/monster/ - The Last Bastion of Romance★

>>336062 (OP)

I kindly explain that slavery is outlawed, offer the slave master the opportunity to repent, and then work with the order and my lds missionaries to make sure the monster women are able to find jobs and husbands, rebuild their lives, and bring the slave master to JUSTICE.

Slavery is degenerate beyond reproach.

>>336065

Beat me by seconds.

>>336062 (OP)

Use the gold to buy weapons and secretly distribute them to the slaves to spark a revolt. Then have pick of ex-slave girls because I'm The Great Liberator.

Miss Danuki and Associates not responsible for any anarchy, chaos, or societal collapse caused due to destabilization or resistance funding efforts. Covert operations of this nature may have side serious effects and should not be undertaken by children, the elderly, or people with compromised immune systems. These side effects may include: reprisal killings, backlash tightening of slave control laws, creation of a tyranny, establishment of a hostile state, Balkanization, ethnic cleansing, or civil war. Consult with your doctor before attempting covert operations.

I found this nice doujin about a guy who buys a high-mileage elf slave with at least seven previous owners, and nurses her back to health before fully resolving her trust issues with consensual lovemaking, but the only English translation I could find was done by Thot Patrol. I like the prose though, so fuck it, I'm gonna dump the doujin.

>>336084

Alright, six previous owners, but that's still pretty bad.

>>336085

>>336087

>>336085

>>336084

>>336086

>>336087

>>336088

sorry in advance for my autism

If you're anti-slavery would it be your moral imperative to purchase a slave(s) to save them from a system that will see them most likely abused? I'm looking at it from a pre-industrial revolution scenario where the slavery is holding up industrial progress. Assuming the region you're in is in a progressive enough state to allow for the abolition of slavery I think it would be a better use of your time and money to invest in lobbying for anti-slavery legislation. Depending on the nature of the extra species I would also push for repatriation to the monster's home country.

Otherwise, if our world history is any indication you'll end up with extra species that could perhaps develop a "victim complex" of sorts.

>"the reason I can't succeed is that my ancestors were enslaved!"

For the post-industrial revolution in developed states that kind of historical baggage is really embarrassing and could possibly hang over your head for 200-500 years. If they aren't repatriated they'll either have to be integrated of self-segregate inside your own country. If they're integrated you'll see a lot of miscegenation occur which will eventually end up diluting the overall makeup of the more human-centric society. Depending upon your view of progressivism this could be a good thing or a bad thing but I'm not going to delve into that angle of discussion for this thread.

The other option, self-segregation might involve setting up "reservations" inside your own country or establishing new countries within colonies your country holds. I think this would be the healthier political option in some respects since it would allow for some degree of agency for the extra-species that want to choose between integration or isolation (perhaps with limited immigration for reasons of tourism and commerce).

To be sure, slavery still exists today (particularly in certain parts of Africa) both for hard labor and sex slavery. I'm under no illusion that slavery could be completely stamped out. As long as there are people who value money over morality you'll see sex trafficking and exploitative labor laws.

Another thing to consider is the culture in which this slavery is taking place. Is the industrial revolution looming or is slavery essentially the most cost-effective way to farm and perform other hard labor? If we're still 150 or so years away from factories sprouting up in the cities there's no sense trying to argue against slavery for the most part since no one with the money is going to listen. At that point, pragmatically, I would see buying a slave being a better option since you could conceivably treat them better than they might possibly be treated outside your care and their free labor would free up more resources for yourself to devote to an anti-slavery agenda.

You could even have an arrangement wherein you will free their children and offer up to those children some portion of your estate upon your death to further incentivize your slave's cooperation in your agenda. Progressives of today will still frown upon you for engaging in the practice but these are people who don't understand cultural mores and are probably the same audience that reads buzzfeed articles and nods along thinking to themselves "I'm enlightened" while sipping a soy latte and browsing tinder for a stout bull to fuck their spouse before going to pick up their wife's children she adopted from Africa.

>>336159

I gotchu.

>>336346

> talking out of your ass

You mean 4/jp/ right? they constantly blabber about incest.

>>336066

this is paladindu behavior I approve

>>336457

What about if you're engaging in pragmatic slavery by "saving" the supposed monstergirl in my earlier proposed case >>336160

Without wanting to spoil a certain light novel that was recently released The monstergirl doctor book the snake girl whose past deals with slavery and how she turned out okay despite being a slave since the people who owned her took good care of her

>>336465

If we're talking about a society where slavery exists in any large capacity the church would be tacitly complicit in exchange. The church probably would have some stipulation in the realm of "make sure your slaves abide by the rules of our book" because the church has to wave it's dick around.

Moralfaggotry like this guy suggested >>336066 would get you reprimanded by the church. In my scenario, the hierarchy by which we're viewing society is state>church>people. That is to say, the church would be beholden to the state. So the only way the church would put an end to slavery is if the State had legislated an end to the practice. If the state were to put and end to slavery you wouldn't be seeing open air slave markets since that trade would move underground/to a state that still allows slavery.

Going by OP's post which states

>Imagine if you were an adventurer with a good amount of gold on you. You pass by a slave market filled with monster girls for sale.

We're assuming this is an open-air market within sight of public view. I would then assume that the government has made legal in some form the market for slavery. They're taxed, licensed, and so on. There's also be all kinds of rules for the sellers of slaves.

>No selling slaves with diseases

>No selling people who were kidnapped

>No cruel or unusual punishment for slaves

>etc. etc.

If the church wants to purchase slaves they could do that but they couldn't infringe on the slave trading rights. You can protest and preach depending on the level of free speech in your state but if practically everyone uses slaves for labor and such you'll probably be ignored.

What about farmers, mining companies, and whomever else who invested heavily in slavery to do hard labor for their business? You would need to pay those entities for the slaves they owned because you'd be ruining their business if you freed the slaves by force. Otherwise, slave owners may feel they're being abused and revolt. Such a travesty could even result in a civil war.

>monstergirls fighting on both sides of a civil war

>all the dead monster folk and gruesome amputations

>spider girls with missing legs

>centaur casualties would be bad given their indifference to danger during massive mounted charges into mini ball fire

>countless dead snake girl sappers shot laying mines and other such traps

>"Look away, look away, look away, dixie land…"

>>336475

You made some really good points and I don’t have any arguments beyond reeee and ‘I don’t like it.’.

Damn.

>>336062 (OP)

>buy one slave

>abolish her and get her a job in my company based on her skills

>acquire more money though business

>buy another slave, rinse and repeat

>end up buying all the slaves for your multinational company

>everyone is free and you gained even more brouzouf

>>336933

this is the only answer

>>336933

>>336934

[heavy breathing]

>>336933

That's noble but not "everyone" would be free. At the very least you could apply pressure on the legislature to abolish slavery with the capital you've gained. If you wanna go full Trump you can run for your local government's positions with the capital you earned from the freeing of slaves and getting them into your business. Make sure you say as much when you're campaigning

>"I would not be able to run for this office on the platform of abolition were it not for the ceaseless support both monetary and spiritually of very people I sought to liberate. It is with this knowledge I will fight vigorously and dutifully until I see slavery abolished from this country. Know that no nation built on the principals that were established by our forefathers could reconcile the inJUSTICE we now perpetrate in the name of shortsighted selfishness."

You could certainly get the vote of all the monster folk. Your opponents would cry that you're a hypocrite since you're supporting an industry that you supposedly condemn. You could talk that down in debates but what you'd want to do would be to have the monsterfolk speak for you.

>bulky centaur "Anon gave me my freedom and a job. Vote anon!"

>weeping spider widow "Anon reunited me with my family, god bless him!"

>Bright eyed young lamia "Anon is the last true hope for us! Give your vote to him for a better future for all!"

You've got come to the debates with some hits like these

>"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

>"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy."

>"Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature - opposition to it, is his love of JUSTICE. These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and convulsions must ceaselessly follow."

Also to fuck with the staunch pro-slavery opponents make sure to have monsterfolk working in your campaign and being on your staff you should you get elected to office.

>>336475

That tyrant is rolling in his grave at the thought of being known as the great emancipator.

>>336977

>We propose no invasion of the North

But guys, my dick is super big, and I need to give the Northern populace a reason to keep fighting us before they decide to cut their losses and leave us alone!

>>336977

http://archive.is/apPMF

One of the bigger redpills on Lincoln that surprisingly doesn't seem to get more traction is the fact he wanted to send them the fuck back to Africa. (((Some people))) in his cabinet argued that blacks were basically natives by the time the civil war came to a close and he didn't push the issue. I'd like to think he figured someone else would take up the mantle of kicking out the NIGGERS but that never really came to pass.

I can't defend every decision Lincoln made and he certainly made a few. Overall I think his main objective was to preserve the union for better or worse. In the north where industrialization was taking hold, they had the capital to buy slave owners out if they wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. I suppose you could blame the south for failing to industrialize themselves but then you circle into the whole "muh consent of the governed" regarding their rights vs the North's aggression and it becomes a messy political theatre after that.

>>336984

Well by the time the south started pushing north you were starting to see the mechanics of war from a mobilization point of view. Mobilization will be an even bigger thing in WW1 and so on but that's for another thread, back to the 1860s…

The north had shown its aggression and in order to prevent future incursions it would be necessary to crush the north and have them surrender. Remember, the north is industrialized and it has a large contingent of fighting aged men. Many of those men arrived daily and would happily fight for a chance at American citizenship. It was a war of attrition from the start and the South was severely handicapped with its lack of men and equipment. Nevermind the extensive railway system the north had for transporting troops and equipment.

There was never going to be any "cut their losses" moment for the north. It certainly looked bad during their initial push into the southern territory but they could do the same thing several more times and still have men and guns to spare. You can argue how such losses wouldn't have been sustainable politically and if the body count got high enough that may have been the case. Looking at the massive casualties resulting from man's own inhumanity to man I don't want to think of the kind of slaughter it would have taken to sufficiently subdue the north. Keep in mind many of the deaths were brothers fighting their own brothers or in some cases extended families. There no doubt America's civil war was the most intimate and cruel exercise in bloodshed ever perpetrated.

Interesting tidbit, (and pic related) photography was starting to advance during this time. It had just been invited in 1839 so you hadn't really gotten a chance for it to document a brutal conflict like you had in the Americas quite yet. If there was anything that might have deterred the north it should have been the countless dead that were no doubt captured on film after such conflicts. I wonder if that was more responsible for stirring the north into action? Anyway…

We're deviating from politics of monster girl slavery into American history so to steer us back in the right direction let's get back to monstergirls. As I mentioned before I'd opt for repatriation for the assorted monster folk to their respective homelands in our hypothetical scenario. I'm sure some would consider themselves citizens if they'd been slaves for a long time or were born into slavery. Regardless of their situation they'd be offered an allowance to encourage repatration. I wouldn't want to see stupid demonstrations from groups chanting "monster lives matter!" and so on.

>>336988

>deportation plans

The South would have lost almost all of their manual laborers and been unable to grow cotton, the North would have lost all that tariff money because cotton wasn't getting grown or exported, and the blacks would leave the only land they know to go somewhere unknown and uncivilized. No one benefited from such a thing, so it would never have happened on a large enough scale to matter.

>I suppose you could blame the south for failing to industrialize

The South was paying for almost all of the federal government at the time. They were watching more and more of their money go up North, just to line the pockets of some corrupt politician or well connected business owner. They were paying their fair share and then some, so don't you fucking dare spout off some bullshit about how they were holding back the country.

>>336990

>No one benefited from such a thing, so it would never have happened on a large enough scale to matter.

I'd rather attempt a solution whereby we reduce bloodshed rather than increase it. It would have required injecting capital into the south enough for them to develop farming techniques and technology to render the slave labor obsolete. Nogs were going to be nogs wherever we sent them. Given the choice, I'd rather they be nogs in Africa. While the initial investment would have been quite large it would have been a steal when you consider the price for the alternative we paid in blood.

>They were paying their fair share and then some, so don't you fucking dare spout off some bullshit about how they were holding back the country.

I didn't argue such a thing. I suggested that if they had been industrilalized the whole issue of slave labor could have been averted (possibly). I futher went on to explain that it turns into a finger pointing match of "well they should have done this!" and we can go back and forth all night playing that game if you'd like. Following through on my example, you could then extrapolate…

>"If the north had invested their capital into the south instead of pocketing it themselves to grow their own wealth the conflict could have been averted."

I hail from the south myself so don't mistake my analytical autism for some misplaced sympathy for the north. Make no mistake, the north were always the agressors and of all the choices they could have made to resolve the nigger question I'm certain they made the worst one.

>>336991

Eh, it's not monster girls I'm worried about it's (((certain people))) who like to stir shit. Speaking of Hitler, there's a prime example of otherwise agreeable nations fighting wars because of some (((globalist interests))). I don't wanna go full paladin but I'd want a place for people not wanting to embrace monstergirl diversity. I don't know about establishing a designated ethnostate but I wouldn't want to force integration. Assuming (((certain people))) don't exist in this supposed monster girl inhabited universe the likelihood of such social disruptions would be minimized I think. The Zeitgeist of our wold makes it hard to envision such a world.

>not living in a world with monstergirls and without (((them))).

Truely we've been born in the wrong dimension.

If they have a shoggoth I'd do it.

Only ones that enjoy slavery.

>>339273

Eat penis, pal.

The war of northern aggression will not be forgotten.

>>339273

>ooga booga gibs muh tariffs or I burns yo farm down

>>336062 (OP)

I want the most dangerous one.

So I can befriend her and spoil her, and make her dress up in cute outfits. Nothing like having someone that could easily kill you get flustered by the silly outfits you buy for her.