Consenual Servitude

[BienvenuJDC]

I would like to provoke some thought and discussion. I am not insinuating that I take any position on this topic, so please do not assume that I have any particular opinion. Try to stick to the given scenario, but you may consider other possibilities.

If an individual would consensually subject their self to another individual as a servant, in exchange for their lively care, would this be considered slavery? Should society consider this to be a moral sin? Let me set some parameters.

The master/employer would require a reasonable and continual service for an agreed length of time bound by a contract. The master/employer would be required to supply living essentials, health care, room and board, and an allowance as agreed upon. If the servant/employee wished to leave before contract length was complete, then predetermined penalty cost must be paid.

Would this scenario be favorable to homelessness, poverty, lack of health care, etc?

[AimusSage]

So it's basically a sort of voluntary slavery you are suggesting in your scenario?

Slavery is basically forced labour, so by your definition it would not be slavery, however I can see that it could be construed as slavery seeing as there is a penalty cost to end it early, rather than a forgoing of future services. A penalty that an employer could most likely readily afford, rather than the employee, who is most likely not in any position to negotiate. Someone who is in debt could also be seen as a slave, having to pay off the debt before they can be 'free' again, this exists in the world, and is not very different from what you suggest.

The danger is in exploitation of the people who subject themselves as servants. It is only too easy to expect them to do more than their share as contractually agreed upon, turning them from employer and employee to slave and master. It seems from your example that you refer to people who tend to be on the lower echelon of society, those that possibly are weaker in mental and intellectual aptitude. It will be important in such a situation to have a tertiary impartial party to inspect and or monitor the situation on a regular basis to prevent abuse.

Rather than fight a symptom, which is the homelessness and poverty, lack of health care etc. fight the disease, but I can't really elaborate on that now.

[billl]

Well, we need to consider why one person is in the psition of needing a servant, and the other is in a position of potentially being a servant.

After that, well, I think we need to consider the immediate leverage that the employer might have over the potential servant. Would the employer need help so bad that the 'servant' could ring the scales of 'justice' for an awesome recompense, or would the servant be involved in a scramble for a mere sliver of the concentrated wealth?

Would the governing authority (which would decide whether contractual conditions had been met) be beholden to potential servants and "masters" in some manner that would be seemly, and fair? Would the wealth of the "masters" (or old money, or aristocracy, or even the purely meritocritally chosen) be sufficiently balanced against the disadvantage of the needy, and the potential "servants"?

These are big questions, and the most sincere and determined responses can lead us into exagerrated positions (be they Communist or of unfettered Capitalism). and the real response (in my opinion) is based in the sort of Democracy that has worked well in the U.S. in decades past. Don't go with the money. Go with the interests of the citizens, but within limits of our Rights As Human Beings. If there are a lot of poor, and suffering people, then expect there to be power of numbers in their support. If the money-changers and speculators, and the advantages of consolidation and leverage become too hindered, then expect their arguments to gain support.

It's all a mess, but I'd say try to make the solution represent the average of what society needs (with an eye on the grossest injustices). Take the human votes as primary over the money. Human votes will choose individual opportunity, and profit, in the long run.

[BienvenuJDC]

It's all a mess, but I'd say try to make the solution represent the average of what society needs (with an eye on the grossest injustices). Take the human votes as primary over the money. Human votes will choose individual opportunity, and profit, in the long run.

Ah, but that raises the question about the stability of a democracy....

is the power in the voter....or the lobbyist?

[billl]

Ah, but that raises the question about the stability of a democracy....

is the power in the voter....or the lobbyist?

This is an EXCEllent point, and should grab our atttention far more than most other political topics, imo. I am in favor of holding the representatives accountable to their voters as much as possible. Concentrations of money might develop in a democracy, but the voters themselves should still hold the most important places in the voting. If a company or a union should have a great reason for influencing a vote, let them make it plain to their members. But let's not let them infuence a representative (or a voting population) beyond their strength in voting numbers as employees of their concerns. Leave the representatives as immune as possible to such concentrated pleadings.

Basically, I feel that the more that the power is taken away from the lobbyist, the better. It might make the legislator more powerful than s/he is now, but I think that is less of a threat than institutionalized, concentrations of power (as represented by corporate- or union-based concentrations of influence).

[BienvenuJDC]

I would like to explore the differences between corporate/employee relationships AND the proposed relationship.

i.e. The idea of "Some people just can't afford to leave their job." "They are enslaved in their employment."

[billl]

That's about as interesting as the difference between "some people can afford to get help" and " some people must continue to work" for a lot of people looking at all of this. I don't mean to get defensive, because I'm not in either position. I defintetly think it'd be great to strike some deal about things, but I think it is definitely a challenge to get important players, who have the respect of their peers, to cooperate on finding a balance. I don't think there's any reasonable hope of one side or the other forcing the game to some shattering conclusion for the other side. Thank goodness.

[papayahed]

1) I'm wondering who would consent to that? There's a whole laundry list of potentials for disaster (for both parties) revovling around this set up.

2) Don't the people who can afford servants already have them?

3) Besides telling a person how and why they are going to spend their money what's the difference between this and a regular job?

[soundofmusic]

Sounds like marriage to me:idea: If any of you have went through a divorce, you will notice the hefty "early end of contract fees" :smilielol5:

[Nightshade]

The master/employer would require a reasonable and continual service for an agreed length of time bound by a contract. The master/employer would be required to supply living essentials, health care, room and board, and an allowance as agreed upon. If the servant/employee wished to leave before contract length was complete, then predetermined penalty cost must be paid.

I'm not seeing how this is different from my current job. I get a flat and medical expense and a salary. Inxchange I do whatever the school wants me to do when I am told to do it. And there is no such thin as overtime pay even if I ma redurally there 2 hours after my supposed leaving time. Oh and I have to watch what I say and do outside the school because if I do something that the school doesn't approve of then its bye bye without my penalty fee. Not that this is a big issue for me seeing as I am natrully a goodytwoshoes


Would this scenario be favorable to homelessness, poverty, lack of health care, etc?
No because you don't let just anyone into your house.


1) I'm wondering who would consent to that? There's a whole laundry list of potentials for disaster (for both parties) revovling around this set up.

2) Don't the people who can afford servants already have them?

3) Besides telling a person how and why they are going to spend their money what's the difference between this and a regular job?

Where does it say how and why they willspend their money missed that.

I suppose alarge part of what plays into it is culture. We had 'servants' though I really dislike that term, live in help , a maid nanny combo even a housekeeper but I really do not like servant, pretty mch all the time between the time I was 2 and 16. But really they were more like part of the family, Ive seen situations where it has gone horribly horribly wrong, at one point we lived nextdoor to a man who used the maid as a punching bag, but becuase if the way the law works where we were tre wasn't much my parents could do about it, given as we were froeigners and the man doing it w a native, and the maids were all foregin too . Although I think they managed something, I can't imgine either of them letting it go. ( I only found out by accident being 8 or 9 at the time ) One of my sisters spoke Urdu before she sokeEnglish or arabic, I rember all of us in floods of tears when one of them left for good.

And now I have a fortnightly cleaning lady she annoys me to bits, does a useless job and I have to clean up after her when she is gone. But I see it like this , and this is pretty much how I understand the egyptian attitude , as someone who has money , even if it isn't a lot, is my moral and social duty to share the wealth by employing 'or making up' jobs for people who are less well off, so they too have a source of income however small. Giving someone a job is better than giving them charity.

[BienvenuJDC]

I'm not seeing how this is different from my current job.

I was hoping that someone would point that out...

You make some very interesting points. Thank you for your input.

[kasie]

Wasn't there a scheme something like this in the very early days of the Colonies? I seem to remember the English settlers took on Bondsmen (and women) who worked for them for a certain number of years in exchange for board and lodgings and maybe a nominal sum of money, Then when the contract came to an end, the Bondspersons had a right to a grant of land in the New World so that they could continue to help build the Colony. Or have I mis-remembered this? I can't seem to find the book where I think I read it.

[papayahed]

The master/employer would require a reasonable and continual service for an agreed length of time bound by a contract. The master/employer would be required to supply living essentials, health care, room and board, and an allowance as agreed upon. If the servant/employee wished to leave before contract length was complete, then predetermined penalty cost must be paid.




Where does it say how and why they willspend their money missed that.


It was an assumption based on the highlighted above. Aside from an allowance everything else is provided.

[Nightshade]

hmm, I was assuming allowance transalates as salary, and the rest is benifits, medical, board and food etc

[OrphanPip]

The main problem of these kind of systems is that they are very susceptible to abuse.

In the past, especially in Canada, it wouldn't be unusual for every person in a community to be employed by a single mining company. The mining company would in turn own all the shops and housing in the community. Essentially, this meant that people living in that community were working for free because all the money they owned went back into the company through the town shops, their rent, and they ended up with nothing at all for themselves. It creates a system where there is no room for advancement or escape, only stagnating permanent indentured servitude.

These systems in our current society don't really need to be created though, because they already exist. My brother who operates a fairly large property business usually includes an apartment in the contract for a superintendent. Likewise, live-in nannies and servants aren't completely non-existent in Western society. I even know someone who is currently working as a nanny in Australia.

There's nothing morally wrong about these arrangements, they just tend to be bad deals for the employees.

[NikolaiI]

The main problem of these kind of systems is that they are very susceptible to abuse.

In the past, especially in Canada, it wouldn't be unusual for every person in a community to be employed by a single mining company. The mining company would in turn own all the shops and housing in the community. Essentially, this meant that people living in that community were working for free because all the money they owned went back into the company through the town shops, their rent, and they ended up with nothing at all for themselves. It creates a system where there is no room for advancement or escape, only stagnating permanent indentured servitude.


Well, I only have a minute and then I have to go... but isn't this written about in a song? I can't remember who it's by...


These systems in our current society don't really need to be created though, because they already exist. My brother who operates a fairly large property business usually includes an apartment in the contract for a superintendent. Likewise, live-in nannies and servants aren't completely non-existent in Western society. I even know someone who is currently working as a nanny in Australia.

There's nothing morally wrong about these arrangements, they just tend to be bad deals for the employees.

The other place where this already exists, is within religious institutions. Monasteries and temples of different religions, that I know of, Christian (Catholic), Buddhist and Hindu. This is what essentially monastic life is; a life of service in exchange for basic living needs and places to worship or meditate, and generally a lot of religious literature to study...

I know less about Catholic monasteries than Buddhist ones, and Hindu temples, but in Buddhist and Hindu monasteries this is what that's like... sometimes someone will dedicate their whole life to the cause, other times just a certain amount of time. And in Hinduism in India, there's a lot of cases of there being a great spiritual master who gathers disciples. So then there's a definite servant/master relationship, exactly as you described. Then the servants are not doing so mainly to stay off the streets or be taken care of, but because of some attraction to the master.

[applepie]

I would like to explore the differences between corporate/employee relationships AND the proposed relationship.

i.e. The idea of "Some people just can't afford to leave their job." "They are enslaved in their employment."

I imagine that it is a level of servitude, but I don't really see it as such. The idea that one can't afford to leave their job implies that they a literally being forced to stay there. Often it isn't a scenario of can't, rather it is they are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do so. It leaves them with a trapped feeling, but they are really only trapped by their own wants and desires...

[Nightshade]

I imagine that it is a level of servitude, but I don't really see it as such. The idea that one can't afford to leave their job implies that they a literally being forced to stay there. Often it isn't a scenario of can't, rather it is they are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do so. It leaves them with a trapped feeling, but they are really only trapped by their own wants and desires...

I literally can't afford to leave my job! The amount of penalty I would have to pay for breach of contract is more than I have... so I am stuck!
But I knew that going in, and I guess I can live with that I mean its only 4 years right? And I've made sure the school can't renew my contract without my consent which is one excellent thing anyway!
:nod:

[Scheherazade]

And I've made sure the school can't renew my contract without my consent which is one excellent thing anyway!
:nod:I didn't realise that it would be possible for employers to renew contracts without the consent of employees'.

Interesting.

[Nightshade]

I didn't realise that it would be possible for employers to be able to renew contracts without the consent of employees'.

Interesting.

Hmm yes that is what I thought when I saw that clause in the contract- followed by H--- no! No way that is going to happen!

[Jozanny]

I know you are all going to throw rotten eggs at me for a seemingly one track mind, but as much as I am ripping my hair out for seeing few options but to depend on freelancing sales, unless I can find a publisher willing to contract me, as I've had in the past, supported employment (http://www.apse.org/) is considered a modern form of slavery in the United States. Many individuals earn less than minimum wage, and the federal government readily reduces their benefits, so that they cannot opt out from the so called employer mandate; most of the people in these workshop type systems cannot integrate, or matriculate upward to get out of what is essentially a locked in system. Some of these individuals have downs syndrome, mental retardation, or other significant developmental issues. This is one issue where I am in near total agreement with the activists, in that SE is little better than slave labor.:auto: