Siegfried, "The burden of the law would be against the one who stole the crown jewels and then fraudulently passed them off as legitimate." Well, in the US, "If the individual didn't know the goods were stolen, then the goods are returned to the owner and the individual is not prosecuted." (Wikipedia) So, it seems the appropriate action is: "If you really want to treat a man well who was stolen from his home (1) set him free, (2) send him back, (3) or adopt him, but don't pretend that continued enslavement is a righteous act." Nonetheless, in the crown jewels hypothetical, one is not found innocent of possession of stolen goods, only that their effective sentence is lighter in the case of ignorance (i.e. return the goods). Even at that, I seriously doubt that anyone trying to use this line of reasoning to rationalize their own slave is ignorant of the status of the "goods".

Well, yeah, sure the Bible institutes slavery into the Hebrew culture (or at least standardizes it) and never criticizes it per se. But these were all (supposed to be) God lovers and those who love their fellow man (slave or not). Today, we have society filled with God haters and man haters. I would not endorse slavery under any of today's societies because of the atrocities it has been demonstrated to inspire. On the other hand, it would make a viable alternative/deterrent to bankruptcy...might help the economic situation...still I would have to oppose it.

One thing I disagree with is that the people who own stolen people as slaves multiple sales down the road are innocent. If someone stole the crown jewels of England and I bought them (somehow unbeknownst to me that they were stolen) third hand, who is going to have mercy on me for possession of stolen goods. Is a man less valuable than rocks?