I was reading CNN and I ran into this article: http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/02/a-110-loan-then-20-years-of-debt-bondage/?hpt=hp_c2
Reading past the nonsense that State governing bodies should take more action to stamp it out, the following did occur to me; In the event that the Asian peoples embrace an Anarcho-Capitalist (the most unlikely) or at least a more Liberalized form, would these bond workers become free of their bondage?
Part of me thinks that even in the best of conditions (the Anarc-Cap ones), bonded workers will continue to be bound to the lords that conned them into this servitude because:
- Barring circumstances that shanghaied them to making these deals, they technically did enter into this state of workhood voluntarily (Wether it was the pursuit of a quick loan, whatever foolishness drove them to these lenders), thus it is ultimately not coercive work.
- By the Doctrine of Property Rights, the lords of these lands are free to dictate the terms of whoever seeks a loan from these men, regardless of what connivery or malice will befall their clients.
- Ousting these lords is out of the question, because that would be invasion of their lands, a violation of the Doctrine of Property Rights, coercive force that any consistent lover of freedom cannot resort to.
Nonetheless, my heart burns with anger and rage whenever I see cruel patrons and lords slowly killing those who serve them (Even in my beloved Central america, this epidemic exists, although not on the same scale and rampancy as Asia). So my question is, is there any way or hope that an Anarc Cap or Liberal society naturally stamps such a system?
P.S. Please refrain giving me answers of this category;
- The "This would never happen in a Anarc-Cap/Liberal Society" answer. I am already aware of such matter, so do not waste your time with this useless response. My question is a matter of transitional issue in a hypothetical scenario that seeks to stamp out the vestigial elements of slavery of a newly spawned Anarch-Cap/Liberal Society (Since the sons of bonded workers DO become coerced servants of these lords).
- Do not patronize me in matters of how the State has facilitated such conditions. I imagine that there is a link to the poverty of the Asian Peoples, bondage lend lords and the State. As much as I like seeing the State getting bashed, please do not waste my time in what I already know about the maliciousness of the State, I am quite convinced thank you.
- Do not tell me that these bond servants can be free to choose to call it quits on their lords. Aside from the matter that these lords are the ones holding the guns that effectively insure their servitude, one cannot simply say "Uuhh, gee, I cannot pay the debt , so I won't, so HAH!". In the real world, when bound by loan debt, it doesn't matter how outrageous the loan rate is, if both parties agreed to this deal, no amount of Anarc-Cap/Liberal Preaching is going change that, debt has to be payed off. I have tried looking throughout this site in stances to debts, yet all the articles I keep running into is about government debt, hardly a pip about debts in general. Barring cases that these servants got shanghaied into servitude, or are coerced sons of bonded servants, those who voluntarily entered in the service of these lords should have known better, and outside the scope of necessary assistance.
- Do not cite me the harsh conditions that probably "forced" these people into such servitude. I can imagine banks denying them much needed loans (who wants to borrow money to some nobody with no means to repay them) forcing them to resort to these loans to survive. I imagine such is the cases of many of these peoples, again, the modern poverty being a byproduct of the State bringing constant ruin and disaster upon these people, a given amongst you.
So with all these, is there hope for these servants to be free from their debt within the paradigm of the Anarcho-Capitalist society or at least a Liberal Society?
Impossible to know.
Even though it'd be very dificult to find a court that would uphold these contracts.
Do not tell me that these bond servants can be free to choose to call it quits on their lords. Aside from the matter that these lords are the ones holding the guns that effectively insure their servitude, one cannot simply say "Uuhh, gee, I cannot pay the debt , so I won't, so HAH!".
Actually you can do that in a civilised society. It's called declaring bankruptcy/insolvency. Your creditors get to fight with each other over your assets.
If you don't have any assets, there's nothing for them to take... They should have known better than to enter into a contract with someone who has no collateral, surety or security of any kind. And no, your children can't be used as collateral. Attempting to introduce unlawful means to artificially coerce contractual performance is just that - unlawful. In a civilised society, the only disincentive against being a bad debtor is an irredeemable credit rating.
When the rule of law based on property rights is respected, a more liberal society can come about. If the rule of law isn't respected, there is no liberal society. Don't bother asking how a free society can come about in an environment where the rule of law is not respected - it can't.
James
Mmhh, there is that option yes. However, hiring such services are quite costly, usually outside the scope of these servants. Unless a society miraculously spawns lawyers or brokers willing to work for dirt cheap, or decide to be charitable in their services (And considering how such lords behave, they will insure such people will be chased out or killed), this is an improbable answer that will work.
If you don't have any assets, there's nothing for them to take... They should have known better than to enter into a contract with someone who has no collateral , surety or security of any kind.
This only applies to lending entities wanting an honest earning. I am talking about entities who thrive in the conning people into an endless and unfruitful servitude, it is in their interest to insure that said entities will have nothing to take, since they ultimately have nothing to insure fullfilling their debts. (And insuring they will have 0 means to hire a lawyer or whatever broker that will insure a declaration of bankruptcy).
And no, your children can't be used as collateral. Attempting to introduce unlawful means to artificially coerce contractual performance is just that - unlawful. In a civilised society, the only disincentive against being a bad debtor is an irredeemable credit rating.
No arguments there. Having personally rid myself of the burdens my great grandfather left me and my family in matters of debt, it is a fate I do not wish on anyone. No one ought to inherit the sins of fathers, it be a cruel cruel thing.
Fine, I'll be mum in asking on how a free society can come about where no fullfilment of rule of law occurs. In the meantime, I may as well call it quits in my attempts to spread the teachings of the Mises Institute, given how the lessons about the rule of law will fall on deaf ears, and leave these lords and bonded servants to whatever path they will carry forth with the arrival of more liberalized societies.
I think there's hope for these servants to be free from their debt sooner in an anarcho-capitalist or (classically) liberal society. What you described is essentially an extreme form of loan sharking. Regarding this, three things stand out in my mind:
With these in mind, legal advocates (lawyers) may compete over such cases because of the opportunity for them (or their law firms) to profit if the cases are decided in their favor. The profit would come from taking part of the settlement.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos
Mmhh, I had forggoten that in English, the term Loan Sharking exists, lovely. :) Mmhh, an extreme form of it, fair enough.
One could claim that the bonded laborer was defrauded if he agreed to the loan contract without actually understanding its implications for him.
I suppose so. Yet the defense of the loan-sharkers would most likely counter with is that the client was never in any way defrauded if the contract clearly stated that the loan rate was extremely high, regardless of the limited intelligence or comprehension of the client. But the one thing that might work, is if it can be demonstrated that loan sharkers explicitly hid the true interest rate, ergo, decieved the client outright, and in effect, voiding the contract duties. (And this is all assuming the lawyers don't get themselves murdered first).
Enforcing the loan payments through threats of violence against person or property is clearly aggression.
It is, but there is one aspect I disagree with you in regards the application of aggression. Last I checked, property owners by property rights doctrine can do what they please with their properties and those that seek to dwell or interact with the items of the property owners (barring unprovoked aggression against other people or properties not bound to them). What is so problematic of enforcing one's will through force of arms within the dominion of one's property?
Family members cannot be held liable for the terms of the loan, unless they were voluntary parties to the agreement. So any attempt to hold any family member liable would be aggression against him.
This I definately agree, and as I stated in my previous post, I personally have lived and repaid the debts my great grandfather left to my family, an unjoyous thing to accomplish.
Hehe, that sounds quite good. After all, legal advocates are a necessity in free societies. My concern is how some law firms will not partake in these when these lords start issuing threats to them to back off.