Guest post: Usury and chattel slavery
January 21, 2015 § 13 Comments
The usurer says, Care for my property and pay me for the opportunity. Keep it intact. Make good every loss and return to me an increase which you by your energy and effort may produce.
…
Not only does financial slavery exact more labor for the amount invested, but it is more heartless than chattel bondage. The master had a personal interest in the slave he bought. His health and strength was an object of his care and his death a great loss. There was also often a mutual affection developed, as is sometimes found between a man and his horse or affectionate dog. There was sometimes real unfeigned mutual love. The master had a tender care over his slaves in their sickness and in their decrepit age, and sorrowed at their graves. The slaves were inconsolable in their grief at the death of their master.
The usurer has no personal interest in his slave. He has no care for his health or his life; they are of no interest to him. He may live in a distant state and has no anxiety about those who serve him. Their personal ills give him no concern.
…
Many faithful, industrial and honest borrowers are unable to return the loan. It is as difficult to retain property as it is to earn it. New inventions, new processes, new methods, new legislation and the changing fashions and customs, often sweep property from the shrewd and careful. “Riches make themselves wings; they fly away.” If for any cause the borrower fails there is scant sympathy from the usurer.
Usury: a Scriptural, Ethical, and Economic View, Calvin Elliott (1902)
This is not an argument against usury, but against capitalism itself.
Plus, of course, I am in favor of chattel slavery
[…] Source: Zippy Catholic […]
If for any cause the borrower fails there is scant sympathy from the usurer.
One could say the Mafia runs on this principle (along with the threats).
Folks who think that have not read the Usury FAQ.
This is not an argument against usury, but against capitalism itself.
Well yes. Capitalism is state sponsored usury.
ISE:
Eliminating usury would have very little direct effect on business finance, since most business finance is non recourse (and thus non usurious).
Consumer is another matter.
[…] Usury and chattel slavery. […]
[…] now this is modern slavery […]
[…] and comprehensively involved in selectively enforcing mostly involuntary contract terms on debt slaves. Economic freedom means turning people into property. A scientific approach to economics means […]
[…] form of treating persons as property is chattel slavery. (Some authors beg to differ, seeing usury as worse, and the argument has some merit). Usury is in the same moral genus as […]
[…] be different things, with the notable – but at least clearly delineated – exception of economic chattel slavery, not to be confused with […]
Many slave owners had thousands of slaves and knew not at all most. Many small bankers or well intending family members make usurious loans to people very dear to them.
This isn’t to defend usury, just to attack strawman arguements.
PHG Long,
What is the straw man argument here? Zippy has written a lot regarding the fact that one of the awful things about modernity is that people – literally – have no idea what usury even is. They are committing acts of evil against, as you mention, their loved ones as the case may be without realizing it.