4 ms·

I really don't understand what you're arguing against here. > Thus slavery in the United States is now illegal, severely increasing the costs and the risks of

by tow21 17y ago

I really don't understand what you're arguing against here. > Thus slavery in the United States is now illegal, severely increasing the costs and the risks of operating a human trafficking enterprise. That's all that we really can do.< No, there's quite a lot more we can do. Foreign policy is all about influencing what goes on beyond your own borders. > I see plenty of things wrong here. Is that $40K USD? Is that $40K USD in today's money or in the value of the dollar in 1850? What does it cost to make a living in Haiti? How far will $100 or $50 US go? The word "equivalent" in the original article is clearly meant to convey that it's $40k in today's money. (as would even a tiny amount of knowledge of economic history, surely?) I don't know how far $50 will go on the average Haitian salary, but surely part of his point is that in this case there is a population (visiting American tourists) for whom $50 is disposable income. It was never the case for historic US slavery that the price of a slave was anything less than an investment. (And slave importation may not be the end goal. Maybe you just want a slave for two weeks while you enjoy your holiday. Is that less reprehensible?) > Places like India have grown in population since the time of slavery in the United States. I would really like to see numbers based on % of population for these countries rather than raw numbers (and historical percentages for comparison, obviously) Well, yes, comparative numbers would be interesting. (and I'm fairly sure nobody would be surprised to learn that there is less slavery per head of population than previously - but does that make it any less bad?) I don't think human misery works on the calculus you're trying to apply. One million people in slavery are going to be fairly unhappy, whether they're embedded in a population of 50 million or 5 billion. If the number of people in slavery is increasing, that's bad, even if it's going down as a percentage. > Do you really think that any US President is going to wipe out all slavery world-wide within a single term through only foreign policy decisions? Do you even believe that it's possible in the short-term without some sort of war/bloodshed? Do you really think that's what he's asking for? Do you really think an appropriate alternative is just to shrug your shoulders, put it in historical context and do nothing? Do you really think that if something can't be fixed immediately, or its fix isn't immediately obvious, we should just not bother thinking about it?

pyre 17y ago
> No, there's quite a lot more we can do. Foreign policy is all about influencing what goes on beyond your own borders. My point was that he was acting like the Civil War was a 'war to end slavery world wide' and he almost comes off as surprised that a Civil War years-ago in the US hasn't affected the slave trade on the opposite side of the planet. The point of the Civil War (in terms of slavery) was to abolish the plantations and make the slave trade illegal (i.e. to 'free the slaves'). Abolishing the legal trafficking of slaves is one step in the process, obviously, but a major step nonetheless. > It was never the case for historic US slavery that the price of a slave was anything less than an investment. This was mostly due to the cost of trafficking in the slaves. If I go down to Haiti the slaves that I could buy there aren't shipped from the other side of the world. If one wanted to buy a slave in Africa in the early 1800's I'm sure it would have cost you a lot less than right off the slave boats in the colonies. Even shipping a boatload of slaves around the world now would probably cost a lot less than it did then. I guess what really irks me about this -- and my point -- is that presenting the low-cost of purchasing a slave today comes across as shock-value to get an emotional response. And the response that he seems to be going for is to get people thinking that globally humans have de-valued human life more now than in the past. My argument is that you can't compare the price of a slave in the 1800's to the price of a slave now and use the severe difference in price as proof that the people of the 1800's put a higher-value on human life. > (and I'm fairly sure nobody would be surprised to learn that there is less slavery per head of population than previously - but does that make it any less bad?) Doesn't make it any less bad, but it feels very deceptive to use raw numbers like that without presenting relative numbers. It feels like they are trying to get people to reach the wrong conclusions, but with the right intentions. > I don't think human misery works on the calculus you're trying to apply. One million people in slavery are going to be fairly unhappy, whether they're embedded in a population of 50 million or 5 billion. If the number of people in slavery is increasing, that's bad, even if it's going down as a percentage. Maybe the problem here is that I'm not mainstream enough to be the intended audience. I feel like I want to see all of the numbers, and when numbers are pushed off to the side, it feels very deceptive to me. Aside from that, I feel that the best way to measure progress is whether or not the numbers are going down as a percentage. Especially compared to the percentage of population growth. If the number of slaves goes decreases by 2% and the population grows by 1%, I see that as a net win. I also think that it's unrealistic to think that we will ever get the number of slaves down to 0, though I would hope it's possible... even if it has to be on the long-long-term. > Do you really think that's what he's asking for? He said: He needs to hear from all of us that the true abolition of slavery needs to be a part of his legacy. That comes off to me as too positive. That sounds like he thinks President Obama is going to abolish slavery. 'The true abolition of slavery' will not be part of Obama's legacy unless he actually abolishes all slavery. I'm all for better foreign policy regarding slavery, don't get me wrong, but I thought that this guy's message was too positive. Better US foreign policy regarding slavery is a win as long as 1 slave gains freedom over it, but I daresay that foreign policy alone might not make a dent in world-wide slavery for at least a decade (though I'm really pulling that number out of nowhere; feel free to contradict me). In general, I'm not disagreeing with the need to combat slavery. I'm disagreeing with some of what this guy is saying because it's coming across as deceptive (even though the intentions may be good) and too overly optimistic (I believe in setting realistic goals).
anamax 17y ago
> Foreign policy is all about influencing what goes on beyond your own borders. How about some specifics? For example, what military action is acceptable and when? Is there a conflict between this and the belief that one can't "impose democracy" from outside? (Obama, among others, says that he believes that.)

by tow21 17y ago

pyre 17y ago

> No, there's quite a lot more we can do. Foreign policy is all about influencing what goes on beyond your own borders. My point was that he was acting like the Civil War was a 'war to end slavery world wide' and he almost comes off as surprised that a Civil War years-ago in the US hasn't affected the slave trade on the opposite side of the planet. The point of the Civil War (in terms of slavery) was to abolish the plantations and make the slave trade illegal (i.e. to 'free the slaves'). Abolishing the legal trafficking of slaves is one step in the process, obviously, but a major step nonetheless. > It was never the case for historic US slavery that the price of a slave was anything less than an investment. This was mostly due to the cost of trafficking in the slaves. If I go down to Haiti the slaves that I could buy there aren't shipped from the other side of the world. If one wanted to buy a slave in Africa in the early 1800's I'm sure it would have cost you a lot less than right off the slave boats in the colonies. Even shipping a boatload of slaves around the world now would probably cost a lot less than it did then. I guess what really irks me about this -- and my point -- is that presenting the low-cost of purchasing a slave today comes across as shock-value to get an emotional response. And the response that he seems to be going for is to get people thinking that globally humans have de-valued human life more now than in the past. My argument is that you can't compare the price of a slave in the 1800's to the price of a slave now and use the severe difference in price as proof that the people of the 1800's put a higher-value on human life. > (and I'm fairly sure nobody would be surprised to learn that there is less slavery per head of population than previously - but does that make it any less bad?) Doesn't make it any less bad, but it feels very deceptive to use raw numbers like that without presenting relative numbers. It feels like they are trying to get people to reach the wrong conclusions, but with the right intentions. > I don't think human misery works on the calculus you're trying to apply. One million people in slavery are going to be fairly unhappy, whether they're embedded in a population of 50 million or 5 billion. If the number of people in slavery is increasing, that's bad, even if it's going down as a percentage. Maybe the problem here is that I'm not mainstream enough to be the intended audience. I feel like I want to see all of the numbers, and when numbers are pushed off to the side, it feels very deceptive to me. Aside from that, I feel that the best way to measure progress is whether or not the numbers are going down as a percentage. Especially compared to the percentage of population growth. If the number of slaves goes decreases by 2% and the population grows by 1%, I see that as a net win. I also think that it's unrealistic to think that we will ever get the number of slaves down to 0, though I would hope it's possible... even if it has to be on the long-long-term. > Do you really think that's what he's asking for? He said: He needs to hear from all of us that the true abolition of slavery needs to be a part of his legacy. That comes off to me as too positive. That sounds like he thinks President Obama is going to abolish slavery. 'The true abolition of slavery' will not be part of Obama's legacy unless he actually abolishes all slavery. I'm all for better foreign policy regarding slavery, don't get me wrong, but I thought that this guy's message was too positive. Better US foreign policy regarding slavery is a win as long as 1 slave gains freedom over it, but I daresay that foreign policy alone might not make a dent in world-wide slavery for at least a decade (though I'm really pulling that number out of nowhere; feel free to contradict me). In general, I'm not disagreeing with the need to combat slavery. I'm disagreeing with some of what this guy is saying because it's coming across as deceptive (even though the intentions may be good) and too overly optimistic (I believe in setting realistic goals).

anamax 17y ago

> Foreign policy is all about influencing what goes on beyond your own borders. How about some specifics? For example, what military action is acceptable and when? Is there a conflict between this and the belief that one can't "impose democracy" from outside? (Obama, among others, says that he believes that.)