"That is at least a respectably formed argument. And indeed many slaves have already been sold, the bulk of them overseas where they can command prices not influenced by this possibility. I hope you are aware, however, that ownership of a slave does not invariably come with ownership of land."

There aren't actually the numbers in this committee to block outright abolition, certainly not with that damn fool totally unwilling to compromise. The convention as a whole probably won't vote down abolition if it doesn't come with insane strings attached like "kill all the slaveholders." If there's no possible victory on the side of the masters, then better to not be on that side. 

"Any compensation to slaveholders would necessarily have to be paid for by the crown. It would be a great expense, which must ultimately come from taxes upon the country or plunder from foreign adventure, and which surely has a thousand better ways it might be spent. Why should the slave-keeper be compensated for his loss before the merchant -" Abadarans are very sympathetic to merchants, right? "-whose livelihood was trampled by the Tarrasque, or the smith whose arms were expropriated to put down the rebels in Galt, or the farmer whose fields were burned by the armies of Hell?"

"Loss in warfare and in monster attack is the sort of thing normally covered by insurance, and indeed much of that damage was covered by insurance, albeit with some sluggishness on the part of the Absalom reinsurers backing the policy issuers. The insurance policies in vogue for slaves are not worded to cover expropriation by the Crown; they cover mass escape or rebellion, disease outbreak, things like that. I agree it would be fantastically expensive as a lump sum. Perhaps as an interim measure the sale of slaves to purchasers other than the Crown or manumission-inclined churches could be forbidden, and then a steady trickle of slaves would be voluntarily offered at moments appropriate to the nature of their work. I believe this would also alleviate the outflow of halfling-filled boats bound for Katapesh and other such climes, which I would imagine to be of interest to a consistent abolitionist."

"Perhaps the slaveowners should have been wiser in their choice of insurance policies, then. I hardly see why their foolishness should be paid for by the crown, if the crown must in turn take that money from the" nobles "people. Why should any man who works to support himself and his family have a portion of his produce be taken to compensate fools?"

"Because a habit of doing otherwise may mean instead he starves. If it is too expensive to pay for what you take, you must not take it, or find a slower and gentler way to extract it. I am not, to be clear, first and foremost in favor of buying up all the slaves. I would prefer that no appropriations be authorized by the crown at all beyond those taxes necessary to pay for state services, and theft is not a service. I am merely saying that if it should be deemed necessary, it will do much worse harm to steal them instead of to insist on purchasing them."

"Has any slaveowner fairly paid the mothers whose children were born into bondage? If so, then let that man be compensated for his loss. But the others are no less thieves than you make the crown out to be."

"—if people hear that their slaves are going to be taken without even being compensated, and their lands and property given to those slaves, they'll have no reason not to just put their slaves to death before that happens. I'm sure none of us here want that to happen."

"Put them all to death for murder. It's what you'd do if they murdered a human."

"The archmage already said we're not allowed to have people executed for things that weren't illegal when they did them. —That's what 'retroactive sentences' means." 

"A plot of land is not paid for growing kindling and blueberries, a horse is not paid for foals, and the underlying assumptions under which investments were made presumed that a halfling was not paid for whelping."

"The punishment for murder is beyond the scope of this committee," he says to Permira.

"It seems we are at an impasse. I believe we should vote on the following issues we've discussed:

Should chattel slavery in Cheliax be abolished?

Should former slaveowners be compensated?

Should former slaves be compensated?

We can discuss the specifics further once we have decided what path we want to take."

"These proposals are currently very vague. Do you mean simply to kick the implementation details to the floor?"

"I think the whole purpose of a committee is to handle the implementation details, so that would be unwise. But perhaps we can come to a preliminary agreement on those larger questions before getting into the details."

"I want to decide on the implementation details in this committee, but we are currently divided on whether to compensate slaveowners at all. I would not want to spend hours working on a detailed compensation plan only for it to not pass because the committee doesn't want any compensation. Thus, a preliminary vote to narrow our focus."

“What delegate Agramunt say is why I want ban say ‘property’ for slaves. Fine, is not most important thing, but intended prevent thing which just happen, forget that blueberry patch not person and horse not person and halfling person.”

"And a blueberry patch is not a horse is not a frigate. I am aware that a halfling can think for itself."

“Cannot steal from horse or frigate or blueberry patch, because is not person. Someone keep slave, every day, steal everything from slave, because that what stealing is.”

"Yes. All wealth gained from slavery is lies. It's a product of theft and a betrayal of the slave and of your god. If your god says slavery is fair trade your god is wrong. No compensation."

...does she think his god is wrong or that he is betraying his god? She should make up her mind. He's pretty sure the Pharaoh of Osirion owns slaves, though the church hierarchy is organized separately inside and out of that blessed country.

She neither doesn't know which of them is evil but she's pretty sure one of them is.

She looks up at Daniel. "Let's settle this. I propose a vote on emancipation. Will all slaves be freed or not?"

"Alright. On the abolishment of slavery, how does this committee vote?" Let's get this moving along.

"Yes on abolition." Everyone else? Everyone should vote.

Firmly: "Vote yes." 

"Against."