3 ms·

Slavery started to fade away around the 1800s. No, the modern day slave trade is flourishing. Sex trafficking all over the world is one example. There are open

Slavery started to fade away around the 1800s. No, the modern day slave trade is flourishing. Sex trafficking all over the world is one example. There are open slave markets in Libya now just as there were for centuries or longer.

roenxi 6y ago
> By 2017, 60% of the Libyan population were malnourished. Since then, 1.3 million people are waiting for emergency humanitarian aid, out of a total population of 6.4 million [0] I'll cheerfully point out I don't think that Libya is economically competitive, and the slave trade is a big symptom of that. Banning slavery won't make them wealthy - they'll still probably be starving. Make them wealthy and the slave markets probably go away. Them banning slavery will impress me less than a policy of general liberalisation to get some economic success happening. Economies don't grow big by banning stuff; banning stuff happens after the economy is strong enough to handle the damage bans do. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Economy
- tremon 6y ago
  Banning slavery won't make them wealthy - they'll still probably be starving. Make them wealthy and the slave markets probably go away. That argument requires substantiation. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are arguably some of the wealthiest nations on the planet, yet slavery (or slave-like working conditions) are prevalent throughout society.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    I can substantiate it with Libya - it had one of the highest GDP per capita in the world for a bit (same wiki page). But they couldn't sustain that because they have the sort of economy where slavery makes sense. The Saudis and Qatarians will be the same when the oil runs out. An economy with slaves does not, fundamentally, make sense. It isn't going to be the least bit competitive with a modern capitalist economy with wages without wealth literally bubbling up from the ground in the form of oil. Everyone in such an economy will be less wealthy than their peers in a free market.
    - croon 6y ago
      Two points: 1) The capitalist formula for this is basically: Can i extract more value from this individual through "free" productivity minus wages, or from "slave" productivity minus enforcement cost. Your arguments don't convincingly prove the former. 2) Even if I were to accept your reasoning (which to be very clear I don't), I still don't understand what argument you're making. Because it naturally leads to: a) Capitalism solved slavery by it being unprofitable, so the regulation/ban was unnecessary. which leads to: b) If it was profitable, the ban would hamper economic growth. I'm much more interested in the second part. What would your stance be if we assume it would be profitable? Capitalism doesn't concern itself with morality, but humans do. Should we do nothing about it because all political intervention is bad?
      - throwaway201103 6y ago
        No, capitalism and freedom in general must operate within the confines of morality. But I think it is also true that slaves (at least as a source of agricultural labor) were becoming economically unviable regardless, due to advances in technology. Mechanized harvesting and other agricultural mechanization was just less expensive than using (and housing, and feeding) people to do the same work.
        croon 6y ago
        > No, capitalism and freedom in general must operate within the confines of morality. Just to make sure, I assume this is your opinion of agreement with me? Which I appreciate, even if you weren't GP. It's just that the phrasing makes it sound like a disagreement in reasoning, which if that is the case I would like you to expand on. But as to your second point, labor hasn't (yet) disappeared due to industrial revolutions, only shifted. What has changed is simply the scale one unit of labor could perform. Slaves would very much still be valuable in the 1800s. If nothing else proven by the fact that still to this day farming jobs are very often imported low-income jobs. I can't reconcile that fact with your reasoning.
ozborn 6y ago
It is not flourishing, it is underground and/or illegal in almost every country in the world. Your example of Libya shows just how badly governance has to break down in order for slavery to regain even a shadow of its former importance. The number of people enslaved has gone from substantial portions of humanity to a fringe activity, mostly on the margins of society. The destruction of chattel slavery as a prevailing institution (after it being normalized for thousands of years) should be counted as one of the greatest human triumphs. That you think the historic slavery in the Americas, Africa (especially in the Congo), China, etc.. is somewhere in the same ballpark as what goes on today is astonishing to me. To say slavery is "flourishing" is not only incorrect, it is cynical aned likely demotivating to those people who actually work to reduce debt bondage, sex trafficking, child labor and other forms of "modern" slavery. What is your motivation here? Pointing out that the battle against slavery isn't completely won yet is reasonable, saying "wage slavery" exists is also true, but pretending there was no transition away from slavery starting in the 1800s is just wrong.

roenxi 6y ago

> By 2017, 60% of the Libyan population were malnourished. Since then, 1.3 million people are waiting for emergency humanitarian aid, out of a total population of 6.4 million [0] I'll cheerfully point out I don't think that Libya is economically competitive, and the slave trade is a big symptom of that. Banning slavery won't make them wealthy - they'll still probably be starving. Make them wealthy and the slave markets probably go away. Them banning slavery will impress me less than a policy of general liberalisation to get some economic success happening. Economies don't grow big by banning stuff; banning stuff happens after the economy is strong enough to handle the damage bans do. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Economy

tremon 6y ago
Banning slavery won't make them wealthy - they'll still probably be starving. Make them wealthy and the slave markets probably go away. That argument requires substantiation. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are arguably some of the wealthiest nations on the planet, yet slavery (or slave-like working conditions) are prevalent throughout society.
- roenxi 6y ago
  I can substantiate it with Libya - it had one of the highest GDP per capita in the world for a bit (same wiki page). But they couldn't sustain that because they have the sort of economy where slavery makes sense. The Saudis and Qatarians will be the same when the oil runs out. An economy with slaves does not, fundamentally, make sense. It isn't going to be the least bit competitive with a modern capitalist economy with wages without wealth literally bubbling up from the ground in the form of oil. Everyone in such an economy will be less wealthy than their peers in a free market.
  - croon 6y ago
    Two points: 1) The capitalist formula for this is basically: Can i extract more value from this individual through "free" productivity minus wages, or from "slave" productivity minus enforcement cost. Your arguments don't convincingly prove the former. 2) Even if I were to accept your reasoning (which to be very clear I don't), I still don't understand what argument you're making. Because it naturally leads to: a) Capitalism solved slavery by it being unprofitable, so the regulation/ban was unnecessary. which leads to: b) If it was profitable, the ban would hamper economic growth. I'm much more interested in the second part. What would your stance be if we assume it would be profitable? Capitalism doesn't concern itself with morality, but humans do. Should we do nothing about it because all political intervention is bad?
    - throwaway201103 6y ago
      No, capitalism and freedom in general must operate within the confines of morality. But I think it is also true that slaves (at least as a source of agricultural labor) were becoming economically unviable regardless, due to advances in technology. Mechanized harvesting and other agricultural mechanization was just less expensive than using (and housing, and feeding) people to do the same work.
      - croon 6y ago
        > No, capitalism and freedom in general must operate within the confines of morality. Just to make sure, I assume this is your opinion of agreement with me? Which I appreciate, even if you weren't GP. It's just that the phrasing makes it sound like a disagreement in reasoning, which if that is the case I would like you to expand on. But as to your second point, labor hasn't (yet) disappeared due to industrial revolutions, only shifted. What has changed is simply the scale one unit of labor could perform. Slaves would very much still be valuable in the 1800s. If nothing else proven by the fact that still to this day farming jobs are very often imported low-income jobs. I can't reconcile that fact with your reasoning.

ozborn 6y ago

It is not flourishing, it is underground and/or illegal in almost every country in the world. Your example of Libya shows just how badly governance has to break down in order for slavery to regain even a shadow of its former importance. The number of people enslaved has gone from substantial portions of humanity to a fringe activity, mostly on the margins of society. The destruction of chattel slavery as a prevailing institution (after it being normalized for thousands of years) should be counted as one of the greatest human triumphs. That you think the historic slavery in the Americas, Africa (especially in the Congo), China, etc.. is somewhere in the same ballpark as what goes on today is astonishing to me. To say slavery is "flourishing" is not only incorrect, it is cynical aned likely demotivating to those people who actually work to reduce debt bondage, sex trafficking, child labor and other forms of "modern" slavery. What is your motivation here? Pointing out that the battle against slavery isn't completely won yet is reasonable, saying "wage slavery" exists is also true, but pretending there was no transition away from slavery starting in the 1800s is just wrong.