The slavery where is the line between the concept of juridical slavery and the concept of factual slavery? That line is determinated by the juridical rules. That means if the law (precedents or acts/s

Search from various English teachers...

Carla

The slavery where is the line between the concept of juridical slavery and the concept of factual slavery? That line is determinated by the juridical rules. That means if the law (precedents or acts/statutes) recognizes the slavery considering a human an object of propriety right we have a country with slavery otherwise we haven't that kind of country. So what is the factual slavery? Could be exist a society with factual slavery without a juridical slavery? That depends by the definition we give to the slavery. If we intend that just as consideration of the law that humans can be object of propriety right (so we can trade humans legally) we can't have a factual slavery. That means factual slavery can't exist. But, we should imagine a man without any propriety who has just his workforce as a resource, nothing more. This man has just one alternative: work for a factory or die for poverty. That was the situation in the England of 1500 (where mendicants were killed with the capital punishment by the authority). Can we say that is a real alternative? I think that is a formal alternative, as the option a criminal gives to someone, saying "give me your money or I will kill you". The self-same law states the annullability of a agreement where one of the part is threatened. So are we sure factual slavery doesn't exist and it is just a hot expression which the journalists love write to ingratiate the reader? (please, tell me the difference between "juridical" and "legal" if there is)

Corrections · 6

Correction Part 2

But then, we should imagine {better in context: think of} a man without any property but who has just his workforce ability to work [3] as having a resource and nothing more. This man has just one alternative: to work for a factory or die for in poverty. That was the situation in the England of in 1500 (?)[4] (where mendicants were killed with by the capital punishment by the authorities) [5]. Can we say that there is a real alternative? I think that there is a formal alternative, such as the "option" a criminal gives to someone, when saying, "give me your money or I will kill you". The self-same law states has provisiona for the annullability nullification of an agreement where one of the parties is threatened. So are we sure (that) factual slavery doesn't exist and it is just a hot expression topic [6] which that the journalists love write about to ingratiate the reader?

"Juridical" is more about the process of law, like filing a complaint, setting a court date, having interrogatories or giving testaments, etc. Legal are things pertaining to law.

3. Or "able-bodiedness", "ability", "skill"

4. Do you mean the exact year of 1500, or do you mean "during the 1500s" (or 16th century)?

5. This phrase is redundant since "capital punishment" already implies being executed by authorities. I would rephrase as "where mendicants were executed by capital punishment")

6. We use the terms "hot topic" or "hot button issue" for these kinds of topics.

Correction Part 1 (Ran out of editing characters)

The Slavery

Where is the line between the concept of juridical legal slavery and the concept of [1] factual slavery? That line is determined by the judicial [2] rules. That means (that) if the law (precedents or acts/statutes) recognizes the slavery by considering a human being as a an object of property right, we have a country with slavery; otherwise, we haven't that kind of country. So what is the factual slavery? Could be there exist a society with factual slavery without a juridical legal slavery? That depends on by the definition we give to the slavery. If we intend that, just as a consideration of the law, that humans can be object of propriety right (so we can trade humans legally) we can't have a factual slavery. That means (that) factual slavery can't exist.
(please, tell me the difference between "juridical" and "legal" if there is)

1. It sounds redundant to say "concept of" twice since omitting it implies that the term is shared between the two.

2. "Of justice" = judicial

Want to progress faster?

Join this learning community and try out free exercises!

Don’t miss out on the opportunity to learn a language from the comfort of your own home. Browse our selection of experienced language tutors and enroll in your first lesson now!

Start Learning Today