom more than any nation. Facebook makes servitude trendy. To force compliance by requiring mandatory services and products to merely survive is blatant duress.True Government is to operate at a loss, in the provision of services, paid for by taxes. Business abhors a loss. Corporations don't provide governance, or working society. Corporations destroy societies, as the vine consumes the tree. That is the importance of regulation. What good is a car with no brakes? It's only self destructive.
I don’t know about consent being the greatest danger; I think the greatest danger is probably apathy. Very few people desire truth, for then they may have to change something. But surely you’d agree that State dangles its dainties to ensnare us into consenting to partaking of its corporate society. And because people devour the dainties, whether through will or ignorance, the corporation continues to rise, rise, rise up. Fascism at its finest. Those perpetrating the fascism, as well as those consenting to it, will suffer the same punishment. Those not consenting will likely suffer too, but it is better to suffer every wrong, than to consent to it. I pray as David, “Incline not my heart to any evil thing, to practice wicked works with men that work iniquity: and let me not eat of their dainties.” Psalm 141:4
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: SLAVERY

Post by notmartha » Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:19 am

49% Of Americans Now Support Slavery…As Long As It’s Slavery To The American Military Industrial Complex

http://www.firebreathingchristian.com/archives/16121
"Who owns you?

Does the American State own you or do you own you?

According to most American Christians, particularly those of a self-identified conservative bent, if you are an able-bodied male within a certain age range (which is always adjustable according to the "needs"/whims/desires of The State, of course), the American State owns you. If you are an able-bodied male within certrain parameters (which are always adjustable, of course), the American state has the "right" to take possession of you as its property to use you as it sees fit in its various military adventures, compelling you to serve in its ginormous, globe-spanning military featuring a lesbian general and a new navy vessel proudly named after a gay rapist.

God bless 'Merica!"
This is how we opened an article back in August of 2016 entitled Biblical Freedom vs. State Compulsion in Military Service (Or: Why the draft is evil).

This becomes relevant and revisit-worthy today thanks to a recently published survey in which 49% of Americans now favor compulsory (as in: the antithesis of freedom) military service.

Yay "land of the free"!

The article, as shared at ZeroHedge, included the following insights as to the increasingly pro-compulsion, anti-freedom attitude of most Americans (well done, public schools! Look what generations mindless recitation of a Socialist-written Pledge of Allegiance can accomplish!):
"Nearly half of Americans favor mandatory military service for the country’s youth, according to a recent poll from Gallup.

As TheAntiMedia's Carey Wedler details, the polling organization surveyed 1,006 Americans over the age of 18 between November 3 and November 4, and 49% of those questioned expressed support for compulsory service.

Further, “a majority of Republicans, including independents who lean Republican, favor it (57%), as do men (57%) and those 65 or older (66%),” Gallup summarized.

Gallup noted that efforts to actually impose such a policy - such House Rep. Charles Rangel’s repeated attempts between 2003 and 2015 to mandate it through legislation - have fallen flat.

Americans’ preferences for a traditional draft have fluctuated over the decades. Gallup explained:
A majority of Americans (54%) in 1977 favored sticking to a volunteer force, but two 1980 surveys showed a majority wanting to return to a military draft. Eventually, most Americans endorsed the all-volunteer concept, with five polls conducted between 1998 and 2007 showing majorities from 69% to 85% rejecting a return to the draft.
The draft was a powerful point of contention during the divisive Vietnam War, prompting many of those selected to fight to burn their draft cards in protest.

In Gallup’s poll idea of forcing young people to serve a mandatory year in the armed forces - as opposed to a draft - was unsurprisingly least popular among young people.

Four in ten favored the proposition, however, marking a significant portion of those who would potentially be affected but still wanted to see it enacted.
While Americans today are not overwhelmingly in favor of it, neither are they overwhelmingly opposed,” Gallup observed.
Militarism has long been a core element of American identity, as evidenced by millions of Americans’ stalwart devotion to and respect for soldiers. Though it currently remains unlikely that mandatory service will be implemented, that half the country would support it reflects this value system . . . "
Which seems like a good point to continue revisiting our post from last summer, picking up where we left off above:
"God bless 'Merica!

And if you don't think [compulsory slavery to the military industrial complex] is a good and right and awesomely patriotic deal, then you are a Bad American.

You oughta be ashamed of yourself! (Wait, what's "shame" again?)

Maybe you oughta move to North Korea or Canada or something.

Love it or leave it, don'tcha know!

This is the vibe that has rolled over our culture and coagulated to form the "land of the free" and the home of the NSA that we see today.

We think we're free, we sing about our freedom, we take pledges to the Almighty, Indivisible State that "protects" our freedoms, and we get all uppity with anyone who says anything about how we're not really very free at all and are getting less free by the second.

Newsflash: We can't even own a home in America!

And now, thanks to things like the draft (for men and soon women, too), we don't even own ourselves.

The American State owns everything...and everyone, including our sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers and fathers.

And "American Christians" are, by and large, pretty much fine with that.

One of the few things creepier and more disgusting than the thought of either President Hillary or President Donald (or whichever even worse "lesser evil" comes along after them) deciding to reinstitute that "treasured tradition" of America claiming ownership of its able-bodied males for use in its perpetual war machine via the draft is that most professing Christians just go right along with it, and happily so.

That's how completely programmed we've become as a people.

That's how completely we've been converted to the religion of Statism in practice here in America (all while claiming Christianity with our lips, of course).

So it is that Spirit-filled, biblically grounded Christians in America need to be bracing for some very specific storms that are likely to come soon - storms that will almost certainly include the American State seeking once again to claim full blown ownership over people, forcing them into the service (a practice known as "slavery") of a godless, dying empire with the full, proud, and vocal support of most professing Christians in the land.

As their worldviews exist now, many of these professing Christians are very likely to be cheerleading (or otherwise enabling) the American State's confiscation and bondage of people via the draft if and when that system is re-launched in the coming years, so we need to be ready to confront and correct these professing believers right now with the Word of God as we have the opportunity in the days before the greater storms of Statism arrive.

To that end, I want to share an excellent article entitled The Bible and the Draft by John W. Robbins.

Here are some excerpts (with bold emphasis added):
"The federal government is again contemplating the conscription of young people for both military and civilian labor. The liberals are supporting “national service,” i.e. they advocate forcing young people to spend two or more years of their lives in some sort of “public service”-including, but not limited to, the military; and the conservatives are supporting the military draft, i.e., forcing people to serve in the armed forces. The liberals’ position is consistent with their other positions favoring unlimited government. The conservatives’ position seems to be inconsistent with their usually limited government views. What is the Christian position? Can the consistent Christian favor either the draft or national service?

Unlike either the conservative or the liberal, the Christian must derive his views on the morality of the draft and national service solely from Scripture, not from any theory of natural law or general notion of justice, but from the propositions and commands written in the Bible. The Christian position on the draft-as on all moral and theological questions-is based upon the principle of sola Scriptura, the Bible as the only and as the final authority."
There's that pesky sola Scriptura thing...always causing trouble, that...

The article continues:
"The first of the many verses that are pertinent to a discussion of the draft and national service is the Eighth Commandment prohibiting theft. Two common misconceptions must be eliminated if we are to understand the meaning of this Commandment. First, the Commandment does not refer only to inanimate property. The Hebrew word is used in connection with both property and persons, and in Exodus 21:16 we read of “manstealing,” i.e., kidnapping, which is a capital crime. This commandment clearly forbids not only the theft of property, but also the removal of innocent persons against their will.

The second misconception is that the Ten Commandments, including this one, apply only to private individuals and not to governments. This notion, which has absolutely no foundation in Scripture, illustrates how far we have gone toward deifying government, for it is attributing divine qualities to rulers to say that they in their official (or private) capacities are exempt from the law. The Commandments, as both the Bible and the Westminster Confession say, bind all men without exception. Rulers and governments are commanded not to steal, murder, covet, lie, or do any other act prohibited in the moral law. Zacchaeus the tax collector stole from the people, and upon his regeneration he recognized his subordination to the moral law. King Ahab broke the Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Commandments in desiring and taking Naboth’s vineyard. John the Baptist in Luke 3:14 specifically applied the moral law to an agent of the government. There is not the slightest hint in Scripture that governments are above the moral law. And that moral law, as we have already seen, includes a prohibition on manstealing. Yet what are national service and the draft if they are not manstealing? There is no moral distinction between the actions of a private individual who kidnaps a person and a government that drafts its subjects under color of law. Both actions are clear violations of the Eighth Commandment."
The article continues in examination of various Old and New Testament passages (including those in the Old Testament that some use to try to justify compulsory military service), before closing as follows:
"Compulsory military service does not merely bring a danger of militarism; it is militarism. To adopt it in this country would mean that no matter how this war results we are conquered already.....

I am not arguing against preparedness..... What I am arguing against is compulsion, which I believe to be brutal and un-American in itself, and productive of a host of subsidiary evils."
Are you ready to confront and correct the gaggle of biblically illiterate, pop-culture programmed professing Christians who think the draft is just peachy (or good even)?

Are you ready to help the more seasoned, serious Christian who is just cloudy or confused on this vital issue? (After all, we're all works in progress. We all have our blind spots.)

If not, get ready.

Now.

And begin helping others to see the light on this...before they become cheerleaders for a desperate (and desperately wicked) American State as it strives to confiscate our children to feed into its unholy perpetual war machine."
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1213
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: SLAVERY

Post by Firestarter » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:39 am

Isn't it wonderful how they "abolished" slavery?
The prisoners in psychiatric "hospitals" have been forced to do slave work. I must have posted about that already...

Also the prisoners in the USA are forced into slave labour for the company Unicor. If they do not work “voluntarily”, they are put in isolation cells...
In 2012 they earned 23 cents per hour (I’ve computed that they make less than 500 dollars for 52, 40-hour work weeks).
The US Department of Defense is the biggest “employer” for the prison slave labour; companies that use them include: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Intel and TWA: http://www.alternet.org/story/151732/21 ... ison_labor


Maybe some people think that it's not wrong to make "criminals" pay back their "debt" to society by being forced to do slave labour, but a large percentage is innocent.
According to the following story in the USA some 2.2 million people are actually locked up, of which around 2 million have never been to trial. Of all federal criminal cases, less than 3% went to trial; thanks to attorneys: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/due-pr ... ved-trial/

Samuel Gross estimated that 4.1% of the people who are sentenced to death are completely innocent. Of course this means that for “normal” prisoners the rate of false convictions is even higher: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com ... -the-math/
Post Reply