3 ms·

Thank you. The indentured servitude character of this stuff is most clear when we look at the $ALEX example. Selling off a chunk of future autonomy and income

Thank you. The indentured servitude character of this stuff is most clear when we look at the $ALEX example. Selling off a chunk of future autonomy and income in order to finance migration to a place with more economic opportunity is exactly what poor folks did circa the 17th and 18th centuries. Perhaps we should look at the history of how that went before replicating it.

jkhdigital 6y ago
My understanding is that economically it was usually a mutually beneficial arrangement, and servants often ended up better off than a normal immigrant. The second-class status of servants is somewhat hard to stomach by modern standards, but honestly it is not much different than the way members of the military are treated (source: I served five years enlisted in the US Navy).
- blackbrokkoli 5y ago
  Yes, but then you should apply political pressure to better the US army, not go "welp, let's give everybody that experience". I am not sure why that needs spelling out, but social issues are actually not resolved by making them a suffering contest.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    Can you point to where I said “welp let’s give everybody that experience”? I was attempting to give a nuanced view but I guess nobody in this thread has any interest in nuance. My mistake.
- paultopia 5y ago
  The problem is that you can't separate the economic from the social---even a mutually beneficial transaction can have negative social externalities like undermining the political (and then the economic) power of a whole class of workers or potentially even undermining the individual capacity for independence of the individual involved on a psychological level. The philosopher Debra Satz's book "Why Some Things Should Not be for Sale" has a great section on bonded labor that captures some of these consequences. (I think the military isn't a good analogy because the public at large affords military personnel a special kind of respect that counteracts these social externalities.)

jkhdigital 6y ago

My understanding is that economically it was usually a mutually beneficial arrangement, and servants often ended up better off than a normal immigrant. The second-class status of servants is somewhat hard to stomach by modern standards, but honestly it is not much different than the way members of the military are treated (source: I served five years enlisted in the US Navy).

blackbrokkoli 5y ago
Yes, but then you should apply political pressure to better the US army, not go "welp, let's give everybody that experience". I am not sure why that needs spelling out, but social issues are actually not resolved by making them a suffering contest.
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  Can you point to where I said “welp let’s give everybody that experience”? I was attempting to give a nuanced view but I guess nobody in this thread has any interest in nuance. My mistake.
paultopia 5y ago
The problem is that you can't separate the economic from the social---even a mutually beneficial transaction can have negative social externalities like undermining the political (and then the economic) power of a whole class of workers or potentially even undermining the individual capacity for independence of the individual involved on a psychological level. The philosopher Debra Satz's book "Why Some Things Should Not be for Sale" has a great section on bonded labor that captures some of these consequences. (I think the military isn't a good analogy because the public at large affords military personnel a special kind of respect that counteracts these social externalities.)