Black Sovereign University presents:
The Three Fundamental Laws of Slavehood
In the original 2011 post, The Black Sovereign Initiative, I included my three laws of slavehood. However, I never explained the meaning behind them preferring people to come to their own conclusions or approach me directly about them. After six years, I have decided its time to create a post sharing my perspective and the story behind how these laws came about.
First, lets start with the definition of “slave”.
- a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
- a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug
origin of slave
- 1250-1300; Middle English sclave < Medieval Latin sclāvus (masculine),sclāva (feminine) slave, special use of Sclāvus Slavic, so called because Slavs were commonly enslaved in the early Middle Ages;
Next, is the definition of “robot”.
- a machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command.
- a person who acts and responds in a mechanical, routine manner, usually subject to another’s will; automaton.
- any machine or mechanical device that operates automatically with human-like skill.
Origin of robot
- Czech, coined by Karel Čapek in the play R.U.R. (1920) from the base robot-, as in robota compulsory labor, robotník peasant owing such labor.
I have always been fascinated with science fiction and technology. I remember reading stories from Isaac Asimov revolving around robots. This was pretty remarkable because most of his stories were written well before even the first computer was invented. No one used the word “robot” until 1920 (the year Isaac was born). As mentioned above, a playwright, Capek wrote the play R.U.R., about an Englishman, Rossum, who manufactured artificial human beings in quantity. These were intended to do the arduous labor of the world so that real human beings could live lives of leisure and comfort.
Hmm. Sounds exactly like what a real slave is meant for. To help their Masters live in comfort and leisure.
Capek called these artificial human beings “robots,” which is a Czech word for “forced workers,” or “slaves.” In fact, the title of the play stands for “Rossum’s Universal Robots,” the name of the hero’s firm. Although, Capek’s robots were presented as gaining emotion and then, resenting their slavery, wiping out the human species… I chose to focus on the practical aspect of the idea of creating a being made to serve and please only me.
After all, every device has their dangers. The discovery of speech introduced communication —and lies. The discovery of fire introduced cooking —and arson. The discovery of the compass improved navigation —and destroyed civilizations in Mexico and Peru. The automobile is marvelously useful —and kills people by the tens of thousands each year. Medical advances have saved lives by the millions —and intensified the population explosion resulting in natural resource depletion.
In every case, the dangers and misuses could be used to demonstrate that “there are some things humanity was not meant to know,” but surely we cannot be expected to divest ourselves of knowledge and return to the status of the Australopithecus. Even from the theological standpoint, one might argue that God would never have given human beings brains to reason with if he hadn’t intended those brains to be used to devise new things, to make wise use of them, to install safety factors to prevent unwise use — and to do the best we can within the limitations of our imperfections.
Out of this line of thinking the Laws of Robotics were born. Laws science fiction and fact still adhere to today. Laws that I felt fit perfectly within the context of BDSM. Slaves are not robots but their function is the same. A slave also strives for that level of perfection in service where their actions would eventually become second nature (automation). As you can see, the whole idea of robots does relate directly to the concept and mentality of the slave. A being created (or born) to fulfill a purpose… to serve and help make the lives of those it serves better.
The First Law
A slave may not harm a Master or through inaction allow a Master to come to harm.
This seems like common sense but some things still need to be said. A slave shall never harm its Master through verbal, physical or psychological means. A slave shall also protect its Master from others who would bring about the same kind of harm whether intentionally or unintentionally.
The Second Law
A slave must obey the orders given it by a Master except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A slave shall honor and obey all orders given it. When such an order would threaten its Masters well-being or safety, a slave does retain the right to refuse based on the First Law. The slave would be required to explain the reason behind its refusal so to validate the suspension of the Second Law. A slave would be wise to suggest an alternative, if at all possible to comply with the Second Law.
The Third Law
A slave must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Slaves are very valuable property to a Master thus is required to take steps to protect its well-being in order to continue to be of use. A slave would always defer to the First Law in any case where its Master life is threatened. Above all else, the priority and focus shall always be on the Master. This includes orders that may cause trepidation within the slave or seemingly threaten its well-being.
There will always be loopholes when it comes to the laws of Man. But as long as each party knows and adheres to their own roles, any perceived loophole would gradually become harder to find. Faith plays a major part in that.
Course Series: Submission 100