10 ms·
Wouldn't this be illegal under the 13th Amendment? Isn't it equivalent to partial slavery?
by troyastorino 14y ago
Wouldn't this be illegal under the 13th Amendment? Isn't it equivalent to partial slavery?
- ryanbrunner 14y agoIs it even partial slavery if he doesn't have voting stock? This article is cute in parts and all, but I really question the legality (and definitely the morality) of this.
- meric 14y agoHe still controls 98+% of shares, which he is choosing not to vote with.
- ryanbrunner 14y agoThat probably changes things then. I mistakenly assumed that his shares were actually non-voting shares, and that he had no contractual right to vote. If he has voting rights but is just abstaining from using them, then that's quite a bit less crazy.
- Samuel_Michon 14y agoYou weren't mistakingly assuming it, it was mentioned in the intro of the article: “He kept the remaining 99.1 percent of himself but promised that his shares would be nonvoting.” There's also no mention of it in the FAQ on kmikeym.com, I'd say it'd be pretty important information to disclose to (potential) investors.
- ubercow13 14y agoThere's a difference between actually non-voting and with voting powers that he has promised investors he will not use.
- Samuel_Michon 14y agoI'd love to see a source for that. I've browsed quite a few of his websites and read several articles about the project, but I've not come across him saying he has voting shares that he promised not to use.
- seandhi 14y agoI doubt there is any case law surrounding voluntary servitude of this nature. I'm not sure one could call this slavery since he voluntarily entered into the relationship with his shareholders. It would be an interesting case, no doubt.
- eli_gottlieb 14y agoAnd much of original slavery and indentured servitude was based on the slave being in debt.