Egalitarian faction doesn't care that I have slaves, but won't let me control them

[Tacticus101]

You're still assuming what you're attempting to prove; it's not a useful way to make a case. Why should Egalitarian apply to all sapients?

Because thats what Egalitarian is. The description for Fanatic Egalitarian is:

Beware always those who would be despots, under the false presumption that their desires and agendas are somehow more imperative than those of their fellows. A society that does not see to the needs and rights of all of its members is not a society - it is a crime.


In general that applies univerally. In the specific case of Xenophobes, Aliens/Foreigners/Barbarians are seen as less sapient and therefore not part of society in the same way. That does not mean they have no rights or protections. Indeed, Slaves would often be in similar positions as Women and Children in a household, legally 'owned' by the master of the house but still with their own rights, specific freedoms (like religion) and part of the household. A quote when Athens evacuated once wasto : "save themselves, their women, children, and slaves".

This also fits in the (non-fanatic) Egalitarian description:

Any society that does not embrace equality between its members - where an individual can rise to any position with enough hard work - is not only deeply unfair, but ultimately counterproductive.

Slaves may not be regarded as members of society, but the sentiment of rewarding hard work and allowing a Slave to gain their freedom pervades an Egalitarian veiwpoint. That has been one of the common concepts in Egalitarian societies historically.


Not to mention, we are not refering to an Egalitarian nations ability to select those policies. We are discussing the reaction of members of an Egalitarian faction. Your empire can allow resettlement if they want, it will just annoy the hardcore Egalitarians in the progressive faction, who place more emphasis on their Egalitarian principles than their Xenophobic ones.

 

[LeonOfOddecca]

I really didn't expect disagreement on this point. It's pretty clear to me and to a number of other people writing in this thread, that the devs simply neglected to think through the change of allowing egalitarian faction to condone slavery (or if they did think it through, they didn't follow through with all the necessary changes). Allowing egalitarians to have slaves without an opinion hit from the egalitarian faction isn't so much a decision based on of lore and political philosophy, but symmetry in game play. The point of allowing egalitarian faction to condone slavery is to make an egalitarian / xenophobic playstyle viable. By having the egalitarian faction disapprove of the relocation and population control of slaves, that playstyle is hamstrung.

Conceptually speaking, the kind of egalitarianism that is compatible with xenophobia and discrimination towards xenos, is the view that all members of society have equal rights, but all bets are off when it comes to non-members.

Of course, it does not *have* to be this way. We could construe egalitarianism as the view that all sentient beings should be treated equally, not just members of our society. That's totally fair game. However, if you're going to construe egalitarianism in this way, then what right does an egalitarian society have in enslaving a species? Enslaving a species, forcing them to work in your mines for no pay, having them be cannon fodder in battles, slaughtering them for food, all of these things are much more harmful and a much greater violation of a sentient being's natural rights than forcing them to live on a particular planet or determining whether they can procreate and migrate. I really don't get how anyone can think that forcing a slave to live on a particular planet violates the egalitarian ethic, but having slaves in the first place does not. Sure, I get the idea that some societies are nicer to their slaves than others, but that's because lots of actual societies are hypocritical. They want to see themselves as compassionate, even though they allow slavery. That is not a consistent ethical position, and certainly not a form of egalitarianism.

 

[AlanC9]

Because thats what Egalitarian is. The description for Fanatic Egalitarian is:

Beware always those who would be despots, under the false presumption that their desires and agendas are somehow more imperative than those of their fellows. A society that does not see to the needs and rights of all of its members is not a society - it is a crime.


In general that applies univerally. In the specific case of Xenophobes, Aliens/Foreigners/Barbarians are seen as less sapient and therefore not part of society in the same way. That does not mean they have no rights or protections. Indeed, Slaves would often be in similar positions as Women and Children in a household, legally 'owned' by the master of the house but still with their own rights, specific freedoms (like religion) and part of the household. A quote when Athens evacuated once wasto : "save themselves, their women, children, and slaves"..

You're not actually making an argument here. Remember, you're taking the position that an egalitarian faction must grant rights to noncitizens. Whether an egalitarian faction may grant such rights is of no relevance.

Unless you're trying to lay down a smokescreen here? While nobody's actually arguing that egalitarians haven't often assigned rights to noncitizens, pretending that they are making that case does make your position sound more plausible. If so, well played.

 

[Dustman]

Heh, playing as Shared Burden Mechanist yesterday found that robot can't be resettled as well. So piece of machinery == sentient slave according to PDX. Will fire a bug report later tonight.

 

[LeonOfOddecca]

Heh, playing as Shared Burden Mechanist yesterday found that robot can't be resettled as well. So piece of machinery == sentient slave according to PDX. Will fire a bug report later tonight.

They actually can. At first I thought they couldn't, but I had the wrong AI policy set. Make sure they're not considered citizens. One caveat is that I'm playing on 2.2.4 so if you're still on 2.2.3 that might be why.

 

[YertyL]

Because thats what Egalitarian is. The description for Fanatic Egalitarian is:

Beware always those who would be despots, under the false presumption that their desires and agendas are somehow more imperative than those of their fellows. A society that does not see to the needs and rights of all of its members is not a society - it is a crime.


In general that applies univerally. (...)

The important part in this definition is "its members". If you want to go with this extremely general "care about the feelings of all sentient life forms" interpretation, you might as well role egalitarians, xenophiles, materialists (because which egalitarian would deny rights to a sentient machine?) and pacifists (because which egalitarian would want to subjugate others by violent means) into one and rename them "the good guys". Perhaps you would be forced to switch to the "social welfare" policy as well? I do not see how that improves things.

Indeed, Slaves would often be in similar positions as Women and Children in a household, legally 'owned' by the master of the house but still with their own rights, specific freedoms (like religion) and part of the household. A quote when Athens evacuated once wasto : "save themselves, their women, children, and slaves"

Let me give a few quotes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece:
"Athenian slaves were the property of their master (or of the state), who could dispose of them as he saw fit. He could give, sell, rent, or bequeath them. A slave could have a spouse and child, but the slave family was not recognized by the state, and the master could scatter the family members at any time."
"The sons of vanquished foes would be enslaved and often forced to work in male brothels"
"Modern historiographical practice distinguishes between chattel slavery (personal possession, where the slave was regarded as a piece of property as opposed to a mobile member of society) versus land-bonded groups such as the penestae of Thessaly or the Spartan helots, who were more like medieval serfs (an enhancement to real estate)."

Does that sound like freedom in reproduction and migration to you? It sounds far more like the position pets are in today to me. The idea of "owning" a person, but not being able to tell them where to go -- in particular, to not just go home -- is just silly in principle.
The only argument in favor I would see is that in an egalitarian society, the owner, but not the state, decide on reproduction and migration, which is expressed by your inability to do it. That seems difficult to implement gameplay-wise though, as then migrating pops of your species would need to take "their" pops with them. And of course "migration" could also mean buying and reselling, which the state can do, so...yeah, it is difficult for me to make a point in favor.

 

[zukodark]

They should just make resettlement always possible for slaves.

 

[Flame13223]

They should just make resettlement always possible for slaves.

Or make it always possible for everyone...it used to be available for everyone in 2.2 thanks to a bug and I still am mad they "fixed" that bug.

 

[Zergor]

They should just make resettlement always possible for slaves.

That seem the most logical solution and it solves the problem of equalitarian/xenophobe.

 

[Tacticus101]

You're not actually making an argument here. Remember, you're taking the position that an egalitarian faction must grant rights to noncitizens. Whether an egalitarian faction may grant such rights is of no relevance.

No, i am taking the position that the Progressive (Egalitarian guiding Ethics) faction prefers to grant basic rights to its non-citzens. You are not forced to grant the non-citzens their rights, there is no must, the faction is simply happier if you do. If you want to allow resettlement its -10% faction happiness, which is not a major penalty.

Specifically we are refering to a faction with the description: "Progressive Factions desire the advancement of individual rights and representative forms of government."

The important part in this definition is "its members". If you want to go with this extremely general "care about the feelings of all sentient life forms" interpretation, you might as well role egalitarians, xenophiles, materialists (because which egalitarian would deny rights to a sentient machine?) and pacifists (because which egalitarian would want to subjugate others by violent means) into one and rename them "the good guys". Perhaps you would be forced to switch to the "social welfare" policy as well? I do not see how that improves things.

Im not sure why you put "care about the feelings of all sentient life forms" in quotations, given it isnt a quote or even a paraphrase of what i have said. Pretty sure i havent even mentioned 'feelings' or 'sentient' or anything similar really. You knocked down that straw man quite effectively though.

Let me give a few quotes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Greece:
"Athenian slaves were the property of their master (or of the state), who could dispose of them as he saw fit. He could give, sell, rent, or bequeath them. A slave could have a spouse and child, but the slave family was not recognized by the state, and the master could scatter the family members at any time."
"The sons of vanquished foes would be enslaved and often forced to work in male brothels"
"Modern historiographical practice distinguishes between chattel slavery (personal possession, where the slave was regarded as a piece of property as opposed to a mobile member of society) versus land-bonded groups such as the penestae of Thessaly or the Spartan helots, who were more like medieval serfs (an enhancement to real estate)."

Does that sound like freedom in reproduction and migration to you? It sounds far more like the position pets are in today to me. The idea of "owning" a person, but not being able to tell them where to go -- in particular, to not just go home -- is just silly in principle.
The only argument in favor I would see is that in an egalitarian society, the owner, but not the state, decide on reproduction and migration, which is expressed by your inability to do it. That seems difficult to implement gameplay-wise though, as then migrating pops of your species would need to take "their" pops with them. And of course "migration" could also mean buying and reselling, which the state can do, so...yeah, it is difficult for me to make a point in favor.

Firstly, selectively quoting your own link is a bit strange. Things like "Athens also had a law forbidding the striking of slaves" or "not even the most worthless slave can be put to death without trial. the master's power over his slave was not absolute. Draco's law apparently punished with death the murder of a slave". Seem more relevent when talking about whether slaves have rights.

Secondly, your own quote demonstrates that Athenian slaves could reproduce freely, just that they were still slaves and could be split up and sold if a master wanted. That is nothing to do with reproductive freedom.

Thirdly, i dont know why you bring up migration. The Progressive faction does not mind slaves under migration controls, its just having resettlement allowed that they dislike.

 

[AlanC9]

No, i am taking the position that the Progressive (Egalitarian guiding Ethics) faction prefers to grant basic rights to its non-citzens. You are not forced to grant the non-citzens their rights, there is no must, the faction is simply happier if you do. If you want to allow resettlement its -10% faction happiness, which is not a major penalty..

That's clearer, but not quite true. You're actually arguing that an Egalitarian faction ought to prefer granting basic rights to non-citizens. What Stellaris factions do in practice is not in dispute here, since AFAIK nobody's actually failing to read the interface correctly. The question is whether this is a good design or not.

I don't see why the faction description is of any interest. If the design is bad, then whether or not the description is accurate for the bad design is not going to change that judgement. It just means that the design is consistently bad.

As for why it's a bad design, the argument is that it's a bad design because it builds normative content into the faction structure which penalizes some society designs while doing nothing useful in return. Building a judgement into the Egalitarian ethos about how non-citizens are to be treated has no upside.