How would they be protected in the free-market?
Does his white half owe anything to his black half because the black half was enslaved by his white half before the Civil War?
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.
Esuric: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.
You mean like the pretentious, condescending, overly-flowery, muddled language you used above to defend your undeserved, unsubstantiated, shit-eating sense of superiority over Got Lucky, a much more informed and consistent thinker than you have shown yourself to be?
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
To the original question, I want to ask if these low wage workers even care about me!
The Texas Trigger: Esuric: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.You mean like the pretentious, condescending, overly-flowery, muddled language you used above to defend your undeserved, unsubstantiated, shit-eating sense of superiority over Got Lucky, a much more informed and consistent thinker than you have shown yourself to be?
"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. "
Oh my mistake, I thought we were talking about slavery in America.
"It is undoubtedly involuntary. Being forced to work without any form of compensation/remuneration always requires coercion."
I think there are examples of slavery in which it can have both compensation and non-compensation. Like in the classical era, you were a slave and you didn't get paid. At least that is what I have heard, I'm not a classical historian. I do know that African and Indian slaves in the United States did get compensation. So really a determining factor in defining slavery is not so much the question of compensation but the fact that it is involuntary which we both agree on.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Let's ALL overuse this meme!
Actually, it was used properly both times.
Anyway, I hope we do not offend Esuric away. He does provide intelligent discussion in his posts.
Esuric's posts on economics rarely contain errors, to the extent I can tell.
this is completely untrue. Those categories are defined by the nature of the working relationship.
Maybe for Marx, but basic economics, as it stands today, defines the fops by the type of remuneration they receive during the process of production. Also, I'm not interested in refuting your Marxian interpretation, where 'production relations' are key. But thank you for your response.
do you know whether unpaid volunteers are slaves or not? Because that should answer your question.
Unpaid volunteers receive compensation in other ways. People do not voluntarily work for no reason. In this case, it usually makes an individual feel better about him/herself, it looks good on a resume, etc. Either way, it yields some sort of benefit/satisfaction. So no, it doesn't answer my question at all.
"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."
a much more informed and consistent thinker than you have shown yourself to be?
Maybe this great thinker could answer my simple questions about his response? Again,
Esuric: 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.
I think both Malachi and Andrew Cain have it right when they say that slavery is involuntary servitude. It's also the definition that I use in order to separate it from other voluntary exchanges - even indentured servitude, which as you explained is meant for paying off debts. I don't see wages as being relevant to the relationship between master and slave. I see the key aspect of slavery is its involuntary nature.
Esuric: Unpaid volunteers receive compensation in other ways. People do not voluntarily work for no reason. In this case, it usually makes an individual feel better about him/herself, it looks good on a resume, etc. Either way, it yields some sort of benefit/satisfaction. So no, it doesn't answer my question at all.
I would not be so quick to dismiss Malachi's question about volunteers. Whether or not volunteers receive wages or receive a psychic benefit is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not it is voluntary, and it should be clear what the relationship between a volunteer and the person he is volunteering for is. And regarding Frederick Douglass, yes, he was paid wages at certain times while a slave, but I think you did not read the excerpt that I provided you. Firstly, Douglass was not paid wages by his owner. He was sent to work for someone else and was paid wages for that work, and then he paid a large portion of his wages to his owner. Secondly, it is irrelevant who paid him the wages. What is important is the relationship. Frederick Douglass had a master who told him who to work for and what to do. And eventually his master recalled him away from his wage earning job in order to go back and work in the fields for no pay. Am I to believe that so long as he was not working in the fields that he was not a slave? The fact is that until he ran away, Douglass was someone else's property. Whether de jure slavery or de facto slavery, Douglass was someone else's property.
And we can even move away from the antiquated version of slavery. Let's look at conscription. Am I to believe that just because conscripted soldiers earn a wage that they are not slaves? I don't think I need to examine this too closely, as it's a pretty standard libertarian position to consider conscription slavery. After all, the conscripts are involuntary servants. They have no choice. One way or the other, they are owned by their employer.
Esuric: 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.
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.
This is true. There is a difference between de jure slavery and de facto slavery.
Esuric: Maybe for Marx, but basic economics, as it stands today, defines the fops by the type of remuneration they receive during the process of production. Also, I'm not interested in refuting your Marxian interpretation, where 'production relations' are key. But thank you for your response.
There is nothing Marxist about Malachi. The social relationship is the key to understanding the difference between slavery and other types of work. In the USA, we are not slaves to the state, but the state sure robs us. In North Korea, I think it would be safe to say that the citizens are slaves to the state. Of course, in many ways the state does consider us citizens to be its property. But I think the slavery analogy in that case is best used as an analogy. Unless one is actually a slave, such as a soldier who wishes to leave his employment but is coerced into staying.
There's no doubt that slavery is involuntary servitude. No one is willing to work without any form of compensation, and I already said as much in my response to cain. So what I'm talking about are two general set of categories, namely (a) work with compensation and (b) work without it. The former's sub-categories are, again, defined by their respective forms of remuneration. This is basic economics, found in any elementary text.
One more time: slavery is work without any form of compensation (which is necessarily involuntary).
I would not be so quick to dismiss Malachi's question about volunteers. Whether or not volunteers receive wages or receive a psychic benefit is irrelevant. The issue is whether or not it is voluntary, and it should be clear what the relationship between a volunteer and the person he is volunteering for is.
Charity would be placed in category a.
Firstly, Douglass was not paid wages by his owner. He was sent to work for someone else and was paid wages for that work, and then he paid a large portion of his wages to his owner.
I assumed as much. Would be strange for an owner to pay its 'property' or in this case, his/her capital good for its (their) services.
Secondly, it is irrelevant who paid him the wages. What is important is the relationship. Frederick Douglass had a master who told him who to work for and what to do. And eventually his master recalled him away from his wage earning job in order to go back and work in the fields for no pay.
I'm saying it is relevant. I'm saying that when he was working for someone else for a wage, he was not acting as a slave (seems preety self-evident to me), and when his master called him back to the fields, he was. Again, a point I tried to make earlier is that these classes do not define you. You can transition from one to the next (and even back to the original); you can simultaneously engage in capitalist and land-owning endeavors.
Am I to believe that just because conscripted soldiers earn a wage that they are not slaves?
I have never heard anyone referred to them as slaves. But it's an interesting point.
There is nothing Marxist about Malachi. The social relationship is the key to understanding the difference between slavery and other types of work.
I don't know anything about Malachi. My point was that 99% of economist define the FOPS according to the type of remunerations paid to them. The exception are the Marxists who focus on the social relationships between them and bargaining power. If he rejects both views, then his position is precisely that, his own.
Esuric: There's no doubt that slavery is involuntary servitude. No one is willing to work without any form of compensation, and I already said as much in my response to cain. So what I'm talking about are two general set of categories, namely (a) work with compensation and (b) work without it. The former's sub-categories are, again, defined by their respective forms of remuneration. This is basic economics, found in any elementary text. One more time: slavery is work without any form of compensation (which is necessarily involuntary).
Okay, I can't speak for any basic economics texts, but that sounds like you are describing jargon if that is what you are talking about. I am not talking about economics jargon, and I don't have the qualifications to know how the Chicago School or the Austrian School define slavery in economic terms.
I think it's safe to say that Malachi, Andrew Cain, and I have been talking about the concept slavery in everyday speech. Let me link to a few definitions for you:
wiktionary
dictionary-reference
thefreedictionary
merriam-webster
Aside from a couple of metaphorical definitions (e.g. working "too" hard), the standard understanding of slavery is someone who is the property of another and forced to work. I imagine the servitude part is what makes the difference between being a mere prisoner and a slave. Maybe not. But either way, you are working with a definition that is nonstandard to the point that it is not in any of those four dictionaries. Perhaps it is in the Oxford Dictionary, but I think that would only support my point that you are offering a very nonstandard definition.
Esuric: I have never heard anyone referred to them as slaves. But it's an interesting point.
I think it's my turn to be snarky. This is basic libertarianism, found in any elementary text.
Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal by Murray Rothbard
The Right to Self-Defense by Murray Rothbard
Conscription is Slavery by Ron Paul
How Could the Draft Not Be Slavery by Bryan Caplan
The Most Important Argument Against the Draft by Anthony Gregory