3 ms·

Not to take a side on this (there's bound to be a silly amount of controversy over taking any stand over what is and isn't slavery), but what do you consider sl

Not to take a side on this (there's bound to be a silly amount of controversy over taking any stand over what is and isn't slavery), but what do you consider slavery? Do you have to be physically forced in to it, or can economic pressures cause slavery? If you consider "right to work" an inalienable right, maybe slavery is a spectrum and any degree of infringement of that right puts you on the spectrum. And no, I obviously wouldn't argue anyone has it as bad as those in physical slavery by any stretch of imagination. Anyway, take for example the McDonald's employee who has no hireable skills, doesn't make a living wage, and his employer schedules him a) erratically and last-minute so he can't get another job and b) under a certain number of hours so the employee is not full-time and therefore not due benefits. Here, and in the Carmack case, the employer is deliberately taking steps to reduce the employee's ability to work elsewhere or to improve his place in society by work done on personal time. That seems like a pretty significant parallel to slavery, if not a criteria of slavery.

eropple 12y ago
I think the definition of slavery is pretty well-established. http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_modern_slavery.aspx http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_mod... Economic oppression, while certainly a problem, isn't the same thing. And John Carmack--you know, the guy with Ferraris, plural--cannot even claim to be economically oppressed. He is in a better position than almost anybody on the planet to negotiate for himself. (Programmers as a general class are only in a better position than the overwhelming majority of the planet to negotiate for themselves.) (Also, and this isn't directed at you, but I find it very hard to believe that that post would have been downvoted if slavery was something that afflicted white males. Funny, that.)
nostrademons 12y ago
Not the OP (and also not taking sides in this), but I consider slavery to be a legal concept. Wikipedia says slavery is "treating people as property that can be bought and sold" and property is itself a legal concept meaning that you have recourse to the state's monopoly on physical force to enforce your right to use an object. So I would consider slavery to be "using the state's monopoly on physical force to enforce dominion over another person". There are certainly economic situations that I believe are abusive, like debt slavery, indentured servitude, or your McDonald's example. All systems eventually get gamed, and so even when the state says "I'm going to stay out of this, you're free to make contracts but I will not legitimize your power relationships against other people." But there's still a world of difference between "You are property of this plantation owner, if you escape or disobey him you will be hunted down and returned in chains" and "You lack the economic means to support yourself, but you are free to never go to McDonald's again and take your chances living on the street and scrounging up food from trash cans." (I actually think laws that criminalize homelessness are much closer to slavery than minimum-wage jobs.) Many people died for the right to take the latter option, back when "McDonalds" was "plantations".
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

eropple 12y ago

I think the definition of slavery is pretty well-established. http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_modern_slavery.aspx http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_mod... Economic oppression, while certainly a problem, isn't the same thing. And John Carmack--you know, the guy with Ferraris, plural--cannot even claim to be economically oppressed. He is in a better position than almost anybody on the planet to negotiate for himself. (Programmers as a general class are only in a better position than the overwhelming majority of the planet to negotiate for themselves.) (Also, and this isn't directed at you, but I find it very hard to believe that that post would have been downvoted if slavery was something that afflicted white males. Funny, that.)

nostrademons 12y ago

Not the OP (and also not taking sides in this), but I consider slavery to be a legal concept. Wikipedia says slavery is "treating people as property that can be bought and sold" and property is itself a legal concept meaning that you have recourse to the state's monopoly on physical force to enforce your right to use an object. So I would consider slavery to be "using the state's monopoly on physical force to enforce dominion over another person". There are certainly economic situations that I believe are abusive, like debt slavery, indentured servitude, or your McDonald's example. All systems eventually get gamed, and so even when the state says "I'm going to stay out of this, you're free to make contracts but I will not legitimize your power relationships against other people." But there's still a world of difference between "You are property of this plantation owner, if you escape or disobey him you will be hunted down and returned in chains" and "You lack the economic means to support yourself, but you are free to never go to McDonald's again and take your chances living on the street and scrounging up food from trash cans." (I actually think laws that criminalize homelessness are much closer to slavery than minimum-wage jobs.) Many people died for the right to take the latter option, back when "McDonalds" was "plantations".

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]