[danans]

> For example, if rights were invented by the government, there would be nothing about slavery that was wrong.

Slavery (or it's near equivalent: peasantry) was not considered unnatural for the vast majority of human history, really up until modern era. As horrible as it was, it was also the basis of many feudal economies the world over, and it probably powered societies through the dawn of agriculture, so at least 10k years. Prior to that, hunter gatherer groups also raised other groups and took slaves.

Industrialization had more to do with slavery's eventual decline than any idea that it was unnatural.

This is reflected in the areas where it ended earlier due to earlier industrialization (England, the Northern States of the US) vs where it ended later due to a persistent preindustrial agrarian society (Russia and the American South).

What is inherent in humans is the capacity for empathy and the ability to mentalize about another human's experience. That can lead to a belief that slavery is wrong, but that belief is in battle with the desire to exploit other humans for your own gain.

[WalterBright]

When slave societies were faced with free societies, the free societies tend to bury them. Free societies have an inherent advantage, as they better fit human nature.

Human societies across history and prehistory have always believed in destructive and wrong things of all sorts.

[danans]

> When slave societies were faced with free societies, the free societies tend to bury them.

> Free societies have an inherent advantage, as they better fit human nature.

What are the examples of that which are not also essentially industrial vs feudal or technologically primitive societies?

That history seems pretty thin.

What's more likely is that freer societies are better able to harness the abilities of their inhabitants, and unlike slavery/serfdom based states, they don't have to deploy as many resources to defend against their own enslaved inhabitants. It's a triumph of a better organizational structure, not something inherent to human nature.

Otherwise free societies would have become the norm far earlier in history than they did.

[WalterBright]

> What's more likely is that freer societies are better able to harness the abilities of their inhabitants, and unlike slavery/serfdom based states, they don't have to deploy as many resources to defend against their own enslaved inhabitants. It's a triumph of a better organizational structure, not something inherent to human nature.

I.e. a structure that fits human nature better, making it inherent.

Rome's army consisted of free men, and they conquered everyone else. Slave armies have a poor track record when they come up against free men.

[danans]

> Rome's army consisted of free men, and they conquered everyone else.

Rome relied heavily on slavery. Slaves were 20-30% of the population [1]. The slaves did the labor that allowed the free men to go fight and conquer others. It's not an example of a free society in the slightest.

1. https://byustudies.byu.edu/further-study-chart/6-4-estimated...