Are we defining slavery here as top-down control?
I've been defining it more broadly (<--- click this link!) as an inability to effectively have freewill due to a
loss of independent control over one's choices.
Making choices which do not achieve premeditated goals is not a causal (and thus not an independent) relationship and the person is not in control. Making choices which achieve goals, but those goals were coerced or driven by mind control is not being in control. By control, I mean in an entropy equation, where the potential outcomes are independent.
I am choosing to use the term slavery, because
SJWs abuse the term to incorrectly claim that they have achieved the elimination of slavery.
If that is the case each column of the the original table had a form of slavery too.
For example, the subsidization of Basic Income is not taking away control from a person any more than myself breathing air does (they are both resources). The existence of Basic Income may have ramifications that reduce freewill, but it is not a direct form of slavery.
What exactly do you feel is inaccurate in the original table and why? Also it would help if you would provide your definition of slavery.
As I already stated, your apparent bias to want to frame everything in terms of the importance of non-existent absolutely true morals (from my perspective my opinion that is a manifestation of your lack of freewill because you are enslaved in God religion delusion), leads you to put entries on the table which I assert are irrational, incorrect, and myopic.
I have tried to explain on this page why the noble morals that people claim are really Stepford Wives delusions, e.g. the power vacuums that do-gooder Westerners leave in their wake.
As we discussed in
The Math of Optimal Fitness top-down control can never be entirely avoided. Thus the only choice we have is the type and nature of of top-down control we function under. Here we again see the the importance of a universal superstructure or framework as the essential foundation that maximizes freedom. Rejecting all top-down authority does not gain you freedom it simply dooms you to more top-down control and ultimately less freedom.
How many times have I told you both publicly and in private messages that top-down control doesn't mean there is only one top authority. A diversification of cults each with their own top-down control, is consistent. Never do we have in the universe a falsifiable example of a single top-down authority for any phenomenon. Even you noted that religions are not all the same.
Btw, I applauded your introduction of contentionism. You really show the mathematical principle (supported by examples from evolutionary biology) of why we must have some slavery. We can't go directly to infinite entropy although entropy remains unbounded in unbounded spacetime, as we'd lose all information and life and cease to exist (and I have even expounded to explain why future and past would become undifferentiated without any such friction). So it isn't a mystery why slavery must always exist. It is a feature of the ability to exist. Just as we must have some friction in order to have a quantifiable speed-of-light.
I agree we want to be something we have yet to become. We seek a march to noble virtues. At some basic level we recognize that we are flawed and seek spiritual growth and ultimately spiritual purity.
Afaics, the only absolute and thus noble goal is to adapt to maximize the increase in entropy in the universe.
Within that we may be able to find harmony with human relations and the physiological phenomenon of love.
I think we humans instinctively know that we require slavery and top-down control, and thus we prefer to choose what we think are loving and empathetic forms of control, e.g. religion and
the "caring" socialist State. But I was never able to rationally convince myself of
a fatherly idol called God or of the caring nature of the entity that has a monopoly on violence (Weber's definition of the State). Here is an example of @CoinCube irrationally lying to his own SJW-enslaved emotions:
Differences Between The Women's March And The March For Life

It is none of your business that other parents choose to do with their bodies and their children. If you choose to make it your business, then you enslave yourselves in SJW slavery. If you want to conquer their culture, then go kill them all and/or take their women and children as your own. Otherwise you are just using the State and SJW-activism as a proxy for creating a power vacuum.
FTFY. I had
already replied to that Bruce Charlton thesis.
And
I explained my stance to @micreanity that religion is just another form of parental/tribe coercion and control over the freewill of sheepeople.
Religion derives its P2P spread and power of coercion due to the importance of our adaption to the Dunbar limit and the priorities we place on those relationships. That the religion virus spreads throughout the population is orthogonal to the mechanism by which religion is empowered.
If we want to destroy the importance of those relationships within our Dunbar limit, then we need to replace that structure of control with another power structure, else we will have a power vacuum as we do which is an infanticide, society-wide brothel that I assert will completely collapse in Stage #5 with the Millennials generation. The Millennials are entirely enslaved in the following linked effects of the ideology the boomers embraced:
My Gen X tried to hold on to the culture of our grandparents, but the Millennials (who didn't know our Gen X grandparents) will take us over the cliff into Stage #5.
Edit: I archived this entire thread and I noticed someone else has also been archiving it (last was Feb 2):
https://web.archive.org/web/20170215012700/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495527.0;all