How would they be protected in the free-market?
Daniel Muffinburg:You lie!
Congressman Joe Wilson, is that you?
If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Slaves, by definition, do not earn wages.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
I think the question was about low wages..in Asia. I care. It's a terrible thing what the Chinese government is forcing upon its people. There are clear human rights violations.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Esuric: Slaves, by definition, do not earn wages.
Strictly speaking, this is not true. There were times that Frederick Douglass earned wages for himself while a slave. Read his biography here, and if you want to just skip to the relevant portions, just do a search for the word "wages". Slavery is less about the specifics of wages/salaries/taxes and more about the relationship between the individuals involved, in my opinion.
Slavery is less about the specifics of wages/salaries/taxes and more about the relationship between the individuals involved, in my opinion.
This is rather ambiguous and does not provide a clear distinction between various types of productive activity. There’s no doubt that slaves, laborers, land owners and capitalists are productive, but the question is, what is the key (essential) difference amongst them? How are they defined? Typically, they are defined by their respective forms of remuneration: slaves earn nothing, laborers earn wages, land owners rent and capitalists earn interest.
You can, throughout the course of your life, transition between any of these categories. The key point, though, is that this provides a concrete definition that clearly distinguishes between various types of phenomena. In other words, it does not allow for the muddled thought and arguments made by individuals who rely on ambiguity to defend their confused positions.
So how do you propose we take out the garbage then? Or are we supposed to make sure that everyone is paid equally? Where does value come from?
By the way, there is no such thing as a "slave wage." Big time oxymoron.
Esuric: This is rather ambiguous and does not provide a clear distinction between various types of productive activity. There’s no doubt that slaves, indentured servants, laborers, land owners and capitalists are productive, but the question is, what is the key (essential) difference amongst them? How are they defined? Typically, they are defined by their respective forms of remuneration: slaves earn nothing, indentured servants work to pay off debt, laborers earn wages, land owners rent and capitalists earn interest. You can, throughout the course of your life, transition between any of these categories. The key point, though, is that this provides a concrete definition that clearly distinguishes between various types of phenomena. In other words, it does not allow for the muddled thought and arguments made by individuals who rely on ambiguity to defend their confused positions.
This is rather ambiguous and does not provide a clear distinction between various types of productive activity. There’s no doubt that slaves, indentured servants, laborers, land owners and capitalists are productive, but the question is, what is the key (essential) difference amongst them? How are they defined? Typically, they are defined by their respective forms of remuneration: slaves earn nothing, indentured servants work to pay off debt, laborers earn wages, land owners rent and capitalists earn interest.
I'm not sure there can be much discussion with someone who would define Frederick Douglass as a laborer and not a slave. Have fun "not being confused".
"This is rather ambiguous and does not provide a clear distinction between various types of productive activity. There’s no doubt that slaves, laborers, land owners and capitalists are productive, but the question is, what is the key (essential) difference amongst them? How are they defined? Typically, they are defined by their respective forms of remuneration: slaves earn nothing, laborers earn wages, land owners rent and capitalists earn interest."
Slaves earned wages. What defined them is:
A.) they were usually, not always, a minority. Most were African Americans and Indians but Indian slavery died out due to African slavery.
B.) It was involuntary servitude. Slaves were not voluntarily contracted to work such as indentured servants.
So in a sense GotLucky is correct in thinking that it is more about the social aspect then the economic aspect when it comes to defining slaves. A good book about the slave market in antebellum America is Soul by Soul by Walter Johnson. He actually shows that slaves participated in the market experience by utilizing a degree of power over their masters in relation to the selling or buying of slaves. A slave might be more willing to be traded if the family remained intact or they might feign sickness in order to dodge being sold to cruel buyers. He also debunks the myth that all slaves were constantly beaten and tortured. There were instances of it but it was not a widespread practice because white farmers perceived slaves as a commodity that was not meant to be damaged due to their high cost. It's ghastly how the commercialization of Africans happened but it is not a subject that should be hushed up.
I'm wondering about Obama, who is a mullato.
Does his white half owe anything to his black half because the black half was enslaved by his white half before the Civil War?
Slavery long predates the use of African and Indian slaves. In fact, the word itself is a reference to the Slavic people who were widely enslaved during the middle ages.
It is undoubtedly involuntary. Being forced to work without any form of compensation/remuneration always requires coercion.
So in a sense GotLucky is correct in thinking that it is more about the social aspect then the economic aspect when it comes to defining slaves.
Maybe he can elaborate on what he means, on the 'social aspect' you mention. As it stands now, his definition is entirely incoherent.
At some points in his life he was a laborer and at others, he was a slave. Get it?
kylio27: Do you even care about the ridiculously low wage(slave) workers in Asia? How would they be protected in the free-market?
Do you even care about the ridiculously low wage(slave) workers in Asia?
@Kylio27
There is a lot loaded in here. So, first let's put some context on the table.
If the worker is being threatened or the private corporation/government are preventing competition, then we would argue that it's not free market and that the institutions involved are violating the rights of the workers.
Even if the first option is happening, the laborers are choosing the job. This necessarily implies that they view this "ridiculously low wage" as better than their alternatives. If you kick the 12 year old malaysian boy or girl out of the factory job, where do they go and what do they do instead? Remember all economics questions need to consider not just the seen effects but the unseen effects also. So, instead of laboring for even less in some other job that's harder, or scavenging for food/clothing in dumps, or a life of crime stealing to feed him or herself, or finally the one we all deplore most the sex trade.
Esuric: Maybe he can elaborate on what he means, on the 'social aspect' you mention. As it stands now, his definition is entirely incoherent.
You might wish to reread what I wrote. I provided no definition. I was merely critiquing your definition for not covering the social aspects of slavery.
Esuric: At some points in his life he was a laborer and at others, he was a slave. Get it?
He was a slave until he escaped from the South. Until that point, he was owned by others in the eyes of the law. Using your definition, during the times of his life when he was owned by others but still earned wages (and even kept some for himself), he was not a slave but a laborer.
If that does not fit your definition of slavery, so be it. I think that is a poor distinction between slave and laborer, and I think that is all I have to say on the matter.
I'm asking you to elaborate on the 'social aspects' of slavery that you continuously raise as problem with my definition. What are they? How are they unique to the phenomena of slavery? Do they provide clear distinctions that avoid ambiguity? So far, the only thing I know is that you're not satisfied with my definition of slavery, but I don't know why.
Until that point, he was owned by others in the eyes of the law.
This is merely a legal aspect and is quite irrelevant to the actual phenomena at hand. The fact that an individual is legally considered an 'adult' at the age of 18, by the law, says absolutely nothing about 'adulthood' and/or maturity in general.
Using your definition, during the times of his life when he was owned by others but still earned wages (and even kept some for himself), he was not a slave but a laborer.
Indeed, the same way that I'm a capitalist when I earn interest on bonds and a laborer when I punch in at work.
There’s no doubt that slaves, laborers, land owners and capitalists are productive, but the question is, what is the key (essential) difference amongst them? How are they defined? Typically, they are defined by their respective forms of remuneration: slaves earn nothing, laborers earn wages, land owners rent and capitalists earn interest.
Initially I completely agreed that someone getting wages is by definition not a slave, but now thinking more about it I think it's quite possible for someone to be getting a wage while still being a slave. Surely some slaveowners recognised the power of incentives. If you own me, force me to labor for you, yet offer me an incentive to do a better job, am I not still a slave?
At this point though the 2 concepts are working against each other, to the extent that I am working for the positive incentive I am a laborer, to the extent that I am working because of your power of coercion over me I am a slave. This still isn't exact, but I think it brings things a little closer.