NationStates

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

Kernen wrote:You can't have voluntary servitude. You can have voluntary service, but servitude implicitly prevents any revocation.

Nor should you, because you force governments to ratify servitude when enforcing breaches of the initial contract upon revocation.

Then what would you call a "servant" then?

A servant is generally one who provides domestic services, though there is a more legal definition that defines a servant as one subordinate to a master in an agency-principle relationship. Both are relevant.

The hallmark of a service contract, which is the method by which you'd establish the superior-subordinate relationship, is revocability. In all service contracts, all parties have the power to revoke at any time. They may not have the right to revoke, and can potentially be subject to damages, but they cannot be compelled to serve.

In the US, specifically, courts will not enforce specific performance on a service contract for fear of violating the 13th Amendment. Thus, the hallmark of service contracts versus actual servitude is the power to revoke.

People saying no to Indentured Servitude fail to realize the benefits. Now I wholeheartedly disagree with it when put against those in debt, however what I do agree is using those in jail or those who committed a crime. Murderers, rapists, and things such as that should not receive that option, however lighter crimes but still long in length, should. Capitalism would likely abuse the system, however, so a well monitored and regulated one is needed for it to work, but nothing in life turns out the way it should, therefore perhaps it is not wise until a true, honest to God government that truly works for the people is in place.

Military Lands of the Scottish People wrote:People saying no to Indentured Servitude fail to realize the benefits. Now I wholeheartedly disagree with it when put against those in debt, however what I do agree is using those in jail or those who committed a crime. Murderers, rapists, and things such as that should not receive that option, however lighter crimes but still long in length, should. Capitalism would likely abuse the system, however, so a well monitored and regulated one is needed for it to work, but nothing in life turns out the way it should, therefore perhaps it is not wise until a true, honest to God government that truly works for the people is in place.

...Which never has, nor will it ever, exist.

Military Lands of the Scottish People wrote:People saying no to Indentured Servitude fail to realize the benefits. Now I wholeheartedly disagree with it when put against those in debt, however what I do agree is using those in jail or those who committed a crime. Murderers, rapists, and things such as that should not receive that option, however lighter crimes but still long in length, should. Capitalism would likely abuse the system, however, so a well monitored and regulated one is needed for it to work, but nothing in life turns out the way it should, therefore perhaps it is not wise until a true, honest to God government that truly works for the people is in place.

No it wouldn't. It's harmful to the economy, for one, and dehumanizing to the incarcerated for another, which roundly undermines rehabilitation efforts.

No.

And at least I have a smidgen of respect with regards to Sai's opinion if he wouldn't object to be my slave in such a world. I don't bite ^^

Saiwania wrote:snip

You're joking right?

Tokora wrote:

Saiwania wrote:snip

You're joking right?

Nah he's serious.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Eternal Lotharia wrote:Good because I want to hire some if I get rich, treat them well, I'm not Sai but the idea of servants and maids who I get along with-maybe marry a willing maid in an appropriate situation-has been a dream of mine if I got rich. One big family. Maybe make a school for their children.

Or... You could just find love outside of your servants/maids?

I agree. It is wholly immoral and unprofessional to hire someone for those reasons.

Wait, goddamnit, let me change my answer, I misread the question.

No, why would anyone support this unironically.

It's still legal in the technical sense here in the US, at least according to the 13th amendment:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Soviet Tankistan wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:Or... You could just find love outside of your servants/maids?

I agree. It is wholly immoral and unprofessional to hire someone for those reasons.

Knowing that slavery is seriously being considered in the 21st century, I doubt that people would be more moral and decent to respect others and not defile them.

If slavery did exist, most people who own slaves would be arrested for psychological abuse. I can confirm this, since Singapore has many cases of abuse to maids.

ImperialistSalvia wrote:It's still legal in the technical sense here in the US, at least according to the 13th amendment:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Fortunately, that has generally fallen into disuse here.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

Bluelight-R006 wrote:Knowing that slavery is seriously being considered in the 21st century, I doubt that people would be more moral and decent to respect others and not defile them.

If slavery did exist, most people who own slaves would be arrested for psychological abuse. I can confirm this, since Singapore has many cases of abuse to maids.

Oh for sure, abusing maids should be a crime.

Don't get me wrong about that.

I'm for harsh punishments for maid abuse, so the hirers do it at their own risk, and probably should ask them to not be their maid anymore and instead date them, and inform their superiors they're not their maid anymore.

Respect of course is paramount, and abuse should always be punished.

Of course, if everyone complies and abides by the law and its standards, then slavery would likely be a bigger thing now, but people have the urge to break the laws. It’s human culture, so you can’t change it simply.

I hear a lot of "nays" without any real arguments. The knee-jerking is strong in this thread.

What is essentially being proposed is a forced work program for people afflicted with debilitating debt, crippling poverty or some other set of circumstances that barr them from functioning in a free economy productively. This is an involuntary welfare program, plain and simple, especially given the context the question is being posed in (the OP assuming viable skills will be learned during the enslavement, etc.).

Now, the reason slavery is a bad idea is because there is no human being in the history of this planet I trust more to know what is best for me than myself. Sure, it's easy to say "All that these homeless people need is a job! Load 'em up and put 'em to work picking chile!" But, it's quite different when you are the subject of the enslavement.

You cannot guarantee the slaves will be utilized productively, because productivity can be largely subjective; that is the principle behind why companies should sell what customers say they need, not tell customers what they need.

As for servitude, I'm mostly fine with it as a contractual model voluntarily submitted to as a way to avoid economic obsolescence. We have what is essentially the same thing, where people make payments on large purchases they cannot immediately afford, and as long as the contract is voluntary, I'm fine with people placing themselves in the worst conditions they can stand to provide for themselves and their families. I even think it is quite admirable.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

Bluelight-R006 wrote:Of course, if everyone complies and abides by the law and its standards, then slavery would likely be a bigger thing now, but people have the urge to break the laws. It’s human culture, so you can’t change it simply.

...I'm sorry?

Just saying, if people abide by the law that we shouldn’t hurt our ‘slaves’, then slavery would be okay, just an economic problem. But we can’t trust humans to always comply with the law, because we clearly see that many break the law.

Bluelight-R006 wrote:

Eternal Lotharia wrote:...I'm sorry?

Just saying, if people abide by the law that we shouldn’t hurt our ‘slaves’, then slavery would be okay, just an economic problem. But we can’t trust humans to always comply with the law, because we clearly see that many break the law.

It...would still not be ok. You'd still have people unable to terminate their subordinate-superior relationship. That there isn't abuse does not forgive slavery as a grave civil wrong.

Kernen wrote:

Bluelight-R006 wrote:Just saying, if people abide by the law that we shouldn’t hurt our ‘slaves’, then slavery would be okay, just an economic problem. But we can’t trust humans to always comply with the law, because we clearly see that many break the law.

It...would still not be ok. You'd still have people unable to terminate their subordinate-superior relationship. That there isn't abuse does not forgive slavery as a grave civil wrong.

Perhaps set laws on relationships between the ‘owner’ and the ‘slave.’ Though many people will just say, ‘It’s love at first sight.’ Unless the ‘slave’ gets raped, of course.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:Islamic slaves had rights, as did chinese and persian ones, to an extent. It was still a brutally inhumane system

No it wasn't and isn't. Slaves can't be mistreated in any way, shape or form and if they are, the punishment on the master is manumission. If the slave is hit, they have the right to hit the master in the same way the master hit them. They should be given mukaatabah if they request their freedom as well. On top that, the master should help the slave if said slave needs it. Also the master and the slave should live on equal standing.

Explanations for Al-Islam wrote:Slavery in Al-Islam:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wic1CdJKufY
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4sVo_-j2THE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pn1ubtoL95c
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h9d6sZJRNYQ
https://islamqa.info/en/94840
http://islam-wa-sunnah.com/fatwa/index. ... definition
https://www.al-islam.org/slavery-from-i ... ks-slavery
http://www.islamweb.net/en/article/1174 ... of-slavery
http://islam-wa-sunnah.com/fatwa/index. ... definition
https://abuaminaelias.com/sexual-consen ... -in-islam/
https://abuaminaelias.com/what-does-isl ... oncubines/
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/13737/w ... lave-women
https://aboutislam.net/counseling/ask-a ... oncubines/
https://sunnah.com/urn/414630
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/89/10

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:So while you guys bash American slavery (rightfully so) have you forgotten about the atrocities the Turks committed against whites? Namely forced sex slavery, torture, hard labor, and murder?

Well, there's people on this very page talking about Islamic slavery and Chinese slavery, so...

Turkic/Turkish slavery =/= Islamic slavery

Eternal Lotharia wrote:

Nea Byzantia wrote:...Depends on where you live.

*Coughs*
Like in China or Iran, coincidentally enough...

Or Arabia present and post Prophethood. I'd wanna live there.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Eternal Lotharia wrote:So they were the Nazis who instead of killing everyone enslaved them.
Good to know.

Yeah no f*ck them for that

https://sunnah.com/urn/2212700

Nea Byzantia wrote:

Eternal Lotharia wrote:China's always sucked to live in

Unless you're the Emperor, or Communist equivalent thereof...

There is none.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:Back to slavery.

Do voluntary maids count as slavery?

What about voluntary servants?

Aren't they paid?

Kernen wrote:You can't have voluntary servitude. You can have voluntary service, but servitude implicitly prevents any revocation.

Yes you can.

Bluelight-R006 wrote:

Eternal Lotharia wrote:...I'm sorry?

Just saying, if people abide by the law that we shouldn’t hurt our ‘slaves’, then slavery would be okay, just an economic problem. But we can’t trust humans to always comply with the law, because we clearly see that many break the law.

And you're saying slavery should be illegal because of that?

Saiwania wrote:If we want to try to extract even more productivity for the economy, it isn't enough to have near full employment like is the case for the US economy during Donald Trump's presidency. We need to perhaps try to utilize the under 5% of the population that isn't employed for whatever reason, and the people who aren't employed but aren't looking- except for the truly disabled or retired people. On paper, there are more jobs than there are qualified people to fill those jobs.

This is a load of crap told by the banksters and their puppets to justify expanding the workforce in an effort to reduce wages. If there were really a labor shortage, wages would be rising and job training would be substantially paid for by private industry.

Bluelight-R006 wrote:

Kernen wrote:It...would still not be ok. You'd still have people unable to terminate their subordinate-superior relationship. That there isn't abuse does not forgive slavery as a grave civil wrong.

Perhaps set laws on relationships between the ‘owner’ and the ‘slave.’ Though many people will just say, ‘It’s love at first sight.’ Unless the ‘slave’ gets raped, of course.

Which still wouldn't solve the problem of inalienable labor relationships.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Eternal Lotharia wrote:Islamic slaves had rights, as did chinese and persian ones, to an extent. It was still a brutally inhumane system

No it wasn't and isn't. Slaves can't be mistreated in any way, shape or form and if they are, the punishment on the master is manumission. If the slave is hit, they have the right to hit the master in the same way the master hit them. They should be given mukaatabah if they request their freedom as well. On top that, the master should help the slave if said slave needs it. Also the master and the slave should live on equal standing.

Slavery is itself a harm

Kernen wrote:You can't have voluntary servitude. You can have voluntary service, but servitude implicitly prevents any revocation.

Yes you can.

No, you can't. Voluntarily choosing to labor for another without compensation is not servitude in the context of slavery discussions. Doing so without the ability to revoke the initial arrangement is servitude. One is a gratuitous performance revocable at any time. The other is not.

Kernen wrote:Slavery is itself a harm

Did you read what I ssid?

Kernen wrote:No, you can't. Voluntarily choosing to labor for another without compensation is not servitude in the context of slavery discussions. Doing so without the ability to revoke the initial arrangement is servitude. One is a gratuitous performance revocable at any time. The other is not.

In Islamic slavery you can revoke servitude.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Kernen wrote:Slavery is itself a harm

Did you read what I ssid?

Yep.

Kernen wrote:No, you can't. Voluntarily choosing to labor for another without compensation is not servitude in the context of slavery discussions. Doing so without the ability to revoke the initial arrangement is servitude. One is a gratuitous performance revocable at any time. The other is not.

In Islamic slavery you can revoke servitude.[/quote]

Then it isn't slavery. Its a gratuitous performance.

Slavery is a harm, regardless of the circumstances.

Kernen wrote:Yep.

Then what's the problem?

Kernen wrote:Then it isn't slavery. Its a gratuitous performance.

This sounds like semantics

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:This sounds like semantics

I see absolutely no reason not to have well-defined terms in a discussion. Vague concepts are good for nothing except the justification of absurdities.

I think the UDHR has made it clear: NO!

Even Zero Hour Contracts are almost akin to indebted servitude.