Should Slavery/Indentured Servitude be brought back?

[Heloin]

What you're saying can apply to employees as well. I don't see much difference in your argument if you just replace "slave" with "employee".

Bosses don’t physically harm their employees, don’t they? If they did, we’d be seeing news of it. And there are. Like the female boss in China forcing the employees to crawl. It’s not really the same, but it can be applied that way too.

Remember to join the Union kids.

[Trollgaard]

WTF, no.

Why is this even a question?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

WTF, no.

Why is this even a question?

Because OP is a white supremacist Naziboo

[Bluelight-R006]

Bosses don’t physically harm their employees, don’t they? If they did, we’d be seeing news of it. And there are. Like the female boss in China forcing the employees to crawl. It’s not really the same, but it can be applied that way too.

You're proving my point.

Sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that the fact it could apply to employees means that it’s normal for slavery to be present, and that we’re seeing it.

The fact you show exclusive praise and honor to unfree labor shows you vote that it is inherently good for the economy and society.


There is a reason why the past isn’t the present no more. We’ve moved on from the past to advance. Rarely do we look into the past for inspiration. ‘If the past was ‘so good’? Why isn’t it present anymore?’ They always say. So if slavery was so good? Why isn’t it present anymore? Because we have established common ground for morals and decency, for human rights, that slavery isn’t and doesn’t have a right to be allowed.


There’s a reason many NSGers here vote no in your question, ‘Is slavery good?’ Usually, we’d be in a dispute. But a majority tells me something: That the fact all people share the same opinion, and that it’s likely to the outside world, tells me that slavery is bad is not an opinion or a perspective, but a fact. And it’s really true. Do we need to remind you of the psychological abuse faced by the slaves in the 1800s?

Not tryna play devil's advocate here but a majority opinion is still an opinion. It doesn't become a fact just because a lot of people believe it.

True. But the fact many don’t like it means that many don’t support it. Therefore, no one should be entitled to something they don’t like.

[Inkopolitia]

What the fuck. No????? How are people asking this in 2019? Slavery is a cruel and inhumane practice, not to mention it's a burden on the economy. Just no, Christ. Leave slavery to the 18th and 19th centuries.

[Ecradia]

WTF, no.

Why is this even a question?

Because nazis are soulless dweebs, that's why.

[Caracasus]

WTF, no.

Why is this even a question?

It's not. It's 3 pages of everyone taking the piss to varying degrees. An utterly fucking braindead statement not worth debating.

[Greater Germany]

Slavery is pretty evil, and indentured servitude seems like semantics on it.

People should be paid a fair, living wage for their labor.

[Saiwania]

What the fuck. No????? How are people asking this in 2019? Slavery is a cruel and inhumane practice, not to mention it's a burden on the economy. Just no, Christ. Leave slavery to the 18th and 19th centuries.

Slavery is relevant in that it still happens. It's formally outlawed in every country (which is quite an accomplishment, because nations generally don't agree to any one thing), but at least some people wind up in that situation or go about trying to exploit this type of labor.

In the UK, 400 people from Poland were basically promised a high paying job that was too good to be true, and once they were there, their IDs and etc. were confiscated and they were effectively made slaves, until they got freed by the UK's police.

[Plzen]

Occasionally I am appalled enough by a suggestion that my urge to respond overrides my desire to stay quiet and lurk. This seems one of those times. Since the original poster insists on treating this frankly ridiculous and absurd proposition seriously, I will abide by that request.

I am also amused that I find myself writing in defence of the free market and the capitalist system, because I usually don't. I suppose this is the kind of odd bedfellows I get when some truly extremist proposal pops up on NationStates.

---

Introduction

The fundamental premise of a free society, whether it be economically free (capitalism), politically free (democracy), or socially free (liberalism), is that people generally do better for themselves than other people, if given the power, will do for them. By and large, these premise appears true. This is because first, value is inherently subjective. Some people prefer a different lifestyle than other people. Some people prefer video games to playing sports. Some people prefer teaching students to performing chemistry experiments. Because of the subjective nature of what "a good life" entails, it is very difficult for anyone to know what any other person considers to be one. Second, people are, in general, self-interested. If given the power over someone else, people will in general not be inclined to look after the best interests of the person for whom they are in charge.

Empirically, the overwhelming success and stability of free institutions, of capitalist economies and of liberal-democratic governments, quite clearly speak for themselves.

The following are the benefits of involuntary labour, as suggested by the original poster. I've excluded arguments that boil down to "this flaw of involuntary labour has been exaggerated," since those still essentially admit that involuntary labour has flaws.

1. picks up skills from work assigned to them
2. those in servitude receive free room, board, and other accommodation, will reduce homelessness and similar social problems
3. lower unemployment, thus greater productivity
4. lowers labour costs, thus lowering prices
5. offers a way towards better living standards for the most destitute

Of these, (1), (2), and (5) fold into (3). Since free skilled or semi-skilled work offers workers the chance to pick up the skills involved in work as much as coercive labour does (1), receive pay with which the worker can buy room, board, and accommodation (2), and offers better living standards for the most destitute (5), these are not benefits of coercive labour by itself, but the benefit of productive work in general, free or otherwise. In fact, it can be argued that these benefits are greater when the worker is not forced to work, but this is a point I will return to later. In any case, it's clear that supposed benefits (1), (2), and (5) exist only insofar as coerced labour reduces unemployment in a way that improves productivity.

So, I will be discussing points (3) and (4) in some detail.

Coercive labour improves economic productivity...?

The original poster proposes that putting people who are not employed and not searching for work to forced labour will improve economic productivity by putting more workers into the economy. This proposal, however, immediately runs afoul of the fact that value is subjective. The original poster assumes, with no supporting evidence, that the economic productivity generated by an unwilling worker will be more beneficial to human society than whatever reason the potential worker has for not wanting to find work (leisure, presumably).

Very few people like or want to work. Most people who work do so because they get paid, and the pay that employers are willing to offer their employees depends, in substantial part, on the economic productivity generated by those employees' work. If the worker is not willing to work, then this can only be because they find their rest and leisure to be more valuable than the pay the employer offers, which is a representation of the quantity of valuable goods and services that can be produced with that can be produced with his or her labour. By forcing these people to work, by stripping them of leisure time in favour of producing goods and services, the coercive employer essentially turns something that is more valuable into something that is less valuable.

Turning something of greater value into something of lesser value is not economic productivity. It is practically the opposite.

Even if, defying the very concept of subjective value, we accept the premise that people forced to work will generate positive economic value, this only improves economic productivity if it is assumed that the productivity of free employees do not suffer. This is unlikely to be the case. Since we no longer live in an agrarian society, labour productivity is almost entirely dependent on capital, a broad term that refers to the equipment, the social/economic organisation, the technology, the connection and know-how, and all those other abstract things that are neither natural resources nor labour but are nonetheless essential for production. Capital improves labour productivity, and therefore employers invest in capital to the extent they feel the need to lower labour costs. With a greater abundance of cheap labour (since, you know, slavery means forcing people to work for less than they would have otherwise demanded for their work), there is less incentive to invest in labour-saving capital, and consequently the longer-term productivity of all other workers suffer.

Coercive labour drives prices lower...?

This is true only in the most technical and pedantic sense. Coercive labour will indeed make labour cheaper and thereby lower the prices of goods and services that require labour to produce (so, everything). The other side of this coin that the original poster seems to neglect mentioning for some reason, is that if one makes labour cheaper, one also lowers people's incomes since most people make a living by being paid for their labour. What determines a person's purchasing power is not the price level of the economy, but the price level in relation to his or her income. Since the real, that is to say inflation-adjusted, productivity of labour will not change, the only ways to improve workers' purchasing powers are, first, give workers a greater share of economic output or, second, extend people's working hours.

First, giving workers a greater share of economic output is unlikely to happen in an environment where by definition the worker has no negotiating power.
Second, I've already detailed above why forcing people to work is not at all productive. This is also true for forcing people to work longer.

Coercive labour brings all the benefits of free labour...?

I return finally to the point that I set aside earlier, the assumption that the benefits (skills, living standards, "way out" of poverty) of employment extend to coerced employment. This is liable to be blatantly false.

First, skills. One must examine here what the ultimate purpose of having "skills" in the first place are. Skills, in general, can be seen as improving the quality of labour. Skilled labour is able to perform a greater variety of tasks faster than less skilled labour. It is, effectively, a means of improving labour productivity. As I have already discussed, however, coerced labour is likely to negatively impact capital investment, which will have a corrosive influence on labour productivity, the very purpose of having skilled workers in the first place. Using coercive labour as a means of training a skilled labour force, therefore, is self-defeating.

Second, quality of life. I'd argue that coerced servitude in itself is already an undesirable lifestyle trait to have. People in general do not sell themselves into slavery, which is clear enough evidence that most people agree with me on that front. Even if that is not the case, coerced labour is unlikely to yield the same living standard that free labour will. A free labourer has the choice to retire, strike, or find another job. This means that an employer must offer enough in pay, which is directly connected to the standard of living and thus influences the quality of life, to keep him or her from doing any of those things. A coerced labourer, unable to do any of these things, has no negotiating power over his or her employer, and thus the employer does not have to offer any higher a living standard to the worker than is necessary to keep him or her working. The more able a worker is to strike or quit, the better his or her ability to demand a higher standard of living from employers tend to be. The less, the less.

Conclusion

Thus it is clear that the original poster's argument in favour of coercive labour rely on a flawed understanding of economics and fails to take into account a variety of different factors that make this a bad idea. Since several of the potential harms that could be caused by this absurd proposal is already stated in the original post in the original poster's attempts to handwave them away, I won't spend time elaborating on those. Perhaps someone else wants to.

Finally, I would like to mention that all of the arguments I've made here in this post are essentially utilitarian arguments, arguing that coerced labour is wrong because it does not benefit the people in societies in which it exists. There is, of course, a deontological argument to be made as well, which depending on one's perspective on ethics and morality may be equally or more valid than the utilitarian arguments I've made. This deontological argument goes like this:

Slavery is wrong, because it is.

Coerced labour is, except for the last dredges in a few fringes that many people are working tirelessly to stamp out, well in the dustbin of history. I, for one, would like to see that there is where it stays.

[Bluelight-R006]

WTF, no.

Why is this even a question?

It's not. It's 3 pages of everyone taking the piss to varying degrees. An utterly fucking braindead statement not worth debating.

Doesn’t mean it’s worth pushing down. I really don’t like it when people think that psychological abuse is good as long as it’s working well for the majority. I’d like to change the mind.

[Inkopolitia]

What the fuck. No????? How are people asking this in 2019? Slavery is a cruel and inhumane practice, not to mention it's a burden on the economy. Just no, Christ. Leave slavery to the 18th and 19th centuries.

Slavery is relevant in that it still happens. It's formally outlawed in every country (which is quite an accomplishment, because nations generally don't agree to any one thing), but at least some people wind up in that situation or go about trying to exploit this type of labor.

In the UK, 400 people from Poland were basically promised a high paying job that was too good to be true, and once they were there, their IDs and etc. were confiscated and they were effectively made slaves, until they got freed by the UK's police.

The Poles got free'd by the UK's police because slavery and servitude are inhumane practices that have no moral, legal or economic grounds whatsoever.

[Juristonia]

Tell you what, we'll have a poll and anyone who reckons that slavery should be bought back spends the rest of their lives scraping out septic tanks and clearing dogshit off the pavements for no money.

Yeah no see, slavery is only good when it's not the people who think it's good doing the slavin'

It's like people who whine that more people should die because overpopulation never seem to consider themselves as those people.

[The Reddington States]

No. Why is this a thread?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

No. Why is this a thread?

WTF, no.

Why is this even a question?

Because OP is a white supremacist Naziboo

[Nakena]

Does that include "islamic slavery"?

No, hence why I said "now". Why'd you put "Islamic slavery" in quotes anyways?

Because it doesnt appears to be a common term nor concept.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

No, hence why I said "now". Why'd you put "Islamic slavery" in quotes anyways?

Because it doesnt appears to be a common term nor concept.

In Al-Islam it is

[Nakena]

Because it doesnt appears to be a common term nor concept.

In Al-Islam it is

I've just googled it and looked up the wikipedia article on Slavery in Islam. While it appears extensively covered theres nowhere a term of specific "Islamic Slavery".

I never encountered that term before you mentioned it.

[San Lumen]

Unequivocally no. Slavery is morally and ethically wrong. I suggest you a history book and that will tell you a multitude of reasons why this is a ridiculous and insane proposal. You’ve heard of the Civil War correct? It was fought over slavery

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Unequivocally no. Slavery is morally and ethically wrong. I suggest you a history book and that will tell you a multitude of reasons why this is a ridiculous and insane proposal. You’ve heard of the Civil War correct? It was fought over slavery

Think about who you're talking to, San Lumen.

In Al-Islam it is

I've just googled it and looked up the wikipedia article on Slavery in Islam. While it appears extensively covered theres nowhere a term of specific "Islamic Slavery".

I never encountered that term before you mentioned it.

I was more talking about the concept, not the actual wording.

[Camarder]

Slavery is wrong economically, morally and even efficiency-wise. It makes no sense societally, and never has. It only existed because it was a convenient way for the idle rich to stay both idle and rich.

[Uan aa Boa]

I clicked the link to the thread title out of curiosity, but I wasn't particularly surprised to find the OP has a flag design that's a little, shall we say... bauhaus?

[Bear Stearns]

Who needs slaves when agribusinesses are more than happy to use illegal immigrants knowing that they'll never be deported because anti-racism and corporate profits mean more than the well-being of the American poor?

[Nakena]

Unequivocally no. Slavery is morally and ethically wrong. I suggest you a history book and that will tell you a multitude of reasons why this is a ridiculous and insane proposal. You’ve heard of the Civil War correct? It was fought over slavery

Think about who you're talking to, San Lumen.

I've just googled it and looked up the wikipedia article on Slavery in Islam. While it appears extensively covered theres nowhere a term of specific "Islamic Slavery".

I never encountered that term before you mentioned it.

I was more talking about the concept, not the actual wording.

Your wordings can be sometimes slightly confusing tbh.

Like "Al-Islam". I can't tell anyone ever have called it that.

I clicked the link to the thread title out of curiosity, but I wasn't particularly surprised to find the OP has a flag design that's a little, shall we say... bauhaus?

Bauhaus was banned in Nazi Germany.

[Bear Stearns]

Don’t most economists agree slavery actually hurts the economy?

Depends on which economy.