Why Do We Think Slavery is Evil?

[Tonus]

Bryant is not a slave of the Lakers, but if he wanted to play for the Heat, it would be the owners of his basketball skill that would only be allowed to trade or release him. He is free to do what he wanted but not play in the NBA unless the team owner allowed it.

That's because he would be under contract, and it's a contract that is subject to rules in a CBA that he agreed to when he became a member of the NBA Player's Union. Under the terms of his contract, both Bryant and the Lakers have restrictions on what they can or cannot do. Most importantly, the Lakers cannot change the terms under which Bryant works without either his direct consent or the consent of the Player's Union.

People in the OT had just a few options of livelihoods. They were the property of their masters, but it is not like they had too many options. And their entire livelihood was cared for. I don't think its as a demeaning of a situation when its pretty much your only way to a means of life. So think about that point about being forced against their will. If you were a slave in those days and you had a place to sleep and food to eat but your labor was owned by the person providing all of this, what are your options in that time?

Under such conditions, is there an arrangement that could work better than having one person own another? In relatively small communities with limited options, would it be necessary for a person to enter into a contract to be owned by someone else? Assuming we're talking about an agricultural community, why wouldn't those who could work become salaried employees of those who could afford it? Or if there was no system of fiat currency, why not offer room and board to those who had labor to offer? How does ownership of another person make this arrangement better or worse in the environment you describe?