This is actually the same logic anti-abolitionists used prior to and during the American Civil War: "we're providing them a service! We're giving them food and shelter and sometimes even wages, which is more than they could attain on their own." (The parenthetical after that quote, of course, is the subtext that this is true because African-Americans were literally incapable of being self-sufficient. America was racist.)
Still, I feel like your comment is a gross mischaracterization of exactly what slavery was.
Who is truly, a slave? The one that works in crap conditions because if he don't he will get deported, or the one that although he could not quit (unless he was abused, the law allowed it in those cases) he had anything he might need because the law said so?
You're equivocating the need to work to live with being legally considered a piece of property owned by another human being. These are unconscionable differences: maybe from not an economic perspective, but from a human perspective.
Slaves could be killed in the same way you could throw your computer out the window if you're frustrated.
I gave a example, a specific one, of urban slavery in Brazil, that was tightly regulated, as a example of why labelling a word, does not always work.
Yes, I know how plantation slavery worked in the US, but it is a different animal, that worked in a different way.
Brazil for example do not had this widespread racism, because most of the middle class population was black anyway, data found from some cities in Brazil northwest (like Recife) show that 70% of the middle class was black, most of them ex-slaves that earned enough money to not only buy themselves from their owners, but also to have their own business.
It is a different context...
I am trying to say that you cannot go by absolutes.
Brazil even made a attempt at that legally, here we have laws against "work conditions analogous to slavery" that have nothing to do with slavery, and more to do with employee abuse, unfortunately even those laws are kinda broken and sometimes punish those it is supposed to protect.
Also in US itself slavery is legal for punishment (the article that abolishes slavery in the US, says that it is forbidden except for legal punishment, and currently you can hire a private prison to have their workers be forced to do your work, classic literal slavery... is that evil? or people should be obliged to work to pay for their cost to the state?)
slavery do not always mean that you can kill someone.
Many times in history when slavery was legal, it was forbidden to kill the slave, in fact when slavery is NOT legal that this is more frequent (for example here in Brazil, I already did some research on present day slavery, and here most slaves end dead, usually killed after they are not useful anymore, so that they don't tell the police about the slave owner).
I think that yes, being allowed to arbitrarily kill anyone (pay attention to arbitrarily) is evil, this applies to US drone strikes. But arbitrariety is not evil, neither is kill someone, the combination of them that might be.
Would you be allowed to make your slave eat off the floor because he/she did not work fast enough or refused to perform a sexual favor for you?
Would a slave be able to terminate the arrangement under some conditions?
If the slave believes that they are being treated in a way that violates the slavery regulations do they have a right to bring charges against their master, do they have a right to legal council (if so , who pays)?
What about offspring of the slave, can the master decide who the slave will breed with (if at all). Do the offspring of the slave become property of the master?
Still, I feel like your comment is a gross mischaracterization of exactly what slavery was.
Who is truly, a slave? The one that works in crap conditions because if he don't he will get deported, or the one that although he could not quit (unless he was abused, the law allowed it in those cases) he had anything he might need because the law said so?
You're equivocating the need to work to live with being legally considered a piece of property owned by another human being. These are unconscionable differences: maybe from not an economic perspective, but from a human perspective.
Slaves could be killed in the same way you could throw your computer out the window if you're frustrated.