Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="David Argall" data-source="post: 468789" data-attributes="member: 4481">Supply and demand&quot;Apparently in Smith's times slaves were treated better in those colonies where the governors were appointed by absolute royal governments (eg France) than in those more democratic (ie. British and Dutch) colonies in which the governors were in part answerable to the slave-owners. That seems fairly obvious once someone points it out. Smith also claims that Roman slaves were better protected by the law under the Empire than under the Republic.&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp; This was more a function of the supply of slaves.&nbsp; In the case of Rome, the republic featured an expanding Rome, and an expanding number of captive slaves, which mean you could cheaply replace any you killed or abused.&nbsp; The empire featured a stable to declining size and a declining number of slaves, which meant you really got hit in the wallet when your slave died, which meant you were lots nicer to them.&nbsp;&nbsp; Royal governors were often more pro-slaves, but this was an incidental.&nbsp; They simply had a master to please who was not as pro-slaver as the slave-owners wanted.&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;So perhaps we ought to expect more laws to protect slaves in the lawful societies than in chaotic ones.&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp; Lawful societies have more laws on everything than chaotic ones, and in general&nbsp; more slaves as well.&nbsp; Laws protecting the slave should be a function of Good vs Evil.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="David Argall, post: 468789, member: 4481"] [b]Supply and demand[/b] "Apparently in Smith's times slaves were treated better in those colonies where the governors were appointed by absolute royal governments (eg France) than in those more democratic (ie. British and Dutch) colonies in which the governors were in part answerable to the slave-owners. That seems fairly obvious once someone points it out. Smith also claims that Roman slaves were better protected by the law under the Empire than under the Republic." This was more a function of the supply of slaves. In the case of Rome, the republic featured an expanding Rome, and an expanding number of captive slaves, which mean you could cheaply replace any you killed or abused. The empire featured a stable to declining size and a declining number of slaves, which meant you really got hit in the wallet when your slave died, which meant you were lots nicer to them. Royal governors were often more pro-slaves, but this was an incidental. They simply had a master to please who was not as pro-slaver as the slave-owners wanted. "So perhaps we ought to expect more laws to protect slaves in the lawful societies than in chaotic ones." Lawful societies have more laws on everything than chaotic ones, and in general more slaves as well. Laws protecting the slave should be a function of Good vs Evil. [/QUOTE]

Verification