That is unfortunate. Luckily that's not really the way things work. I don't think, even in Europe, that prosecutors and judges go to jail when someone they locked up is freed on appeal.
Vengeance is one of the purposes, and is another one where the truth doesn't matter as much. If the family of the victim thinks the perpetrator has been executed, it doesn't really matter if it was the wrong person (unless the truth comes out later).
They might be ignorant of the law, but I doubt anybody has committed a crime for which the death penalty applies and not thought, "Boy, if this victim had the power, or their family, they'd probably kill me."
It's obviously better the lower the re-conviction rates are, both for the inmate as well as for the socíety, so to argue that rehabilitation is not an important function of the system makes no sense to me.
Lower recidivism is good, but rehabilitation isn't the only way to get there. For instance, you can increase sentence lengths dramatically... then when they're released, they've aged out of the criminal population. You don't see a lot of 65 year old gangbangers.
Another effective technique is surgical castration. It lowers sex drive and aggression which would help people not recommit violent crimes including rape. It's pretty harsh, but I think if we made it a mandatory procedure for anybody convicted of a 2nd violent crime, A) it would reduce commission of 2nd violent crimes and B) it would dramatically reduce commission of 3rd violent crimes.
It took more people to maintain a horse than a car.
It takes very few people to raise and care for horses, even including accessories like horseshoes and saddles. 1000 years ago a sizable town could comfortably employ an entire horse industry to serve the local area. No way could one town employ an automotive industry for the local area. Cars are one of the great examples of increased productivity resulting in vastly greater complexity rather than fewer jobs.
Widespread robot cars are still a pipe dream at the moment
Depending what you mean by "robot cars" it's already here. We have lane assist, brake assist, parking assist, etc. There are a number of mainstream car models that are basically robot cars.
If you mean fully driverless, then still I wouldn't call it a pipe dream because we have proof of concept, huge money and will to implement it, and obvious business opportunities. It's going to happen.
You're not making any sense. I said yes there is tyranny by majority. There's no avoiding that in a democracy, but we reduce its severity with things like supermajority rules. How is that indicative that I'm dismissing it (I'm actually acknowledging it) or not taking it seriously or I don't actually know anything about it? You'e an idiot.
Also I hate to break it to you but there's no God and there's no absolute list of moral bullshit for you to check off on what makes a good society. If some society wants to have slaves, they will. Even our own. Nothing you can do about it.
Exact numbers are hard to come by because the stock market fluctuates so much. But when I did my googling for that comment, I found one article that says Bezos owns 19% of Amazon as of sometime mid 2014. I haven't read anything about a huge divestiture so I"m assuming it's about the same. Based on recent market cap that puts his stake at about $52 billion. However the last article I saw showing his full net worth put it at around $49 billion. So it's hard to say on which exact date that article took their measurements. Feel free to google to verify these numbers.
Trump himself states his net worth (depending on the day and his mood) between 8.6 and 10 billion dollars when you include his "brand". The Forbes assessment actually says it should be 3.2 billion, which puts the "brand" component at up to 5.4 or even 6.8 billion dollars- a much larger portion of his wealth than his real estate holdings.
That's true, Trump is less dependent on real estate than the typical homeowner. I've read plenty of articles saying that among people about to retire, their home equity makes up like 90% of their wealth. So Trump is more like 30% or 40%. But Bezos is around 1%. That's really a different league.
I should not be prevented from having a say/having my voice heard just because I lack the funds to own something almost entirely irrelevant to most of the issues I care about.
I agree, but I don't think you're the typical case for a renter. That's the problem with hard rules, but on the other hand there are thoughtful 17 year olds who can't vote either, there are people who committed some random crime but still have ideas on what the government should do, etc. Don't you think one day you'll own property?
we'd lose many votes from the cities which would disenfranchise a great deal of minorities. Such a plan says that anyone poor, young, or not white
Yes well disenfranchisement is the whole point of this. Right now many people vote who don't have the best interests of society in mind. If you're voting for your own welfare benefits, or your own free college, or whatever, that helps you disproportionately compared to me. But on the other hand if I'm a landowner and I'm voting for things that will help the value of my land, there's a much greater chance that it will help all of society. My land goes up when society becomes wealthier. If society becomes a crappy, uneducated, unemployed, unhealthy shit hole... how much is my land worth?
It's not like this is every going to happen of course. The cat's out the bag. But I do think Benjamin Franklin had a great point -- "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."
Landowners can also fall susceptible to that but at least there's a balance against it like I said above.
Your first bit is confusing editorials and op-eds with news coverage. Not the same thing.
I'm pretty sure that commentary is included in the studies showing how much free media coverage Trump receives. It does not say "free, neutral, objective news coverage".
No, because there's zero reason to even think or suspect that any of the Democrats are in favor of abortion for the same reason the white supremacists are.
There is actually. Of course there's the fact that Democrats historically were the more racist party with ties to the South. Today they appear supportive of blacks but many critics of Democratic policies argue that they actually harm blacks by keeping them dependent on the state.
So are you saying there's nobody out there who genuinely thinks the Republicans are better for blacks than Democrats, including their stance on promoting stronger families and morals and ending abortions?
Second, the link was being given to deal with the specific claim that blacks are against immigration.
I don't think it showed that. It showed 30% support which isn't very high. The point of the article was that blacks support it more than whites... not that a majority support it.
Well that's the whole point here, right? Different people define it differently. Trans people want to define it most beneficially to them because they feel uncomfortable otherwise. But others want to define it for their own benefit because being around someone who is trans makes them uncomfortable. Why do the transexuals have a better case? They don't.
The law doesn't do that. The only laws proposed have been to protect tranwomen by allowing them to behave exactly as women. It does not protect men from going into bathrooms.
Not sure what you're referring to but the Charlotte ordinance was not restricted to trans women (and honestly I'm not sure what that means... men who have become women or women who have become men).
The state law is intended to require men to go to the men's room and women to go to the women's room. So you must be referring to another law.
No, it's not. But if you're susceptible to the "comfort" argument then you have to take into account the comfort of non-trans as well. Are they comfortable if a biological man who identifies as a woman goes into the women's rest room? Nope. Hence the law.
If there were an easy way to tell who's lesbian, there probably would be lots of people who want to make it illegal for lesbians to go to the women's bathroom. Same with gays.
This law is about guys who simply "identify" as women going into women's bathrooms. That is not okay. If you truly look like a woman then it won't even be an issue because nobody can tell.
You claimed this law was to protect women from pervy men who sneak into the toilets to photograph them. That's already illegal everywhere and so a new law is not required.
Photographing is done in secret typically. However it's harder to hide the fact that you're a man. So if the law starts protecting men going into women's bathrooms, it'll be much harder to enforce the law about men sneaking into bathrooms to photograph women.
Not to mention the "ick" factor, which is the real reason for the law.
Statistically most paedophiles are men, and many of them are gay.
I find that hard to believe. If anything it's more likely that gay pedophiles have more access to young boys than straight pedophiles have access to young girls. For instance it's not uncommon for a male sports coach to be in the locker room, to be around the boys showering, etc... I've never heard of a male coach hanging out in the girls' locker room and watching them shower.
So to prevent the kind of abuse people are worrying about we would have to ban adult males from bathrooms used by boys too.
Guess what, that happens. A lot of schools have separate bathrooms for adults. Same with locker rooms again... at least around here, the YMCA has separate locker rooms and showers for adults, kids, and private family rooms as well. Kids under a certain age have to go to the adult locker room and they must be accompanied by a parent.
No it doesn't, which is why NC passed this law. Sometimes democracies respect the wishes of the majority over the so-called "rights" of minorities which aren't actually rights.
If anything, the media has been incredibly favorable to Trump
Eh sorry I don't believe that. Maybe at first it was but for the last 6 months or a bit longer the media has been viciously anti-Trump. You honestly think the "free coverage" from the Washington Post writing these headlines is good?
* The moment of truth: We must stop Trump * The Hitler-ification of Donald Trump * Trump's flirtation with fascism * Donald Trump cannot close * GOP leaders, you must do everything in your power to stop Trump
etc
Come on now.
That's completely believable; I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't believe it, nor do I see what point you are trying to make here.
The point I'm making is I've never heard the major media outlets asking Democrats, "Why are so many white supremacists supporting your legislation to expand abortion rights? Do you disavow their support?"
If the media wanted to highlight the alignment of Democrats with white supremacists on some issues like abortion, they could. But they don't want to. Why? Because divisiveness doesn't sell? Come on.
However, the primary racism under discussion is directed at Hispanics, not blacks.
Okay fair enough, but generally people call Trump racist without qualification, like the links to all the white supremacist groups. Clearly he's not a white supremacist, right?
You can argue that they shouldn't be, but apparently they disagree.
That link shows that 30% of blacks support more immigration. It isn't even about illegal immigration, which is Trump's main issue.
I don't know if Trump is racist, but if he isn't, he's going through a lot of effort to appeal to racists.
Trump is a populist so he's appealing to the biggest pieces of the population that he can. He's tapping into issues that lots of people support but that are ignored by both parties. Yes that includes issues that white supremacists care about.. but actually lots of people care about them who are not white supremacists.
Considering the large number of vocal white supremacists supporting him, it isn't by itself unreasonable to ask him.
Umm I'm not 100% sure but I suspect the white supremacist groups choose a Republican candidate in every election for the last 50 years or so. So what? They want to vote for the party that will work to keep welfare benefits lower because welfare disproportionately benefits minorities. They will vote for the party that is tougher on crime because minorities disproportionately commit violent crimes.
Guess what, black supremacist groups like #BLM, New Black Panthers, etc all vote for Democratics for the inverted reasons. They want the group that will help blacks over whites. Has a major newspaper called on Clinton to disavow the support of these black groups?
For Jeff, the vast majority of his wealth comes from Amazon. Like $50 billion. Sure he owns land, as does Amazon... but it's a tiny proportion of his wealth (or Amazon's).
On the other hand, the vast majority of Trump's wealth comes from real estate or local businesses like casinos.
Anyway, most people who own land own tiny amounts of real estate, but it makes up a large proportion of their net worth -- homeowners. By restricting voting to people who own real estate, you'd get rid of a lot of young voters who have no clue what they're doing, like college students and recent grads. You'd get rid of a lot of childless people who frankly don't think about the future as much as people with kids.
What you may be confused about is that "majority" strictly means 50% + 1, but in our system we have mutually agreed on stronger majorities required for some actions like amending the constitution. It's still a tyranny, and yes everything, EVERYTHING, is subject to vote. We could reinstate slavery tomorrow (well, maybe next election cycle) if enough people supported it.
It's funny that you're criticizing my understanding of civics. Where exactly do you think checks and balances comes from? God? The King? The Pope? Do you really not understand that all power rests with Congress, and ultimately with the people who vote for Congress? Are you even talking about America?
If that was true, we wouldn't need a constitution.
The constitution was voted on. Amendments are voted on. This stuff didn't just pop into existence from God or the Pope or the King or whatever non-democratic process you're thinking of.
And in the US, nobody "voted away" slavery. There was a big war about it.
Are you kidding? Of course it was voted away. There was a war to enforce the law, but the law was determined in a democratic process.
How exactly would do you expect a free person with some non-destitute standard of living to be able to do a job more cheaply than a slave
I was talking about overall economic efficiency. It's true that a slave may do the job at hand more cheaply. No doubt that's true in some cases. However, when you pay someone to do the job, and in turn they pay for their own food, electricity, housing, clothing, etc.. you're growing your economy. By giving the person motivation to acquire more stuff (which slaves can't do), there's a decent chance they end up being more productive and competitive. After all there's only so much you can do to motivate slaves before they just give up on life and accept whatever punishment you dole out, like Pavlov's experiment with a dog in a cage with electric shocks running through the floor.. eventually they stop jumping and just take it.
This isn't just theoretical, there are countries where slavery was going on openly until like the 1960s, and many where it continues today under the table. Guess what, not one of those countries is a world leader economically. They are shitholes. Slavery isn't providing them any kind of competitive advantage.
But that's not really any more relevant than the cost of automation. If you need men to do a job, slavery is likely to be the cheapest way to get it done.
Part of the issue with slavery's inefficiency is there's less incentive to automate stuff, so in the long run your costs are greater since you remain dependent on slaves.
Slashdot Mirror
That is unfortunate. Luckily that's not really the way things work. I don't think, even in Europe, that prosecutors and judges go to jail when someone they locked up is freed on appeal.
Vengeance is one of the purposes, and is another one where the truth doesn't matter as much. If the family of the victim thinks the perpetrator has been executed, it doesn't really matter if it was the wrong person (unless the truth comes out later).
They might be ignorant of the law, but I doubt anybody has committed a crime for which the death penalty applies and not thought, "Boy, if this victim had the power, or their family, they'd probably kill me."
It's obviously better the lower the re-conviction rates are, both for the inmate as well as for the socíety, so to argue that rehabilitation is not an important function of the system makes no sense to me.
Lower recidivism is good, but rehabilitation isn't the only way to get there. For instance, you can increase sentence lengths dramatically... then when they're released, they've aged out of the criminal population. You don't see a lot of 65 year old gangbangers.
Another effective technique is surgical castration. It lowers sex drive and aggression which would help people not recommit violent crimes including rape. It's pretty harsh, but I think if we made it a mandatory procedure for anybody convicted of a 2nd violent crime, A) it would reduce commission of 2nd violent crimes and B) it would dramatically reduce commission of 3rd violent crimes.
It took more people to maintain a horse than a car.
It takes very few people to raise and care for horses, even including accessories like horseshoes and saddles. 1000 years ago a sizable town could comfortably employ an entire horse industry to serve the local area. No way could one town employ an automotive industry for the local area. Cars are one of the great examples of increased productivity resulting in vastly greater complexity rather than fewer jobs.
Widespread robot cars are still a pipe dream at the moment
Depending what you mean by "robot cars" it's already here. We have lane assist, brake assist, parking assist, etc. There are a number of mainstream car models that are basically robot cars.
If you mean fully driverless, then still I wouldn't call it a pipe dream because we have proof of concept, huge money and will to implement it, and obvious business opportunities. It's going to happen.
You're not making any sense. I said yes there is tyranny by majority. There's no avoiding that in a democracy, but we reduce its severity with things like supermajority rules. How is that indicative that I'm dismissing it (I'm actually acknowledging it) or not taking it seriously or I don't actually know anything about it? You'e an idiot.
Also I hate to break it to you but there's no God and there's no absolute list of moral bullshit for you to check off on what makes a good society. If some society wants to have slaves, they will. Even our own. Nothing you can do about it.
Exact numbers are hard to come by because the stock market fluctuates so much. But when I did my googling for that comment, I found one article that says Bezos owns 19% of Amazon as of sometime mid 2014. I haven't read anything about a huge divestiture so I"m assuming it's about the same. Based on recent market cap that puts his stake at about $52 billion. However the last article I saw showing his full net worth put it at around $49 billion. So it's hard to say on which exact date that article took their measurements. Feel free to google to verify these numbers.
Trump himself states his net worth (depending on the day and his mood) between 8.6 and 10 billion dollars when you include his "brand". The Forbes assessment actually says it should be 3.2 billion, which puts the "brand" component at up to 5.4 or even 6.8 billion dollars- a much larger portion of his wealth than his real estate holdings.
That's true, Trump is less dependent on real estate than the typical homeowner. I've read plenty of articles saying that among people about to retire, their home equity makes up like 90% of their wealth. So Trump is more like 30% or 40%. But Bezos is around 1%. That's really a different league.
I should not be prevented from having a say/having my voice heard just because I lack the funds to own something almost entirely irrelevant to most of the issues I care about.
I agree, but I don't think you're the typical case for a renter. That's the problem with hard rules, but on the other hand there are thoughtful 17 year olds who can't vote either, there are people who committed some random crime but still have ideas on what the government should do, etc. Don't you think one day you'll own property?
we'd lose many votes from the cities which would disenfranchise a great deal of minorities. Such a plan says that anyone poor, young, or not white
Yes well disenfranchisement is the whole point of this. Right now many people vote who don't have the best interests of society in mind. If you're voting for your own welfare benefits, or your own free college, or whatever, that helps you disproportionately compared to me. But on the other hand if I'm a landowner and I'm voting for things that will help the value of my land, there's a much greater chance that it will help all of society. My land goes up when society becomes wealthier. If society becomes a crappy, uneducated, unemployed, unhealthy shit hole... how much is my land worth?
It's not like this is every going to happen of course. The cat's out the bag. But I do think Benjamin Franklin had a great point -- "When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic."
Landowners can also fall susceptible to that but at least there's a balance against it like I said above.
Your first bit is confusing editorials and op-eds with news coverage. Not the same thing.
I'm pretty sure that commentary is included in the studies showing how much free media coverage Trump receives. It does not say "free, neutral, objective news coverage".
No, because there's zero reason to even think or suspect that any of the Democrats are in favor of abortion for the same reason the white supremacists are.
There is actually. Of course there's the fact that Democrats historically were the more racist party with ties to the South. Today they appear supportive of blacks but many critics of Democratic policies argue that they actually harm blacks by keeping them dependent on the state.
So are you saying there's nobody out there who genuinely thinks the Republicans are better for blacks than Democrats, including their stance on promoting stronger families and morals and ending abortions?
Second, the link was being given to deal with the specific claim that blacks are against immigration.
I don't think it showed that. It showed 30% support which isn't very high. The point of the article was that blacks support it more than whites... not that a majority support it.
Depends on how you define "man".
Well that's the whole point here, right? Different people define it differently. Trans people want to define it most beneficially to them because they feel uncomfortable otherwise. But others want to define it for their own benefit because being around someone who is trans makes them uncomfortable. Why do the transexuals have a better case? They don't.
The law doesn't do that. The only laws proposed have been to protect tranwomen by allowing them to behave exactly as women. It does not protect men from going into bathrooms.
Not sure what you're referring to but the Charlotte ordinance was not restricted to trans women (and honestly I'm not sure what that means... men who have become women or women who have become men).
The state law is intended to require men to go to the men's room and women to go to the women's room. So you must be referring to another law.
No, it's not. But if you're susceptible to the "comfort" argument then you have to take into account the comfort of non-trans as well. Are they comfortable if a biological man who identifies as a woman goes into the women's rest room? Nope. Hence the law.
Yes. Self-segregation occurs very often already. Also there are already gender segregated schools.
Why do you think segregation is bad?
That's a good point, but it shows the futility of common core. We're not going to make every kid (or even most) a math star. And why should we?
If there were an easy way to tell who's lesbian, there probably would be lots of people who want to make it illegal for lesbians to go to the women's bathroom. Same with gays.
This law is about guys who simply "identify" as women going into women's bathrooms. That is not okay. If you truly look like a woman then it won't even be an issue because nobody can tell.
You claimed this law was to protect women from pervy men who sneak into the toilets to photograph them. That's already illegal everywhere and so a new law is not required.
Photographing is done in secret typically. However it's harder to hide the fact that you're a man. So if the law starts protecting men going into women's bathrooms, it'll be much harder to enforce the law about men sneaking into bathrooms to photograph women.
Not to mention the "ick" factor, which is the real reason for the law.
I agree that consistency is good. The NC law makes it more consistent, not less.
What if the town where you lived decided that you had to use the wrong bathroom?
If that's what they've decided, then it's not the wrong bathroom is it.
Secondly, how do you know he was born in NC and not in a jurisdiction that doesn't permit modification to the birth certificate?
He/she should take up that issue with the state that he's from, not blame other states.
Statistically most paedophiles are men, and many of them are gay.
I find that hard to believe. If anything it's more likely that gay pedophiles have more access to young boys than straight pedophiles have access to young girls. For instance it's not uncommon for a male sports coach to be in the locker room, to be around the boys showering, etc... I've never heard of a male coach hanging out in the girls' locker room and watching them shower.
So to prevent the kind of abuse people are worrying about we would have to ban adult males from bathrooms used by boys too.
Guess what, that happens. A lot of schools have separate bathrooms for adults. Same with locker rooms again... at least around here, the YMCA has separate locker rooms and showers for adults, kids, and private family rooms as well. Kids under a certain age have to go to the adult locker room and they must be accompanied by a parent.
Dang they didn't do much research. A quick googling found https://www.lifesitenews.com/n...
No it doesn't, which is why NC passed this law. Sometimes democracies respect the wishes of the majority over the so-called "rights" of minorities which aren't actually rights.
Submitted too soon...
If anything, the media has been incredibly favorable to Trump
Eh sorry I don't believe that. Maybe at first it was but for the last 6 months or a bit longer the media has been viciously anti-Trump. You honestly think the "free coverage" from the Washington Post writing these headlines is good?
* The moment of truth: We must stop Trump
* The Hitler-ification of Donald Trump
* Trump's flirtation with fascism
* Donald Trump cannot close
* GOP leaders, you must do everything in your power to stop Trump
etc
Come on now.
That's completely believable; I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't believe it, nor do I see what point you are trying to make here.
The point I'm making is I've never heard the major media outlets asking Democrats, "Why are so many white supremacists supporting your legislation to expand abortion rights? Do you disavow their support?"
If the media wanted to highlight the alignment of Democrats with white supremacists on some issues like abortion, they could. But they don't want to. Why? Because divisiveness doesn't sell? Come on.
However, the primary racism under discussion is directed at Hispanics, not blacks.
Okay fair enough, but generally people call Trump racist without qualification, like the links to all the white supremacist groups. Clearly he's not a white supremacist, right?
You can argue that they shouldn't be, but apparently they disagree.
That link shows that 30% of blacks support more immigration. It isn't even about illegal immigration, which is Trump's main issue.
I don't know if Trump is racist, but if he isn't, he's going through a lot of effort to appeal to racists.
Trump is a populist so he's appealing to the biggest pieces of the population that he can. He's tapping into issues that lots of people support but that are ignored by both parties. Yes that includes issues that white supremacists care about.. but actually lots of people care about them who are not white supremacists.
Considering the large number of vocal white supremacists supporting him, it isn't by itself unreasonable to ask him.
Umm I'm not 100% sure but I suspect the white supremacist groups choose a Republican candidate in every election for the last 50 years or so. So what? They want to vote for the party that will work to keep welfare benefits lower because welfare disproportionately benefits minorities. They will vote for the party that is tougher on crime because minorities disproportionately commit violent crimes.
Guess what, black supremacist groups like #BLM, New Black Panthers, etc all vote for Democratics for the inverted reasons. They want the group that will help blacks over whites. Has a major newspaper called on Clinton to disavow the support of these black groups?
For Jeff, the vast majority of his wealth comes from Amazon. Like $50 billion. Sure he owns land, as does Amazon... but it's a tiny proportion of his wealth (or Amazon's).
On the other hand, the vast majority of Trump's wealth comes from real estate or local businesses like casinos.
Anyway, most people who own land own tiny amounts of real estate, but it makes up a large proportion of their net worth -- homeowners. By restricting voting to people who own real estate, you'd get rid of a lot of young voters who have no clue what they're doing, like college students and recent grads. You'd get rid of a lot of childless people who frankly don't think about the future as much as people with kids.
What you may be confused about is that "majority" strictly means 50% + 1, but in our system we have mutually agreed on stronger majorities required for some actions like amending the constitution. It's still a tyranny, and yes everything, EVERYTHING, is subject to vote. We could reinstate slavery tomorrow (well, maybe next election cycle) if enough people supported it.
It's funny that you're criticizing my understanding of civics. Where exactly do you think checks and balances comes from? God? The King? The Pope? Do you really not understand that all power rests with Congress, and ultimately with the people who vote for Congress? Are you even talking about America?
If that was true, we wouldn't need a constitution.
The constitution was voted on. Amendments are voted on. This stuff didn't just pop into existence from God or the Pope or the King or whatever non-democratic process you're thinking of.
And in the US, nobody "voted away" slavery. There was a big war about it.
Are you kidding? Of course it was voted away. There was a war to enforce the law, but the law was determined in a democratic process.
How exactly would do you expect a free person with some non-destitute standard of living to be able to do a job more cheaply than a slave
I was talking about overall economic efficiency. It's true that a slave may do the job at hand more cheaply. No doubt that's true in some cases. However, when you pay someone to do the job, and in turn they pay for their own food, electricity, housing, clothing, etc.. you're growing your economy. By giving the person motivation to acquire more stuff (which slaves can't do), there's a decent chance they end up being more productive and competitive. After all there's only so much you can do to motivate slaves before they just give up on life and accept whatever punishment you dole out, like Pavlov's experiment with a dog in a cage with electric shocks running through the floor.. eventually they stop jumping and just take it.
This isn't just theoretical, there are countries where slavery was going on openly until like the 1960s, and many where it continues today under the table. Guess what, not one of those countries is a world leader economically. They are shitholes. Slavery isn't providing them any kind of competitive advantage.
But that's not really any more relevant than the cost of automation. If you need men to do a job, slavery is likely to be the cheapest way to get it done.
Part of the issue with slavery's inefficiency is there's less incentive to automate stuff, so in the long run your costs are greater since you remain dependent on slaves.