Universal Salvage Corporation

Specialists in Dying Civilizations

On Slavery


While most of us have a true image of what constitutes slavery and are against the concept and its implementation, we fail to properly apply these thoughts to our societal system.

This essay provides the definitve discussion of this situation and the resulting problems for our societies and specie.

Table of Contents

Cautionary Note on My Writing Style

My writing is probably not very good in the classic sense. Maybe even in the use of grammar, etc. And I have been accused by various publishers and journal editors of “polemic” writing. But such things are not really the issue.

What is the issue is, am I correct and right in what I say, or wrong? I ask you to think about this very carefully. As the great Leonard Reed[ 1 ] said:

Indeed, any serious student will want to read any book with care and discrimination, gleaning from it such truth as he can find, and rejecting that which to him seems false or misleading”.

Please note also that I have put the definitions and the footnotes at the end of the document so those sections can be referred to separately. I hope this is easier than looking back through the document….

Concept and Definition

Before we can talk intelligently about the subject we need to agree on definitions for the operative concepts. In this case, the main concept is “slavery” itself. What is slavery? What are its characteristics? What constitutes slavery?

When you think about the principle of the matter, it is control of the life and property of an individual. By prescribing what they may or may not do. And by controlling their property. Since, if a person does not have full and complete control over their own property they are the slave of the person who does control their property.

It is also important to bear in mind that it is only individuals that can take and be responsible for action. Not organizations. This is something everyone seems to forget.

The Nürnberg Trials were supposed to say that a person can not hide behind someone else to shield themselves from the commission of immoral acts. That was, or should have been, the basics of the decision. Whether the individuals concerned were “National Socialists’ of the German, British, American or whatever brand makes no difference in principle.

The definition of slavery I will use for the purpose of this essay is:

Control of the life and/or the property of an individual without the permission of that individual”.

Why do I mention property? Why is this important? Because the concept of property is basic to volitional or thinking life. Indeed, Galambos’ Laws, the Universal Laws of Volitional Behavior, are based on the concept of property. Those laws that describe how and why individual thinking beings act.

The First law of Volitional Behavior states that:

All thinking beings seek to acquire property”.

The First Corollary to this is:

Individual thinking being seek to acquire the most amount of property with the least amount of effort”.

“Hah!”, you say. “That confirms naked, unrestrained greed in thinking beings”. I will come to that in a moment.

Please think about these two statements. Volitional life would not even get started were these things not true. The opposite would imply complete lethargy and the inability to interact with our surroundings We would never get into the cave or climb the tree, let alone go out of the cave or come down out of the tree and start walking.

For more thoughts on this I would recommend The Territorial Imperative, by Robert Ardrey. [ 2 ]

The Second Law of Volitional Behavior states that:
Rationally thinking beings seek happiness”.

Again, please think about this. Would we get any place as a specie if we sought unhappiness? We did everything we could to be unhappy. I must admit that some times this does seem to be true, especially as regards our societal system. We bring untold misery on ourselves through this system. Famine, war, poverty, terrorism, crime, an appalling educational system, a travesty on the concept of health care amidst great advances in biology. Inflation, stagflation, depressions, recessions, etc. And, to top it off, a societal system that — in millennia of trying — has not allowed us to solve even one of these problems.

And, happily, this is the law that “regulates”[ 3 ] the apparent capacity for unrestrained greed implicit in the First Law.

While we might, and even often, think of doing something that is really not correct or right, we are usually restrained by this law. Intuitively, and more often than we realize. Because to do what we think might — in the long term, or even the short term — bring us unhappiness. Or decrease the quality of our life.

The result might only be an admonishment from a parent or teacher. It could be disappointment in the eyes of a child. Or the boss might fire you, you lose a lot of money in the deal, or might go to prison, be severely injured, or even risk death.

The result is what is called a “value judgment”. You decide whether the action might bring you more harm than good. Or bring you more or less happiness.

Time is a factor in this. Sometimes a person must do something which, in the short term, brings them unhappiness. But which will be better for long term happiness. This is good and rational judgement at its best: Thinking of the long term.

The Second Law is the “moral regulator” in a moral and rational society. As opposed to the concept of our current societal system. Which is immoral regulation in an immoral and irrational society.

Maybe I have been polemical enough for now. But I think a little thought about these laws, the concept of property, and how they effect the discussion on slavery may be helpful. Whether it is or not depends on the reader. As indicated by the statement of Leonard Reed.


What is the traditional image of a slave? To a certain extent this might depend on a person’s interests, ethnic origin, and their associated education. Someone interested in ancient history might think of something like a Roman galley slave. A person chained to the bench and oar on a galley.

A person interested in American history might think of a black person working on a plantation in the southern United States.

In both cases there might also be the image of the slave master. Which may be somewhat uniform and universal: That of a person holding and/or using a whip.

But on both cases — as in any case of slavery — what is happening is that the slave is not in total, complete control of their life. Of the activities they may perform. And whatever property they may have is also either partially or totally controlled by someone else. The slave master.


Does it really make any difference who is the slave master? If the slave master is kind and allows the slave to control their life to a certain extent? Perhaps they are only subject to the wishes of the master during the “working week&dquo;. But may have weekends to do as they wish.

And if they have some mode of transportation other than by foot? Say a horse, bicycle, or car. If they are also allowed to use these on the weekend does this make them free and not a slave?

Notice I said free, and not the relative concept of being relatively free or more free. I think it can actually be harmful to be “relatively free”. To go from being 60% a slave to being “only” 40% a slave. With the individual saying to the Master, “Oh thank you! Thank you for allowing me to be less of a slave. I am so grateful for your generosity”.

Acceptance of something that is not moral simply because it is an improvement sets a very dangerous precedent. Especially when it is accompanied by the thought that “this is for the common good”. First, an attack against the person or property of an individual is a crime. The fact that it benefits someone else does not change that.

Secondly, the “common good” represents the summation of all “individual goods”. If “individual goods” are not good, then this reduces the “common good”.

There is no difference in principle between a Stalin telling a million people they will be executed for “crimes against the state”. Or, “better” than this, be executed for the “common good” In this case it is Stalin’s definition of crime, common good, the state, and other things. And in politics it is “he who is the ruler [or the state] who makes the rules”. And the definitions. But does this make them right? And what is right? For the detailed answer to this you should read the essay on this subject. The proper definition is included in the section on definitions in this essay.

Or, there is no difference between this and being tortured in a last world [ 4 ] (or first world) prison. To thank the torturer for only using electrical shock. Instead of also pulling out the fingernails as before. “Oh thank you for your kindness”. A crime has still been committed, and less of a crime in still a crime.

A Measure of Slavery?

Is there, or can there be, a measure for slavery? Is this an effective or allowable concept? If a person is only a slave 71.4% of the time? Such as the case above, when a person was a slave 5/7 of the time. Or if we have a committee meeting and decide (perhaps 140:60, numbers that might appear in the US Senate) that if the actions and property of a person are controlled only 37.5% of the time, then they are not a slave?

This was of course by “democratic” vote, with a clear majority, so it should probably be OK, yes? You will only be chained to the oars for 63 hours during the 168 hours in a week. Clearly this is a victory for freedom? Maybe we should define “freedom” in order to continue?

The definition of freedom I prefer is:

The ability to do anything as long as such action does not result in interference in the property of another person”.

The definition of property that I prefer is that of Andrew J. Galambos, which states that property is:

Individual life and all non-procreative results thereof”.

This covers all forms of property. And also succinctly includes the concept that children are not the property of their parents.The moral situation that can exist is that parents have the temporary right to control the activities of their children until they are capable of morally discharging the responsibilities of individual volitional life. To guide them to this point. Certainly the most important function and obligation that most individuals will ever have. Further, it states that life itself is property. The property of each individual.

But slavery and freedom are mutually exclusive concepts. Being 70% or even 98% free is not the same as being free. Which, by definition, requires that a person be in total, 100% control of their life and property.

In a sense, as Galambos would say, the concepts of freedom and pregnancy bear some similarities. If someone is three months pregnant, this does not mean they are 33% pregnant. They are 100% pregnant, but have not yet completed the gestation process. If you are "only" 33% a slave you have still not attained freedom.

Slavery and Democracy

For this we need the definition of “democracy”, a much misunderstood subject. I will not go into a full discussion of the concept of democracy here, but provide only the definition and a very brief discussion of the subject.

Democracy is only a “variation on a theme” within politics, the societal system based on coercion.

In a monarchy the ruler is generally replaced only in the event of death. Either natural or otherwise. And he or she rules continuously until such an event occurs. Then another person becomes ruler. But it is of course still a society based on coercion. Perhaps the classic one. A formalization of the concept of the “tribal chief”.

Under a monarchy, as with all societies based on coercion, you do what the ruler says. And when the ruler dies, the system continues, whether it is “He the 8th” or “He the 9th”. Or a she. Sometimes they change the name to protect the guilty. There is “equal opportunity” for the ruling group depending on “political will”. The ability to control or eliminate the opposition and achieve what is best for the he who would be King. The person of the ruler. And not “the people”. That’s not really the name of the game. The usual political system.

Democracies employ the concept of “political voting” (as contrasted to moral voting)[ 5 ] to replace the ruler. Usually, although as with monarchies, the replacement can be through means other than “peaceful” ones and natural death by vote. Or by other than political voting. Sometimes — even in democracies — the people employ means other than the accepted means of voting.

But regardless of the replacement system, the system itself continues. Only the names of the guilty change. Those who descend[ 6 ] to the political leadership. The system — a system based on coercion — continues.

Then you say “Hah! I got you. The difference is that in a democracy you have a choice”. That is the big farce and deception of democracy. That you not only choose those who will control your life and property, but you also “instruct” them in how to do this. The so called “will of the people” Yes, you have a choice of sorts, but in principle — and in function and reality — it is meaningless.

You chose your representative, and they do as you say? If they do as you say, then they are obviously not doing as the other million or so people wanted them to do. Thus you — in addition to the representative — have interfered in their life and property. And, under this system, all the other individuals will do or attempt to do to your and your property.

Such a system produces a multitude of critics. Since all you can really do is complain and criticize. Unless you go to the extreme of joining those who use force. Say what you would do if only you were the ruler, etc. Which would be more of the same: Interfering in the property of others. Telling them how they must conduct their lives and use their property.

That this does not work should be clear. And that it is also immoral should also be clear. But the system brings with it another causative effect. That of “chaos”.

Every thinking being is different and unique from all others. With individual wishes and desires for happiness in life. Based on their individual concept of happiness, as alluded to in the Universal Laws of Volitional Behavior. And their individual and varying abilities to do those things that will bring them happiness.

Further, as you know, over time this changes for each individual. And sometimes in very a short time. And constantly throughout life, based on the results of that life.

Then along come the politicians and their system. They say everyone must do everything the same. Or close to that. And that everyone must be “equal”. But, please, you must remember the we — individual members of the specie Homo sapiens — were born equally under the laws of nature. Which ensure that we will not be equal to each other. For just a moment please try to imagine the horror of each of us being equal or the same as the other. We would never get started as a specie, let along be a viable specie.

When people speak of “equality&rdqo;, I think they mean “equal opportunity&rdqo;? And maybe something close to “equal economic material wealth”? Differing home and school environments, in addition to the in–born differences of individual, will ensure that from the start individuals are not equal. Even if they should all want to do the same things. The viability of a specie depends on “unequalness”.

Equal opportunity would exist in a free society, but will not exist in a societal system based on coerion. As the controllers — the politicians — tinker with their perception and definition of equality and control the lives of individuals in an attempt to create it.

On this planet there are six–plus billion people, with a myriad of varying — and often conflicting — routes to happiness. And abilities to achieve their objective and that happiness. Upon which the political system itself imposes controls that creates additional variables. And people wonder why the system does not work.

The attempt to control this system like trying to control the weather. The results is continuing and increasing societal chaos. The miracle is that the disasters of our societal structure are not even greater than they are. Never fear: They will become greater.

Does it really make any difference in principle — and to the individual — if slavery occurs in a democracy or a non democracy? Certainly not when we are discussing principles. And also their application.

Again this might come back to the question of “Is there good slavery?” Are there cases when slavery is acceptable? I think most people would say “no&rdqo;. So then it is only necessary to think about slavery and what it is. What constitutes it. Which is a major thrust of this essay. What it does to the individual and thus to the fabric of society. Then what causes this, and how to cure[ 7 ] the problem.

In principle there is no difference between a monarchy, a democracy, a dictatorship or any variation thereof. There is only a difference in style. They are all systems based on coercion. And they all practice slavery.

Degrees of Something, vs. Principles

People will often think or say that “Well, a little bit of ‘something’ is okay”. That might be acceptable when you are talking about the amount of sugar to put in your coffee. But it is not acceptable when you are talking about things that interfere with the property of another person. Such as theft, murder, etc.

Is a “little bit of murder” okay? A “little bit of genocide”? These are questions that are being asked in The Hague at the time of this writing. And were asked at the Nürnberg Trials, although perhaps not explicitly. Would the murder of “only” one Jew be okay? Or Christian, Muslim, or Atheist? Some people might say that, “… well, yes, Atheists okay. No one likes an Atheist. Trouble makers, all of them”. Even if true, does that make it okay?

Fortunately, I think most people would still say that is not OK. At least I would hope that we have not yet descended to that level. But if we do accept one single act of property interference, do you realize the two problems we encounter?

One is that such a thing is immoral. The second is that once you accept it is OK to do this, then the only remaining questions are:

And we come back to the cause of our current problems. We allow property interference because:

And we have stopped thinking that — in principle — it might not be right. So we allow it, and it increases. It is a bit like when the American constitutional amendment related to the “income tax” was being discussed. And it was, I believe, Senator Lodge, who stood up and protested. At the time a rate of 1% was proposed. And he said something to the effect that “You say it will be only 1%. But I say that some time it may rise even, goodness me, to 10%”.

And virtually everyone jumped up and said &ldqo;No, No! That is impossible, It would never reach that level”.

And of course perhaps someone in the Nazi régime never intended to murder more than 1% of the Jews. But once you permit or agree to an immoral act it is easy to increase the amount of immorality. A bit like serial killers are purported to say: “After the first one it is easier”.

And after the first transgression against freedom — and the reluctant acceptance by the victims — it becomes much easier for the perpetrator and acceptable to the victim. And when you are born into it it becomes the “norm” onto which to add yet more coercion.


If you believe that this is acceptable, that a little immorality — and a little slavery — is okay, then I have wasted my time. And the reader is wasting their life, and Homo Sapiens are coming ever closer to the point of no return. Of becoming a non viable specie, falling into the cosmic dust bin. The societal and volitional equivalent of a black hole.

Think about it. Does everything indicate we are on the right track with the societal structure we have adopted for ourselves? And that after five or ten thousand years the system really needs only just a little more tweaking?

Copyright Information

You agree that no copies of this document may made or sent, transmitted, transported or delivered to any other person or organization without prior written permission of the copyright holder and/or author of this document. Such copies may not be made by any method now known or to be discovered in the future.

If copies of this document or portions of this document are made with the permission of the copyright holder, such copies must always carry the copyright registration information on each page as is done with the original.

Carlsoncopies[ 8 ] (photocopies) may not be made of any pages of this document, except as part of the process of reviewing it for publication, or as otherwise explicitly authorized by the author.

This agreement and notice supersedes and supplants any dictates, rules, or political laws, whether existing now or created in the future. Being immoral, such instruments have no validity.


The credit for being able to think clearly, and to understand the basis for childhood concerns of a Government[ 9 ] Without End, goes to my great and wonderful teacher, Andrew J. Galambos. In addition, Dr. Galambos also introduced me to a myriad of other teachers, from Aristarchus and Archimedes to Zemansky. Anyone from whom you acquire new and useful knowledge is a teacher, whether living or long dead, as in the case of Aristarchus and Archimedes.

Some of these teachers have been mentioned by name in quotations or thoughts attributed to them in this essay.

Version History

Version 1: 2001, August 17
Version 2: 2011, Sep 7


Common Good
“The summation of all individual goods”.
Crime (general)
“Any attempted or intentional interference in the property of another individual&rdqo;.
Crime (Against Humanity)
“Any criminal act committed against an individual thinking being”.
Resolutions and hundred page documents from “international” organizations are not need for this subject.
Good (absolute)
“A subjective good that does not involve interference in the property of another individual”,
Good (subjective)
“That course of action an individual prefers”.
This does not include the moral content or the morality of the act. This is a “subjective good” and not an absolute good, as defined above.
Law (natural)
“A law of nature”.
The word natural means “of or pertaining to nature”. So any “natural law” would mean our interpretation of a law of nature which has been shown to be consistent with the way nature appears to us to “act” or “behave”.
Law (Unnatural)
“Any statement or concept which, when implemented or performed or there is an attempt to do so, would result in violation of a law of nature”.
This includes all political laws. For a full explanation of this, please read the essay “On Political Laws.”.
“Any idea which, when implemented, or any action that would not attempt to violate or contravene the laws of nature”.
“Individual life and all non`procreative derivatives thereof&rquo;.[ 10 ]
Right (in a societal sense)
“Any act that is moral”.
Notice how simple things become when you use absolute, concise, succinct definitions based on true premises, and valid and logical thought processes?
You also find that many concepts that people believe are different, if only slightly so, are actually the same.
“Control of the life and/or the property of an individual without the permission of that individual”.


  1. Leonard Reed { 1898–1983 }. This is attributed to him, and would be in character for him to say this very perceptive and correct thing.
    Return to Text
  2. The latest version seems to be The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Inquiry into the Animal Origins of Property and Nations, published by Kodansha International. ISBN 1568361440.
    Return to Text
  3. I do not like to use this word as it is favorite concept of politicians. But, I use it to illustrate a point. Moral vs. immoral regulation. Please think about it.
    Return to Text
  4. I have heard of nothing beyond the “third world” which must therefore be the “last world”. So we should speak of &lduo;last world countries&rquo; rather than “third world countries”. Might as well say it like it is…
    Return to Text
  5. Moral voting would be when a person has a choice between two or more possibilities. Or to choose something else that is not presented, or nothing. Shopping in a supermarket is representative of moral voting. You vote for a product and its supplier, for another product or supplier, or not and go elsewhere.
    Return to Text
  6. Descend is the correct direction. As a person descends to immoral activity. When they stop occupying a position of “political leadership” then they ascend to a position which is less immoral.
    Return to Text
  7. The definition of cure that I prefer is: “A total and permanent cessation of all adverse symptoms”. With credit to Galambos.
    Return to Text
  8. So named in honor of Chester Carlson, the creator of the concept of the photocopy and xerography, and the photocopy industry.
    Return to Text
  9. By which I really meant “political state&rdqo;, but did not know the difference until I met Andrew J. Galambos.
    Return to Text
  10. This is the definition created by Andrew J. Galambos, to whom I am forever and deeply grateful for thus and much other value received.
    Return to Text

Valid XHTML 1.0!

On Twitter I am ATwwmorgan
If you want to send the Webmaster a message, copy and paste the following URL (the characters between the angle brackets) into your browser window, then hit "return" or "enter." This is to help prevent the mail server from being used by spammers…

℗ Prototype 1972–∞ — Andrew J. Galambos — All Rights Reserved
© Copyright 2006–∞ — William W Morgan — All Rights Reserved.