[PetroniusMaximus]

What I am showing through that illustration is that even in our free society, people are not always truly "free". It is still possible to "own" part - maybe even a large part - of another person.



***(not your Marxist version)***

I think Marx would find himself much more alligned with your atheistic, materialistic philosophy than my Christianity.



****slaves ARE the property of the slaveholder.***

In the current US legal climate, are children the "property" of the state?


BTW - Are you a slave?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"What I am showing through that illustration is that even in our free society, people are not always truly "free". It is still possible to "own" part - maybe even a large part - of another person."

No, they do not *own* the other person. And in all such cases both parties freely agree to the contract.

"I think Marx would find himself much more alligned with your atheistic, materialistic philosophy than my Christianity. "

He agreed entirely with your views on slavery and capitalism. You are ideological bedfellows.


"In the current US legal climate, are children the "property" of the state?"

No. They are not.

" BTW - Are you a slave?"

No, you and your theocratic friends haven't taken over yet.