Indentured Servitude

[GodOfOrder]

Is indentured servitude a bad thing?

In a hypothetical space, where the government offers very little protections, and mostly just enforces contract law and keeps civil peace, would a contract of indentured servitude be something permissible from a moral or ethical standpoint. We are allowing it to be perfectly and entirely legal.

In this space, it would be consensual slavery, conditioned and defined by a contract between servant and master. The servant would forfeit no legal protections offered by the state, such as voting rights, due process, etc. but he would be bound to whatever the contractual conditions are, so long as they are pursuant to the laws of the land.

The servant would be bound to his masters whims, and be subject to obey all commands of his master. The master must manage his servant, and is responsible for his care. He must provide adequate food, housing, etc. While the servant is bound to the contract, the master may terminate or transfer ownership at any time. The terms of the contract however, once agreed upon between servant and master, may not be changed or augmented without the consent of both parties.

It is essentially a way around the problems of the welfare state. Those who can not afford care for themselves, provide unpaid service to those who can, but in exchange are subjected to whatever the terms of their contract may be.

Ethically permissible? yes or no

 

[Chad]

Yes,

And institutionally we call this having a job. In stead of Master and Servant we have Boss and Employee (They are in essence the same thing)

The only two difference between indentured servitude and employment.

1)there is more separation between you need and the what the is grated to you.

In Indentured Servitude the Master has to cover all your basic needs.

In Employment the Boss has not contractual responsibility to cover your needs he only has to pay your what is agreed upon. How you use this to cover your need is your responsibility.

2)The is more regulations right now regulating how an employee (boss) can interact with his employees and what he can ask of them.

I only say this because you said that the servant is bond to the masters whims. Which employees are protected form to a given degree.

However, the last one is easily fix if the government just steps in makes sure the is a certain level on Context between what a master can do with his servant.

As long as the last statement is amended it could actual serve as a better from of employment for many.

 

[Nezumi]

Ethically permissible? probably not by social standards.

But I think it would be a cool option.

I see a ton of room for abuse though. Since this would cross social/economical lines. It would be very easy to write up a wordy contract to confuse lower educated people and take away even more freedoms and rights.

Would the law be brought in if a master was beating/abusing/killing their servants? Or would it be up to the servant/servant's family to try and save them.

Then there is also illegal selling of people. people forced/blackmailed into servitude, or bought in from other countries and tricked into it since they don't speak the language.

 

[GodOfOrder]

@Chad

Yes, those would be the differences between those employed in a regular job, and those in servitude. The freedoms of mobility that are given to an average person are far greater than those given to an indentured servant.

The servant has no power to exit the contract, until it either expires, or the master terminates it, unlike those regularly employed. The servant, while not obligated to do anything not specified in the contract, has a far less defined set of tasks than those who are normally employed. They are also more likely to be coerced into doing things unspecified, if only unofficially. The servant also does not work for pure monetary pay, but likely only exclusively for the care his master provides.

Additionally, the master also manages the servants life, in a way that an average boss can not. He administrates not only the duties and actions carried out by the servant professionally, but also personally, because for all intents and purposes he owns him.

It is distinct and different from normal employment simply because it is more binding. Highly distinct.

 

[Chad]

@Chad

Yes, those would be the differences between those employed in a regular job, and those in servitude. The freedoms of mobility that are given to an average person are far greater than those given to an indentured servant.

The servant has no power to exit the contract, until it either expires, or the master terminates it, unlike those regularly employed. The servant, while not obligated to do anything not specified in the contract, has a far less defined set of tasks than those who are normally employed. They are also more likely to be coerced into doing things unspecified, if only unofficially. The servant also does not work for pure monetary pay, but likely only exclusively for the care his master provides.

Additionally, the master also manages the servants life, in a way that an average boss can not. He administrates not only the duties and actions carried out by the servant professionally, but also personally, because for all intents and purposes he owns him.

It is distinct and different from normal employment simply because it is more binding. Highly distinct.

Still employment is a reconstruction of indentured servitude. You just change the rules and titles.

I think if indentured servitude was regulated highly it could be a useful economic model for some.

However, I even find the Boss, Employee model very damning so honestly I want to one day to just work for myself.

My wife jokes that if I worked for myself I would have an identity crises and still hate my boss.

 

[Nezaros]

I figure anything is permissible so long as everything is consensual and the indentured knows exactly what they're getting into. Depending on the length of the contract the attitudes of either party may change somewhere along the line and they may decide the original terms ought to change; provisions could be made for such a possibility but in the end, if you agreed to it, you agreed to it. It's just a matter of how much leeway each party is willing to give, and expects from the other.

 

[Absurdity]

Until you define the ethical code by which you evaluate situations and acts to be permissible or impermissible this whole discussion is going to revolve around endless and inane question-begging.

 

[GodOfOrder]

Until you define the ethical code by which you evaluate situations and acts to be permissible or impermissible this whole discussion is going to revolve around endless and inane question-begging.

Right you are, but due to the subjectivity of morality and ethics, such a thing is nearly impossible. If I had this framework defined for the discussion, I suppose I wouldn't need or want to ask a question now would I?

I suppose I could change the question to something along the lines of...

Would indentured servitude, as described above, be acceptable according to you and your morals?

I am simply curious

 

[Double_V]

I had a great grandfather (who I remember clearly) who was an indentured servant. He said it was a wonderful way to get to the USA, have housing, and learn a trade without acruing debt. 17 of his family came that way.

Uh, I also believe they sometimes get called internships.