Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Belarus going full slavery

rated by 0 users
This post has 34 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745
Wheylous Posted: Sun, Dec 2 2012 9:53 PM

http://redhotrussia.com/belarus-feudalism-lukashenko-new-law/

If true, this is very scary.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Sun, Dec 2 2012 10:13 PM

Well damn...

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Sun, Dec 2 2012 11:21 PM

that bill was for involuntary labor, not slavery

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 907
Points 14,795

It is not slavery if the government does it.

The Voluntaryist Reader - read, comment, post your own.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 478
Points 10,295
FlyingAxe replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 12:24 AM

So, what can libertarians do to help? Or is it the Byelorussians' own fault, since they have not rebelled?..

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 12:39 AM

the country already has conscription, the countries politics look very shaky

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 3:06 AM

cab21:

that bill was for involuntary labor, not slavery

Just how do you define slavery? Any-time someone makes a choice for you, to that extent they make you a slave. What do you think the word 'involuntary' means? Maybe it's not total-slavery, where the worker has lost every last decision-making ability, but it is still slavery.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 4:54 AM

cab21:

that bill was for involuntary labor, not slavery

Is nobody gonna sig this?

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 5:29 AM

i guess with different definitions it can be different things

a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another is what i think of first when i think of slave.
 
it does not sound like this law makes people property, but bound to a service contract.
 
under a definition of subserviance, all sorts of workers could be called slaves as they have to obey orders, leave, or get fired.
 
maybe i should just take the difference between slave and nonslave as
a nonslave can leave, and perhaps lose some property as agreed in a contract
a slave  cannot leave, and is punished by loss of autonomy.
 
in that sense this could be called slavery as it said work, or be forced to work.
 
another separation could be labor could be bought and sold and forced, but not the person, as in what happened with indentured servants.
 
 
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 5:48 AM
 
 

cab21:

a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another is what i think of first when i think of slave.
And having property means the ability to make decisions about and control that property. Thus, forcing someone to labor it treating them as property, means to make them a slave in part. It also means deciding where they shall remain physically, so it's false imprisonment, violating freedom of assocaition. Interfering with pursuit of happiness, etc.
 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Female
Posts 260
Points 4,015

If you can quit and leave or get fired and leave, you're not a slave.  If you can't, you're a slave. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 429
Points 7,400

Reminds me of this recent story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvfiHmOFY78

Scary stuff.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 3:31 PM

incarceration is slavery then, and i'm not sure which countries don't have that.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 3:40 PM

cab21:

incarceration is slavery then, and i'm not sure which countries don't have that.

Slavery is unjust, incarceration is (usually) just, as a punishment for serious crime. That's the difference. The US constitution uses a similar principle, stating that no one may be incarcerated or subject to forced labor without due process.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 3:53 PM

people in the usa can be incarcerated for leaving work or refusing to report for work, the military is a example

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/awol6.htm

due process does not make a decision or law just.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 5:16 PM
Incarceration is slavery.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 7:40 PM
 
 

cab21:

people in the usa can be incarcerated for leaving work or refusing to report for work, the military is a example

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/awol6.htm

The military isn't just 'work' it's sometimes involuntary work. It is coercive, claiming rights against you others couldn't.

In cases where conscription is used, that is genuinely slavery. Preventing someone from leaving work is also slavery. Even in the military, one should be able to quit at will and should not be able to be held at work. (Remedy for quitting military service while retaining voluntarism is financial damage for breaking a service contract and probably also blacklisting from similar occupations).

cab21:
due process does not make a decision or law just.

Let's say a man commits a crime. He's taken into custody or w/e, sued for recompense. He is convicted in a 3rd party court via objective rules of evidence, publicly, etc. That constitutes due process. He is sentenced to labor to repay damages, having no existing capital.

That would be just forced labor. His right to not be forced to do labor is abrogated by his first using force against someone else to do the damage he's convicted of.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 257
Points 4,920
Prime replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 7:58 PM

"The military isn't just 'work' it's sometimes involuntary work. It is coercive, claiming rights against you others couldn't."

Not if you voluntaryily sign up for the military. Then it is just part of the contract.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 8:21 PM

Prime:

"The military isn't just 'work' it's sometimes involuntary work. It is coercive, claiming rights against you others couldn't."

Not if you voluntaryily sign up for the military. Then it is just part of the contract.

True, but in such a case it becomes functionally equivalent to a free market 'slvaery' contract voluntarily entered into: ethical as long as the worker's consent remains and immediately unethical the minute consent is withdrawn.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,745

My inclination is to think that incarceration is slavery.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

My inclination is to think that the state is slavery.

Arent we all slaves through taxation already?

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Mon, Dec 3 2012 11:35 PM

Not necessarily. The relationship between the state and its subjects is at least equivalent to robbery. There are some that are definitely slaves, such as soldiers, but I don't think that each and every citizen is necessarily a slave to the state.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 366
Points 7,345

No one going to say it?  I know you were thinking this when you were making the thread Wheylous.  So, just to satisfy my completionistic fetishism:

 

You went full slavery, Belarus. Never go full slavery.

Latest Projects

"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Tue, Dec 4 2012 2:18 PM

they could just make it a fine for leaving so severe people think they are better of staying the duration of the contract, then if people don't pay they can be put into the labor to pay it back or have wages taken,

i'm not sure how well it works if the only punishment someone could face for a fine is a larger fine but no restrictions on freedom.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Dec 4 2012 2:41 PM

Such a fine could only be voluntarily paid.

In a free-market contract, such as we're discussing, the remedy for exiting a continuing contract is generally cessation of current payment. Not a fine.

They could enforce a fine only if the worker wanted to continue working there.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

What if you had a slave and he worked for you and didnt get paid.

What if then you let your slave earn wages but you kept 100% of those wages.

Then you let your slave keep 50% of his wages and you kept 50%.

Did we stop talking about slaves?

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Tue, Dec 4 2012 7:41 PM
 
 

Kelvin Silva:

What if you had a slave and he worked for you and didnt get paid.

You'd still be paying his living expenses, ostensibly.

Kelvin Silva:
What if then you let your slave earn wages but you kept 100% of those wages.

Then you let your slave keep 50% of his wages and you kept 50%.

Did we stop talking about slaves?

Nope, still slavery.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Tue, Dec 4 2012 11:51 PM

i don't think people will voluntarlily pay much at all.

if a person stops a contract, thats putting all the risk on company and non of the risk on someone that can stop at whim.

a worker is not allowed to leave with company property, and i don't think it makes much sense for the company to only get the property returned under voluntary conditions.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 907
Points 14,795

Such a fine could only be voluntarily paid.

If the fine was agreed to when entering the contract, then the fine is a debt, and not paying debts is theft. Rothbard concurs :)

The Voluntaryist Reader - read, comment, post your own.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Dec 5 2012 2:40 AM
 
 

Andris Birkmanis:

Such a fine could only be voluntarily paid.

If the fine was agreed to when entering the contract, then the fine is a debt, and not paying debts is theft. Rothbard concurs :)

Certainly, I just mean to say that you can't simply decide to suddenly fine someone for breaking a contract with you. If they no longer want to associate with you, you have no power over them. And neither should the government. If they do want to associate with you, maybe then you can convince them to pay a fine in order to continue that privilege.

Whatever was worked out in the contract is of course enforceable. I assumed his talk of being fined for quitting was extra-contractual.

 
Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 907
Points 14,795

Ah, I agree, the wording was ambigious.

The Voluntaryist Reader - read, comment, post your own.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Wed, Dec 5 2012 3:05 AM

my suggesion was thinking contractual and not extra-contractual. the employer and employee would agree to terms or arbitration in the contract.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Dec 5 2012 3:31 AM

cab21:

my suggesion was thinking contractual and not extra-contractual. the employer and employee would agree to terms or arbitration in the contract.

In that case, again, it wouldn't be possible to force him to keep working even if he breaks the contract and decides to pay whatever penalty for that worked out in the contract.

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 907
Points 14,795

I guess his point was that the fine may be so high as to be impossible to pay.

That's actually my usual response to Rothbard's "impossibility of voluntary slavery". Let's say, S has a contract with M to pay the GDP of the US if S stops working for M. How is this effectively different from voluntary slavery? Sure, S may stop working, but he will incur a huge debt. Won't he be forced to work in order to return at least part of the debt?

The Voluntaryist Reader - read, comment, post your own.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 639
Points 11,575
cab21 replied on Wed, Dec 5 2012 5:59 AM

he would be forced to keep working if he refused to pay what he had agreed to pay. he can work any job he wants as long as he returns the property as agreed upon

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (35 items) | RSS