19 ms·

What do slaveholders think?

108 points by nkurz 10y ago

danielfoster 10y ago
The techniques listed here, especially emotional manipulation, aren't too dissimilar from what low-wage employers in developed countries do.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Curious what your experience in working low-wage jobs is?
  - GedByrne 10y ago
    http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/sports-direct-investigation-reveals-harsh-working-conditions http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/sports-direct-invest...
antingate2 10y ago
What was slavery like, for the slave? It depended on the quality of your master. What is government like for the governed?
meatanddairy 10y ago
Just ask ranchers and dairy farmers.
- spraak 10y ago
  Likely many people will downvote this, but I see your point.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    Enlighten us?
    - mikepurvis 10y ago
      I assume the point is that intelligent mammals like cows are being held and abused against their will for the benefit of their owners, and so dairy farmers and ranchers are the beneficiaries of this "slavery".
      - brighteyes 10y ago
        More generally, philosophers like Peter Singer talk about the connection between human rights and animal rights. Singer describes "the expanding circle" in which moral progress involves accepting more people into the circle of those we care about: first just the family, then the tribe, then a nation, then greater and greater groups (different races, religions, etc.), and so forth, and a further step is to include animals as well. [1] Another perspective on the connection between human rights and animal rights is that it is no coincidence that sociopaths often abuse animals. Those that wish to harm humans often wish to harm animals and vice versa. Likewise, most humans that see factory farming are horrified. We can't help but emphasize with them. [1] http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2004/06/peter-singer-on-expanding-circle.html http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2004/06/peter-singer-on-exp...
- dugditches 10y ago
  What about Free-Range establishments? I think you'd be better off to ask the Factory owner who made the device you posted on.
spraak 10y ago
Also somewhat related: 5th-Grader ‘Sold’ in Mock Slave Auction at New Jersey School - http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58d1d687e4b02d33b746c2cf http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58d1d687e4b02d33b746c2cf
speeder 10y ago
Slavery is a subject I find fairly interesting, but sadly, it only 'appears' to be discussed, frank discussions of slavery have the problem that most people or assume that anyone with any slight impression of defending slavery in any for is 100% evil, or they assume others expect that behaviour, and 'pretend' they have it, stifling discussion and research. For example research into the african slavery, and the result of slavery on the lives of africans transported to the Americas (not only US), frequently just result in researchers dismissed as being 'revisionists', and no real discussion show up, the few people that end having courage to discuss it for real, frequently are actual bigoted racists, that don't care about the wider public opinion of them, on both sides of the coin (I saw blatant racists both anti-white and anti-black).
- ue_ 10y ago
  Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but are you talking about debating the merits of slavery? Forgive me if I'm incredulous, but what kind of results are there to debate? Are you implying that there were good results to come from slavery? I am genuinely interested in what there is to know, as I'm horribly ignorant of it myself. I was reading on slavery today, and came across an interesting couple of quotes by Engels: >The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class. and >The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general. I'd say myself it's a greater shame that wage slavery is discussed as sparsely as it is.
  - microcolonel 10y ago
    I can't relate to the fashion of describing freemen as slaves. Life is suffering, staying alive takes effort. These people you're "selling yourself" to are in fact selling your fragile life to you, for the cost of you selling them some of theirs. You are, in effect, specializing in relieving some common suffering, and hoping that others specialize in relieving the suffering you do not know how to relieve.
jbuzbee 10y ago
I often wondered how slave holders justified their actions. And along those lines, I recall a lecture on Roman slavery. It made the point that it was standard-practice in Roman and other ancient cultures to raid other groups, kill everyone and take their possessions: livestock, food, valuables, etc. That was the way of the world that everyone knew. In the Roman mind, when the raiding party decided to let some people live and sell them into slavery, they were doing the captives a favor. They were saved from death. And from then on the slaves were more-or-less the walking dead with no rights and owing their "masters" everything. They were only alive because of the grace of the invaders. The lecture also noted that there was no writing from Roman times that questioned the morality of slavery. No one thought it was wrong. There are extensive writings from literate slaves themselves, and even these writings fail to question the morality of slavery. And speaking of writing, the Bible was written in a time when slavery was common practice. I don't recall Jesus preaching against slavery or the 10 Commandments coming out against it either.
- Brendinooo 10y ago
  The typical broad outlines you'll see from Christians goes something like this: 1. The Old Testament generally approved and regulated slavery, but it was different than the chattel slavery we tend to think of when we think of the word today. It'd have been a little close to the debt slavery you see in this article, but in its ideal form there were provisions for release after a period of time. 2. The New Testament didn't outright condemn slavery, but the Epistle to Philemon is a short book that shines a lot of light on the attitude that Paul had and that Christians used as a basis for their positions on slavery down the line. Onesimus needed to return to Philemon, but Philemon needed to treat him as a brother in Christ. Peter expressed similar views as well.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    I think it'd be far more accurate to describe the New Testament's attitude toward slavery (and debts in general, but that fact is de-emphasized) would be to say that 1) they must end. It is absolutely forbidden for any Christian to own slaves or excessive debts, or to help slavery practices in any way. 2) it is, however, not for Christians to violently take other's property away. Not even slaves. A Christian should campaign for slave owners and creditors to release their charges, maybe even convince them to convert, but violently or legally freeing slaves away is forbidden. 3) Using money to achieve slaves' or debtors freedom is a specifically named virtue. So it's a "let it die" attitude. End slavery with minimal disruption. During the middle ages, traders from Southern Europe would often trade with muslims, and as a "good works" effort for their bosses/companies, they'd go to the slave markets of whatever city they were in and buy some slaves. They would be offered a free ride to Europe (and be paid for cleaning the deck or cooking on the way, to get some starter cash) and allowed to settle in Europe. If they didn't speak the language they'd take them to a monastery where they could often stay to learn. This worked, while islam requires slavery and slave trade (halal/wajib), it recognizes that freeing slaves is a good deed. Therefore they'd often sell slaves to be freed at a discount. The freed slaves could, but generally didn't, stay where they were, because muslims would simply capture them again (there's many such things in trade ports in Northern Africa. For instance, these muslim cities would often organize a yearly slave sports event. If the slaves won, they'd often get their freedom for that. However, more often than not, the owners of losing slaves would kill any slave that actually took his freedom).
yummyfajitas 10y ago
This article is conflating debt bondage with slavery. This is a huge error. Some debt bondage, like what is described in the article, is abusive and harmful. But much of it is quite beneficial to both parties. My sister was debt bonded for a while; Crossfit paid for her personal trainer certification, but she had to pay them back if she quit her job in a year. A girl I dated is getting a Masters from Columbia, but she has to continue working for the Diplomatic Corps in her country for 3 years after graduation. In fact, many valley engineers meet the definition of bonded labor: you need to give back the signing bonus if you quit in < 1 year. Economically, bonded labor with transparent contracts is a way to allow employers to pay to improve the human capital of their workers. On HN we often lament the fact that employers don't invest in employees, and the main reason for this is that they can't recoup their costs if the employee leaves. In India and the US there is a lot of bonded labor and it ranges across the spectrum. Quite a bit of it - particularly among professionals - is not remotely exploitative and is economically beneficial. An informed discussion should acknowledge this.
- zeofig 10y ago
  This article is conflating slavery with abusive human disempowerment. Some slavery, like what is described in the article, is abusive and harmful. But much of it is quite beneficial to both parties. My cousin by marriage was a slave for a while; his master paid for his financial certification and gave him a small allowance, but he had to save up sufficient funds before he could buy his way to freedom. A girl I used to date used to be a slave, but she chose to remain with the family who owned her even after she bought her freedom, and remains an integral and happy member of the household. In fact, many successful members of our community, particularly business owners and managers, are slaves or former slaves! Economically, slavery with proper laws and regulations is a way for families and moneyed individuals to improve the quality of their household or business, while giving an otherwise hopeless individual the chance to enter into Roman society. Here at the Tinkerers' Forum we often lament the fact that slave owners don't invest in their slaves, and the main reason for this is that they can't recoup their costs if the slave dies or escapes. In Rome and its provinces there is a lot of slavery and it ranges across the spectrum. Quite a bit of it - particularly in the educated and enlightened centre of the Empire - is not remotely exploitative and is economically beneficial. An informed discussion should acknowledge this.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Suppose I were to write "slavery is economically beneficial, ...a bunch of evidence goes here...". Do you believe an intellectual discussion would result? I'd gamble at 3:1 odds that I'd be downvoted and called racist. Just look what happened to Yarvin for merely comparing slavery to government (a more longwinded version of this: http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/nozick_slave.html http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/no... ).
- jordanb 10y ago
  > Suppose I were to write "slavery is economically beneficial, ...a bunch of evidence goes here...". Do you believe an intellectual discussion would result? The problem is that the distortion of your ethics and values would have to be so extreme to arrive at such a conclusion that anyone who read that sentence would know that you have an extremely "different" way of looking at the world, and not in a good way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Not true. I might just be a utilitarian who for whatever reason believes that slavery produces more utility than other arrangements.
    - eastWestMath 10y ago
      That's exactly what he's addressing, utilitarians with messed up definitions of utility. Your head needs to be awfully far up your ass to come to the conclusion that slavery is good without questioning the principles that lead to that conclusion.
      - sillysaurus3 10y ago
        Your head needs to be awfully far up your ass to come to the conclusion You're not allowed to comment like this on HN.
nojvek 10y ago
I have Indian heritage. My parents are incredibly religious. A large part of India is quite religious and Hinduism is the main religion. The brahmin, shudra (castes) stems from the ancient scriptures which a lot of people staunchly believe in. From modern point of view a lot of the scriptures are quite racist and sexist to be honest. I have arguments with my family all the time regarding this. I know quite a number of people who legit believe in untouchables. I strongly believe that as India becomes less religious, it will prosper and the people will become happier.
- arjie 10y ago
  If I were to speculate, I'd say that we're in an atmosphere where cultural innovation is akin to a technological advantage. The free society is stronger. In The Splendid Exchange, William Bernstein argues that a tremendous technological advantage that the Dutch had over the British at one period when both countries competed in trade for spices was that the Dutch financial markets were far more sophisticated. They had voyage derivatives, the ability to buy into a 1/128th share of the voyage's earnings, payments to zielverkoopers (recruiters - sometimes of a predatory sort) that entitled them to a cut of the men's wages as they were earned, derivatives on the zielverkooper contract (the transportbrief), and so on. These financial devices were just as effective as actual technological devices to present an advantage over British trade, a contributing factor to the VOC's success at the time. Analogously, I'd speculate that societies with a high adherence to tradition keeping women at home, or where a person's increased ability cannot increase the likelihood of career success because of a caste or similar system, have built-in limiters on their economy. The free society has a cultural device just as strong as its technological devices: one is closer to allowing one's ability to determine one's success than ever before. I believe the evidence shows that richer, well-fed children grow into smarter people. But while it does that, it only shifts the bell curve to the right. Even the poor can have those with the ingredients to be very smart. And when one discards those people, or condemns half one's population to work at below capacity, one's economy operates below capacity. And that economy will be less able to support the population. The free society will out-compete that economy.
- linuxkerneldev 10y ago
  > A large part of India is quite religious and Hinduism is the main religion The article mentions: Ahmed, a middle-class slaveholder in Uttar Pradesh in India, was eager to show me around the village where he was a member of the ruling elite. While I was grateful for the warm reception, I was visiting Ahmed’s community because of gross human-rights violations – bonded labour, child exploitation, and outbound human trafficking. My understanding is that Ahmed is an Arabic name and I had been told that Arab people enslaved Indians and that this practice still goes on today. So I'm confused now. Are Hindus enslaving other Hindus? Further, I'm wondering how this all relates to the article. The article doesn't mention religion at all so it is unclear to me whether you're saying Hinduism encourages slavery. I have Hindu friends who told me there is no such thing as "scripture" in Hinduism because there is no "god given" book like Torah, Bible or Quran. So I'm having difficulty understanding what's going on in India.
laughingman2 10y ago
Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber published in 2011. It explores the historical relationship of debt with social institutions such as barter, marriage, friendship, slavery, law, religion, war and government; in short, much of the fabric of human life in society. It draws on the history and anthropology of a number of civilizations, large and small, from the first known records of debt from Sumer in 3500 BC until the present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years
SticksAndBreaks 10y ago
The same that capitalists think. Those mongrel are so much better of due to my hard work. They have food, shelter and something to do with there lives. Else they would vandalize on the street. What if a slaveholder is a slave? Can dependancy hell apply to a owned person?
aaron695 10y ago
The problem with word changing, which seems all the rage, is intelligent, logical people see through it and get put off. And to make it worse the dumb dumbs start saying stuff like there are more slaves today than ever. Not understanding comparing real slaves numbers in the old days to indentured servitude today, leaves out the fact most people were in indentured servitude for most of history. But the dumb dumbs have the numbers, I guess playing them might be the best tactic to eradicate this awful practice.
Mendenhall 10y ago
The poor job of propaganda in this article made me laugh. You can tell it has more to do with "modern politics" than any dive into what slaveholders think. My favorite quote. "It’s only now that we are waking up to ask new questions about Right-wing movements such as the Ku Klux Klan and Al-Qaeda. A fresh generation of scholars are writing books about the Tea Party and those who protest on behalf of the rich"
Dowwie 10y ago
Michael Munger of Duke University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about how attitudes in the American South toward slavery evolved over time and what we can learn from that evolution about the role culture plays in our lives: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/08/munger_on_slave.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/08/munger_on_slave.htm...
mythrwy 10y ago
Just as a flower grows from rot and decayed matter, the unpleasant things in human history and unpleasant things in human nature have provided what was needed for that which we have which is beautiful and life giving and good right now. We look at a little slice of time and moralize. Which is all we can practically do. But morality changes and it doesn't come out of nothing either.
6502nerdface 10y ago
The author of the linked post is associated with Free the Slaves, a highly rated charity [1] that I'd recommend supporting to anyone troubled by modern slavery. He has a follow-on article up on their website. [2] [1] https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11051 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar... [2] http://www.freetheslaves.net/why-i-chose-to-research-what-slaveholders-think/ http://www.freetheslaves.net/why-i-chose-to-research-what-sl...
stevespang 10y ago
It is everywhere illegal yet slavery persists in many corners of the global economy. How do its beneficiaries justify it? This piece was written by a professor, isn't there an error in the subtitle in the proper use of the English language ? The subtitle would be corrected by stating: It is illegal everywhere, yet slavery . . . . . (switch everywhere and illegal)
- nkurz 10y ago
  As a native speaker of American English, I'd say that neither ordering is incorrect. Your suggestion ("illegal everywhere") is indeed more common, and would usually be better choice in conversational speech and popular writing. The subtitle ("everywhere illegal") isn't wrong, though, just stilted. Presuming the author is a native speaker, it's almost certainly not an error, but a conscious choice to employ "hyperbaton". Overused, this sort of inverted word order can leave you sounding like a mishmash of Monty Python, Yoda, and a bad fantasy novel, but applied selectively, it acts as a defamiliarization that adds emphasis. Here, the inverted ordering conveys a sense of being legalistic, Biblical, and archaic. Presumably this is intended to hint to the reader that piece will argue that the practice of slavery is similarly out-of-place in the modern world.
  - HappyDreamer 10y ago
    I also think this added emphasis. I liked the way the author phrased it, i.e. "...everywhere illegal". To me, it gave the impression of focusing on the word "everywhere". (I'm not a native speaker.)
    - kwhitefoot 10y ago
      > it gave the impression of focusing on the word "everywhere" That's precisely my understanding of it. I am a native English speaker (British English).
ygarsoxa 10y ago
I've wondered how people in past civilizations could do things like slavery and child sacrifice and think that they were righteous, then I got a look at modern leftism. They celebrate murdering children, exploit people through taxes (saying it's "for their own good" identical to the modern slavery defense), they are extremely intolerant and bigoted (see any of the modern university protests), and they seem to be willingly ignorant that history, reality, and mathematics has proved that socialism doesn't work. I can guarantee that leftists will be so emotional that they will down-vote this to oblivion, proving my point. Hopefully we will evolve beyond the barbarism of extreme leftism. The right has become a watered down version of the left, so they are terrible too.
- ifdefdebug 10y ago
  I downvoted you because you called for it, nothing more.
  - ygarsoxa 10y ago
    I understand, you can't be intellectually honest, even with yourself.
- mythrwy 10y ago
  I don't care for leftist ideology either nor the tactics employed by some leftists. But the comparison to slavery isn't very fair and I think you deserve a downvote for the bulk maligning of a political group. It's the same nonsense as suggesting all free market proponents are Nazi racists and young earth creationists. Nuance. Embrace it.
brazzledazzle 10y ago
HN comments debating the merits of slavery. Yikes. Besides being a head scratcher it's kind of a disgusting, albeit fascinating, look into some people's minds. Maybe it's the weekend crowd.
altonzheng 10y ago
I wish this article went into more of the philosophies of the slaveholders. Slavery is bad no doubt, but I can see how someone would rationalize it as providing security and peace of mind. If you give up your freedom and personal responsibility in return for guaranteed food and shelter, I can see it sounding okay, especially if the other option is to question where your next meal comes from. The problem is the power imbalance that leaves you at the whims of your master.
coldtea 10y ago
>What do slaveholders think? Not anything that different from "sweatshop" employers or any shitty employer for that matter.
woodandsteel 10y ago
This is an amazing article. Writings about slave holders all seem to fall into two sorts. One defends them and says they are the finest of people, and the very foundation of civilization. The other sort says they are evil through and through. This article instead gets at the actual reality of their psychology, which turns out to be a lot more complicated. Let me add one point, which is that slavery seems to largely be a function of economics and the level of technology of a society. In nomadic foraging societies, from what I have read, slavery is unknown because it is impractical and has no economic value. But with agriculture slavery becomes possible and can produce great wealth and many other sorts of value, and so it becomes wide-spread. But then with industrialization it again becomes uneconomic, and so is abolished. What the article describes quite clearly is a country moving from a largely agrarian economy to an industrial one, and how slavery is being slowly eliminated in the process.
fuzzfactor 10y ago
When Florida was under British control, Denys Rolle, British MP, brought settlers to his royally granted estate for the purpose of turning it into a capitalist plantation. This was before the first (haha) American Revolution. They took the closest thing resembling a flight from London to sunny Florida that there was back then. It was a sailing ship. -passage alone was 6 guineas (Pounds Sterling at the time) Fundamentally the chattel slaves were treated as cargo and expensed, everyone else was paying in one way or another for the venture to improve "their share" of the estate "provided" them. In this way the granted estate as a whole could be made "real" for the grantee (Rolle) after having first been nothing but decreed royal rights to not-yet-fully surveyed land. Attempted Florida real estate in its infancy. Make it more real than it was, so those who come along next will pay more rent. 1766 terms of settlement -help turn wilderness into a foundation for building Rolle a productive multinational agricultural venture -these one-way bundles include passage -all get a small lot in "town" and 5 acres for farming -plus "no limits as to quantity" of additional heritable farmland for a fee -all for a low, low, "small quit-rent" (property tax) indigent class - 4 years indentured sharecropping in lieu of 12 guineas -expected to achieve the wherewithal to "purchase nearly two negroes" of his own after 4 years third class "bare necessaries" - 12 guineas -you get survival materials, farm tools and a pig second class - 21 guineas -you also get craftsman's tools and more livestock -you still have to perform your own labor first class - 51 guineas -"The remaining 30 guineas may be employed in the price and wages of indented servants, or a working negro may be purchased with it." The sections in his own words do lend an idea about what the slaveholders of the traditional British aristocracy might have thought. The following document is worthwhile in its entirety but Rolle's account starts about halfway down the page: https://books.google.nl/books?id=Z2ZZAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Extract+from+an+Account+of+East+Florida&source=bl&ots=QNsyfRR4oJ&sig=wvFh4YSDMROOO1_tl45aD8RIbhM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JIvUs_tBZOjhge21ID4DQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Extract%20from%20an%20Account%20of%20East%20Florida&f=false https://books.google.nl/books?id=Z2ZZAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1... Later, after the British lost the war they ended up ceding Florida to Spain in 1783, and Rolle relocated his downsized plantation to the neighboring British territory of the Bahama Islands, claiming great losses due to the political change of sovereignty. This takes place a few years after the most recent American Revolution (same war as above) which had started in 1776. Florida was not one of the 13 North American colonies which had declared independence from Britain. In the interim period Rolle had made the transition to pure slave labor going forward, instead of the original indentured arrangement. The thoughts of this same gentleman 14 - 17 years later can be further hinted at by this next document from 1780 - 1783. The Rolle information again starts about halfway down the page: http://www.unf.edu/floridahistoryonline/Plantations/plantations/San_Marco-Jericho-Chichester.htm http://www.unf.edu/floridahistoryonline/Plantations/plantati... Detailed is the work output expected of the various slave types (considered to be probably exaggerated for the purpose of his bureaucratic claim for financial compensation). Among pages of claims, chattel slaves were by then valued per head at: 100 Pounds Sterling for Trade workers 50 for Field workers 15 for "Rising Generation" children 0 for "Past Labour" kitchen workers no longer capable of Field performance Quite a bit of inflation, if it can be believed. Only the chattel slaves have been made illegal since then, but there are bound to be ruling classes over a period of centuries where when the prohibition of slavery came along, it was treated as a technicality. Depends on where the line is drawn. I believe this line is called labor law. But it's not only a matter of where the line is drawn and what the terms are, but more importantly who draws the line and sets the terms.
kafkaesq 10y ago
How do its beneficiaries justify it? Because they can get away with it. Or more precisely: because we let them get away with it. Granted, the remedy (in so many words: rigorous supply-chain screening + a homeopathic dose of consciousness raising among the general public) is far from trivial. But doable. Yet so far we're only taking baby steps at cracking it.

108 points by nkurz 10y ago

The techniques listed here, especially emotional manipulation, aren't too dissimilar from what low-wage employers in developed countries do.

ams6110 10y ago
Curious what your experience in working low-wage jobs is?
- GedByrne 10y ago
  http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/sports-direct-investigation-reveals-harsh-working-conditions http://www.channel4.com/info/press/news/sports-direct-invest...

antingate2 10y ago

What was slavery like, for the slave? It depended on the quality of your master. What is government like for the governed?

meatanddairy 10y ago

Just ask ranchers and dairy farmers.

spraak 10y ago
Likely many people will downvote this, but I see your point.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Enlighten us?
  - mikepurvis 10y ago
    I assume the point is that intelligent mammals like cows are being held and abused against their will for the benefit of their owners, and so dairy farmers and ranchers are the beneficiaries of this "slavery".
    - brighteyes 10y ago
      More generally, philosophers like Peter Singer talk about the connection between human rights and animal rights. Singer describes "the expanding circle" in which moral progress involves accepting more people into the circle of those we care about: first just the family, then the tribe, then a nation, then greater and greater groups (different races, religions, etc.), and so forth, and a further step is to include animals as well. [1] Another perspective on the connection between human rights and animal rights is that it is no coincidence that sociopaths often abuse animals. Those that wish to harm humans often wish to harm animals and vice versa. Likewise, most humans that see factory farming are horrified. We can't help but emphasize with them. [1] http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2004/06/peter-singer-on-expanding-circle.html http://animalethics.blogspot.com/2004/06/peter-singer-on-exp...
dugditches 10y ago
What about Free-Range establishments? I think you'd be better off to ask the Factory owner who made the device you posted on.

spraak 10y ago

Also somewhat related: 5th-Grader ‘Sold’ in Mock Slave Auction at New Jersey School - http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58d1d687e4b02d33b746c2cf http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58d1d687e4b02d33b746c2cf

speeder 10y ago

Slavery is a subject I find fairly interesting, but sadly, it only 'appears' to be discussed, frank discussions of slavery have the problem that most people or assume that anyone with any slight impression of defending slavery in any for is 100% evil, or they assume others expect that behaviour, and 'pretend' they have it, stifling discussion and research. For example research into the african slavery, and the result of slavery on the lives of africans transported to the Americas (not only US), frequently just result in researchers dismissed as being 'revisionists', and no real discussion show up, the few people that end having courage to discuss it for real, frequently are actual bigoted racists, that don't care about the wider public opinion of them, on both sides of the coin (I saw blatant racists both anti-white and anti-black).

ue_ 10y ago
Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but are you talking about debating the merits of slavery? Forgive me if I'm incredulous, but what kind of results are there to debate? Are you implying that there were good results to come from slavery? I am genuinely interested in what there is to know, as I'm horribly ignorant of it myself. I was reading on slavery today, and came across an interesting couple of quotes by Engels: >The only difference as compared with the old, outspoken slavery is this, that the worker of today seems to be free because he is not sold once for all, but piecemeal by the day, the week, the year, and because no one owner sells him to another, but he is forced to sell himself in this way instead, being the slave of no particular person, but of the whole property-holding class. and >The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general. I'd say myself it's a greater shame that wage slavery is discussed as sparsely as it is.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  I can't relate to the fashion of describing freemen as slaves. Life is suffering, staying alive takes effort. These people you're "selling yourself" to are in fact selling your fragile life to you, for the cost of you selling them some of theirs. You are, in effect, specializing in relieving some common suffering, and hoping that others specialize in relieving the suffering you do not know how to relieve.

jbuzbee 10y ago

I often wondered how slave holders justified their actions. And along those lines, I recall a lecture on Roman slavery. It made the point that it was standard-practice in Roman and other ancient cultures to raid other groups, kill everyone and take their possessions: livestock, food, valuables, etc. That was the way of the world that everyone knew. In the Roman mind, when the raiding party decided to let some people live and sell them into slavery, they were doing the captives a favor. They were saved from death. And from then on the slaves were more-or-less the walking dead with no rights and owing their "masters" everything. They were only alive because of the grace of the invaders. The lecture also noted that there was no writing from Roman times that questioned the morality of slavery. No one thought it was wrong. There are extensive writings from literate slaves themselves, and even these writings fail to question the morality of slavery. And speaking of writing, the Bible was written in a time when slavery was common practice. I don't recall Jesus preaching against slavery or the 10 Commandments coming out against it either.

Brendinooo 10y ago
The typical broad outlines you'll see from Christians goes something like this: 1. The Old Testament generally approved and regulated slavery, but it was different than the chattel slavery we tend to think of when we think of the word today. It'd have been a little close to the debt slavery you see in this article, but in its ideal form there were provisions for release after a period of time. 2. The New Testament didn't outright condemn slavery, but the Epistle to Philemon is a short book that shines a lot of light on the attitude that Paul had and that Christians used as a basis for their positions on slavery down the line. Onesimus needed to return to Philemon, but Philemon needed to treat him as a brother in Christ. Peter expressed similar views as well.
- candiodari 10y ago
  I think it'd be far more accurate to describe the New Testament's attitude toward slavery (and debts in general, but that fact is de-emphasized) would be to say that 1) they must end. It is absolutely forbidden for any Christian to own slaves or excessive debts, or to help slavery practices in any way. 2) it is, however, not for Christians to violently take other's property away. Not even slaves. A Christian should campaign for slave owners and creditors to release their charges, maybe even convince them to convert, but violently or legally freeing slaves away is forbidden. 3) Using money to achieve slaves' or debtors freedom is a specifically named virtue. So it's a "let it die" attitude. End slavery with minimal disruption. During the middle ages, traders from Southern Europe would often trade with muslims, and as a "good works" effort for their bosses/companies, they'd go to the slave markets of whatever city they were in and buy some slaves. They would be offered a free ride to Europe (and be paid for cleaning the deck or cooking on the way, to get some starter cash) and allowed to settle in Europe. If they didn't speak the language they'd take them to a monastery where they could often stay to learn. This worked, while islam requires slavery and slave trade (halal/wajib), it recognizes that freeing slaves is a good deed. Therefore they'd often sell slaves to be freed at a discount. The freed slaves could, but generally didn't, stay where they were, because muslims would simply capture them again (there's many such things in trade ports in Northern Africa. For instance, these muslim cities would often organize a yearly slave sports event. If the slaves won, they'd often get their freedom for that. However, more often than not, the owners of losing slaves would kill any slave that actually took his freedom).

yummyfajitas 10y ago

This article is conflating debt bondage with slavery. This is a huge error. Some debt bondage, like what is described in the article, is abusive and harmful. But much of it is quite beneficial to both parties. My sister was debt bonded for a while; Crossfit paid for her personal trainer certification, but she had to pay them back if she quit her job in a year. A girl I dated is getting a Masters from Columbia, but she has to continue working for the Diplomatic Corps in her country for 3 years after graduation. In fact, many valley engineers meet the definition of bonded labor: you need to give back the signing bonus if you quit in < 1 year. Economically, bonded labor with transparent contracts is a way to allow employers to pay to improve the human capital of their workers. On HN we often lament the fact that employers don't invest in employees, and the main reason for this is that they can't recoup their costs if the employee leaves. In India and the US there is a lot of bonded labor and it ranges across the spectrum. Quite a bit of it - particularly among professionals - is not remotely exploitative and is economically beneficial. An informed discussion should acknowledge this.

zeofig 10y ago
This article is conflating slavery with abusive human disempowerment. Some slavery, like what is described in the article, is abusive and harmful. But much of it is quite beneficial to both parties. My cousin by marriage was a slave for a while; his master paid for his financial certification and gave him a small allowance, but he had to save up sufficient funds before he could buy his way to freedom. A girl I used to date used to be a slave, but she chose to remain with the family who owned her even after she bought her freedom, and remains an integral and happy member of the household. In fact, many successful members of our community, particularly business owners and managers, are slaves or former slaves! Economically, slavery with proper laws and regulations is a way for families and moneyed individuals to improve the quality of their household or business, while giving an otherwise hopeless individual the chance to enter into Roman society. Here at the Tinkerers' Forum we often lament the fact that slave owners don't invest in their slaves, and the main reason for this is that they can't recoup their costs if the slave dies or escapes. In Rome and its provinces there is a lot of slavery and it ranges across the spectrum. Quite a bit of it - particularly in the educated and enlightened centre of the Empire - is not remotely exploitative and is economically beneficial. An informed discussion should acknowledge this.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Suppose I were to write "slavery is economically beneficial, ...a bunch of evidence goes here...". Do you believe an intellectual discussion would result? I'd gamble at 3:1 odds that I'd be downvoted and called racist. Just look what happened to Yarvin for merely comparing slavery to government (a more longwinded version of this: http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/nozick_slave.html http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/no... ).

jordanb 10y ago
> Suppose I were to write "slavery is economically beneficial, ...a bunch of evidence goes here...". Do you believe an intellectual discussion would result? The problem is that the distortion of your ethics and values would have to be so extreme to arrive at such a conclusion that anyone who read that sentence would know that you have an extremely "different" way of looking at the world, and not in a good way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Not true. I might just be a utilitarian who for whatever reason believes that slavery produces more utility than other arrangements.
  - eastWestMath 10y ago
    That's exactly what he's addressing, utilitarians with messed up definitions of utility. Your head needs to be awfully far up your ass to come to the conclusion that slavery is good without questioning the principles that lead to that conclusion.
    - sillysaurus3 10y ago
      Your head needs to be awfully far up your ass to come to the conclusion You're not allowed to comment like this on HN.

nojvek 10y ago

I have Indian heritage. My parents are incredibly religious. A large part of India is quite religious and Hinduism is the main religion. The brahmin, shudra (castes) stems from the ancient scriptures which a lot of people staunchly believe in. From modern point of view a lot of the scriptures are quite racist and sexist to be honest. I have arguments with my family all the time regarding this. I know quite a number of people who legit believe in untouchables. I strongly believe that as India becomes less religious, it will prosper and the people will become happier.

arjie 10y ago
If I were to speculate, I'd say that we're in an atmosphere where cultural innovation is akin to a technological advantage. The free society is stronger. In The Splendid Exchange, William Bernstein argues that a tremendous technological advantage that the Dutch had over the British at one period when both countries competed in trade for spices was that the Dutch financial markets were far more sophisticated. They had voyage derivatives, the ability to buy into a 1/128th share of the voyage's earnings, payments to zielverkoopers (recruiters - sometimes of a predatory sort) that entitled them to a cut of the men's wages as they were earned, derivatives on the zielverkooper contract (the transportbrief), and so on. These financial devices were just as effective as actual technological devices to present an advantage over British trade, a contributing factor to the VOC's success at the time. Analogously, I'd speculate that societies with a high adherence to tradition keeping women at home, or where a person's increased ability cannot increase the likelihood of career success because of a caste or similar system, have built-in limiters on their economy. The free society has a cultural device just as strong as its technological devices: one is closer to allowing one's ability to determine one's success than ever before. I believe the evidence shows that richer, well-fed children grow into smarter people. But while it does that, it only shifts the bell curve to the right. Even the poor can have those with the ingredients to be very smart. And when one discards those people, or condemns half one's population to work at below capacity, one's economy operates below capacity. And that economy will be less able to support the population. The free society will out-compete that economy.
linuxkerneldev 10y ago
> A large part of India is quite religious and Hinduism is the main religion The article mentions: Ahmed, a middle-class slaveholder in Uttar Pradesh in India, was eager to show me around the village where he was a member of the ruling elite. While I was grateful for the warm reception, I was visiting Ahmed’s community because of gross human-rights violations – bonded labour, child exploitation, and outbound human trafficking. My understanding is that Ahmed is an Arabic name and I had been told that Arab people enslaved Indians and that this practice still goes on today. So I'm confused now. Are Hindus enslaving other Hindus? Further, I'm wondering how this all relates to the article. The article doesn't mention religion at all so it is unclear to me whether you're saying Hinduism encourages slavery. I have Hindu friends who told me there is no such thing as "scripture" in Hinduism because there is no "god given" book like Torah, Bible or Quran. So I'm having difficulty understanding what's going on in India.

laughingman2 10y ago

Debt: The First 5,000 Years is a book by anthropologist David Graeber published in 2011. It explores the historical relationship of debt with social institutions such as barter, marriage, friendship, slavery, law, religion, war and government; in short, much of the fabric of human life in society. It draws on the history and anthropology of a number of civilizations, large and small, from the first known records of debt from Sumer in 3500 BC until the present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years

SticksAndBreaks 10y ago

The same that capitalists think. Those mongrel are so much better of due to my hard work. They have food, shelter and something to do with there lives. Else they would vandalize on the street. What if a slaveholder is a slave? Can dependancy hell apply to a owned person?

aaron695 10y ago

The problem with word changing, which seems all the rage, is intelligent, logical people see through it and get put off. And to make it worse the dumb dumbs start saying stuff like there are more slaves today than ever. Not understanding comparing real slaves numbers in the old days to indentured servitude today, leaves out the fact most people were in indentured servitude for most of history. But the dumb dumbs have the numbers, I guess playing them might be the best tactic to eradicate this awful practice.

Mendenhall 10y ago

The poor job of propaganda in this article made me laugh. You can tell it has more to do with "modern politics" than any dive into what slaveholders think. My favorite quote. "It’s only now that we are waking up to ask new questions about Right-wing movements such as the Ku Klux Klan and Al-Qaeda. A fresh generation of scholars are writing books about the Tea Party and those who protest on behalf of the rich"

Dowwie 10y ago

Michael Munger of Duke University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about how attitudes in the American South toward slavery evolved over time and what we can learn from that evolution about the role culture plays in our lives: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/08/munger_on_slave.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2016/08/munger_on_slave.htm...

mythrwy 10y ago

Just as a flower grows from rot and decayed matter, the unpleasant things in human history and unpleasant things in human nature have provided what was needed for that which we have which is beautiful and life giving and good right now. We look at a little slice of time and moralize. Which is all we can practically do. But morality changes and it doesn't come out of nothing either.

6502nerdface 10y ago

The author of the linked post is associated with Free the Slaves, a highly rated charity [1] that I'd recommend supporting to anyone troubled by modern slavery. He has a follow-on article up on their website. [2] [1] https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11051 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar... [2] http://www.freetheslaves.net/why-i-chose-to-research-what-slaveholders-think/ http://www.freetheslaves.net/why-i-chose-to-research-what-sl...

stevespang 10y ago

It is everywhere illegal yet slavery persists in many corners of the global economy. How do its beneficiaries justify it? This piece was written by a professor, isn't there an error in the subtitle in the proper use of the English language ? The subtitle would be corrected by stating: It is illegal everywhere, yet slavery . . . . . (switch everywhere and illegal)

nkurz 10y ago
As a native speaker of American English, I'd say that neither ordering is incorrect. Your suggestion ("illegal everywhere") is indeed more common, and would usually be better choice in conversational speech and popular writing. The subtitle ("everywhere illegal") isn't wrong, though, just stilted. Presuming the author is a native speaker, it's almost certainly not an error, but a conscious choice to employ "hyperbaton". Overused, this sort of inverted word order can leave you sounding like a mishmash of Monty Python, Yoda, and a bad fantasy novel, but applied selectively, it acts as a defamiliarization that adds emphasis. Here, the inverted ordering conveys a sense of being legalistic, Biblical, and archaic. Presumably this is intended to hint to the reader that piece will argue that the practice of slavery is similarly out-of-place in the modern world.
- HappyDreamer 10y ago
  I also think this added emphasis. I liked the way the author phrased it, i.e. "...everywhere illegal". To me, it gave the impression of focusing on the word "everywhere". (I'm not a native speaker.)
  - kwhitefoot 10y ago
    > it gave the impression of focusing on the word "everywhere" That's precisely my understanding of it. I am a native English speaker (British English).

ygarsoxa 10y ago

I've wondered how people in past civilizations could do things like slavery and child sacrifice and think that they were righteous, then I got a look at modern leftism. They celebrate murdering children, exploit people through taxes (saying it's "for their own good" identical to the modern slavery defense), they are extremely intolerant and bigoted (see any of the modern university protests), and they seem to be willingly ignorant that history, reality, and mathematics has proved that socialism doesn't work. I can guarantee that leftists will be so emotional that they will down-vote this to oblivion, proving my point. Hopefully we will evolve beyond the barbarism of extreme leftism. The right has become a watered down version of the left, so they are terrible too.

ifdefdebug 10y ago
I downvoted you because you called for it, nothing more.
- ygarsoxa 10y ago
  I understand, you can't be intellectually honest, even with yourself.
mythrwy 10y ago
I don't care for leftist ideology either nor the tactics employed by some leftists. But the comparison to slavery isn't very fair and I think you deserve a downvote for the bulk maligning of a political group. It's the same nonsense as suggesting all free market proponents are Nazi racists and young earth creationists. Nuance. Embrace it.

brazzledazzle 10y ago

HN comments debating the merits of slavery. Yikes. Besides being a head scratcher it's kind of a disgusting, albeit fascinating, look into some people's minds. Maybe it's the weekend crowd.

altonzheng 10y ago

I wish this article went into more of the philosophies of the slaveholders. Slavery is bad no doubt, but I can see how someone would rationalize it as providing security and peace of mind. If you give up your freedom and personal responsibility in return for guaranteed food and shelter, I can see it sounding okay, especially if the other option is to question where your next meal comes from. The problem is the power imbalance that leaves you at the whims of your master.

coldtea 10y ago

>What do slaveholders think? Not anything that different from "sweatshop" employers or any shitty employer for that matter.

woodandsteel 10y ago

This is an amazing article. Writings about slave holders all seem to fall into two sorts. One defends them and says they are the finest of people, and the very foundation of civilization. The other sort says they are evil through and through. This article instead gets at the actual reality of their psychology, which turns out to be a lot more complicated. Let me add one point, which is that slavery seems to largely be a function of economics and the level of technology of a society. In nomadic foraging societies, from what I have read, slavery is unknown because it is impractical and has no economic value. But with agriculture slavery becomes possible and can produce great wealth and many other sorts of value, and so it becomes wide-spread. But then with industrialization it again becomes uneconomic, and so is abolished. What the article describes quite clearly is a country moving from a largely agrarian economy to an industrial one, and how slavery is being slowly eliminated in the process.

fuzzfactor 10y ago

When Florida was under British control, Denys Rolle, British MP, brought settlers to his royally granted estate for the purpose of turning it into a capitalist plantation. This was before the first (haha) American Revolution. They took the closest thing resembling a flight from London to sunny Florida that there was back then. It was a sailing ship. -passage alone was 6 guineas (Pounds Sterling at the time) Fundamentally the chattel slaves were treated as cargo and expensed, everyone else was paying in one way or another for the venture to improve "their share" of the estate "provided" them. In this way the granted estate as a whole could be made "real" for the grantee (Rolle) after having first been nothing but decreed royal rights to not-yet-fully surveyed land. Attempted Florida real estate in its infancy. Make it more real than it was, so those who come along next will pay more rent. 1766 terms of settlement -help turn wilderness into a foundation for building Rolle a productive multinational agricultural venture -these one-way bundles include passage -all get a small lot in "town" and 5 acres for farming -plus "no limits as to quantity" of additional heritable farmland for a fee -all for a low, low, "small quit-rent" (property tax) indigent class - 4 years indentured sharecropping in lieu of 12 guineas -expected to achieve the wherewithal to "purchase nearly two negroes" of his own after 4 years third class "bare necessaries" - 12 guineas -you get survival materials, farm tools and a pig second class - 21 guineas -you also get craftsman's tools and more livestock -you still have to perform your own labor first class - 51 guineas -"The remaining 30 guineas may be employed in the price and wages of indented servants, or a working negro may be purchased with it." The sections in his own words do lend an idea about what the slaveholders of the traditional British aristocracy might have thought. The following document is worthwhile in its entirety but Rolle's account starts about halfway down the page: https://books.google.nl/books?id=Z2ZZAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=Extract+from+an+Account+of+East+Florida&source=bl&ots=QNsyfRR4oJ&sig=wvFh4YSDMROOO1_tl45aD8RIbhM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JIvUs_tBZOjhge21ID4DQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Extract%20from%20an%20Account%20of%20East%20Florida&f=false https://books.google.nl/books?id=Z2ZZAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1... Later, after the British lost the war they ended up ceding Florida to Spain in 1783, and Rolle relocated his downsized plantation to the neighboring British territory of the Bahama Islands, claiming great losses due to the political change of sovereignty. This takes place a few years after the most recent American Revolution (same war as above) which had started in 1776. Florida was not one of the 13 North American colonies which had declared independence from Britain. In the interim period Rolle had made the transition to pure slave labor going forward, instead of the original indentured arrangement. The thoughts of this same gentleman 14 - 17 years later can be further hinted at by this next document from 1780 - 1783. The Rolle information again starts about halfway down the page: http://www.unf.edu/floridahistoryonline/Plantations/plantations/San_Marco-Jericho-Chichester.htm http://www.unf.edu/floridahistoryonline/Plantations/plantati... Detailed is the work output expected of the various slave types (considered to be probably exaggerated for the purpose of his bureaucratic claim for financial compensation). Among pages of claims, chattel slaves were by then valued per head at: 100 Pounds Sterling for Trade workers 50 for Field workers 15 for "Rising Generation" children 0 for "Past Labour" kitchen workers no longer capable of Field performance Quite a bit of inflation, if it can be believed. Only the chattel slaves have been made illegal since then, but there are bound to be ruling classes over a period of centuries where when the prohibition of slavery came along, it was treated as a technicality. Depends on where the line is drawn. I believe this line is called labor law. But it's not only a matter of where the line is drawn and what the terms are, but more importantly who draws the line and sets the terms.

kafkaesq 10y ago

How do its beneficiaries justify it? Because they can get away with it. Or more precisely: because we let them get away with it. Granted, the remedy (in so many words: rigorous supply-chain screening + a homeopathic dose of consciousness raising among the general public) is far from trivial. But doable. Yet so far we're only taking baby steps at cracking it.