http://redhotrussia.com/belarus-feudalism-lukashenko-new-law/
If true, this is very scary.
Well damn...
that bill was for involuntary labor, not slavery
It is not slavery if the government does it.
So, what can libertarians do to help? Or is it the Byelorussians' own fault, since they have not rebelled?..
the country already has conscription, the countries politics look very shaky
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.
Is nobody gonna sig this?
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
i guess with different definitions it can be different things
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
If you can quit and leave or get fired and leave, you're not a slave. If you can't, you're a slave.
Reminds me of this recent story:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvfiHmOFY78
Scary stuff.
incarceration is slavery then, and i'm not sure which countries don't have that.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
My inclination is to think that incarceration is slavery.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
If the fine was agreed to when entering the contract, then the fine is a debt, and not paying debts is theft. Rothbard concurs :)
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.
Ah, I agree, the wording was ambigious.
my suggesion was thinking contractual and not extra-contractual. the employer and employee would agree to terms or arbitration in the contract.
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.
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?
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