Slavery is about humans being classified as property, with property law applied to slaves, which means that slavery cannot be willing by definition. And past ex

Slavery is about humans being classified as property, with property law applied to slaves, which means that slavery cannot be willing by definition. And past examples of slavery that he uses in support of his claims haven't been willing at all, while at the same time he tries to muddy the waters by classifying student debt as being slavery. Now you can argue that in the US student debt is slavery, given that declaring bankruptcy on student debt is very hard (due to BAPCPA). This I think is a failure of the US education system, making me glad that I was raised in an European country where the education system is largely subsidized by the state and where public schools are still the best ones. Even so, I'm not interested in arguing that student debt in the US is a form of debt bondage, which is classified as "modern day slavery" by the United Nations and being prohibited by internal law. The far bigger issue is this logical fallacy that's being used to justify this author's thoughts on the matter: "if X is at least as worse as Y in my worldview and Y is tolerated, then X should be tolerated as well". And that's just wrong. For one because it often is an unfair comparisson (student debt vs Afro-Americans born into slavery and completely owned by their masters). But also because tolerance for Y does NOT exempt X from being judged. Couldn't find a name for this logical fallacy, but it should have one ;-)