Slavery Poll

[Martinus]

There are hundreds of methods to do it, and no law can stop them all. If people are willing, it will happen. And people will always be willing.

Same can be said about pretty much every negative social phenomenon up to and including rape and murder.

This is also the most common fallacy when talking about laws.

[Caliga]

Can somebody add an option for hot chick robot sex slaves PLZ?

[Eddie Teach]

Clearly it is or they wouldn't enslave people in East Asia to work in brick factories and the like.  As far as I know, slavery tended to be abolished by government fiat, often by violence.

I would hazard a guess that the value of labor vs. machinery varies a lot over industries and over centuries. Factory owners in England in 1800 didn't use many slaves.

As far as I know, slavery tended to be abolished by government fiat, often by violence.

Government fiat is generally used more pragmatically than idealistically. Slavery was abolished in the northern US and the UK after it ceased being something the elites depended upon for their income(and the economy as a whole). This was due to industrial capitalism.

[grumbler]

Government fiat is generally used more pragmatically than idealistically. Slavery was abolished in the northern US and the UK after it ceased being something the elites depended upon for their income(and the economy as a whole). This was due to industrial capitalism.

Interesting fact:  slavery was never abolished in the UK.  It was held in a court ruling to never have existed.  "The air of England is too free for a slave to breathe."

[Sheilbh]

It does make sense for some professions (namely, the ones where you provide service to an external customer) - but it is abused by being used for people who by all accounts should have a steady job (like tea ladies and the like).

I'd agree if there were insufficient flexxibility already but in those jobs - I've worked in them - there is a lot of flexibility almost inevitably by the type of people who work them. But even there the way to deal with the problem is have a core of full-time staff and more casual workers (students etc) on the edges. The problem we have is that some brands - like Sports Direct - are employing thousands of people on zero hours so chances are everyone in the shop, but the manager, is on a zero hours contract and can have their hours cut at any point.

In Poland it is abused through various outsourcing contracts. Attempts are being made to curb it but it is not always very easy to do (for example, it is perfectly legitimate to hire a lawyer, a consultant or an author to deliver a specific product, such as a report or a book - and pay accordingly; but paying a cleaning lady to deliver a "specific product" of cleaning the same office every day clearly abuses the system; but then there are legitimate cleaners like my cleaning lady who is not really employed by anyone and has around 20 clients she visits on a bi-weekly basis - and here treating her like an employee would make no sense).

Again very common in the UK. Lots of employment agencies set people up as companies so that they're technically a contractor. Their tax bill will normally be lower (and so will the agency's), but the downside is because they don't have an employment relationship they've no entitlement to paid holidays, to public holidays being reflected in their pay or to sick leave.

In the UK it's also a big problem for recent grads.

I think it's a negative trend in itself but I think it's less problematic than zero hours contracts where you have no visibility further than a week. It's impossible to have any reasonable expectations or make any sorts of plans beyond that. And despite being legal for a long time it's actually a very new trend.

[Razgovory]

Incorrect.

Slavery can't exist if the government says no. Sorry, but it just can't. It needs political backing or it fails.

It very much can.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_slave_scandal  Here the government says no, but it's agents are either bribed or apathetic.

[Razgovory]

Clearly it is or they wouldn't enslave people in East Asia to work in brick factories and the like.  As far as I know, slavery tended to be abolished by government fiat, often by violence.

I would hazard a guess that the value of labor vs. machinery varies a lot over industries and over centuries. Factory owners in England in 1800 didn't use many slaves.

As far as I know, slavery tended to be abolished by government fiat, often by violence.

Government fiat is generally used more pragmatically than idealistically. Slavery was abolished in the northern US and the UK after it ceased being something the elites depended upon for their income(and the economy as a whole). This was due to industrial capitalism.

Slavery was abolished prior to industrialization in the North, though it was through gradual manumission. Most countries through out history abolish slavery for moral or philosophical reasons, not because they are industrializing as many states abolish slavery prior to the industrial revolution.  For instance Russia abolishes slavery under Peter the Great, and it's not like there were alot of steel mills in Russia at the time.  Same goes for South American countries.

[Admiral Yi]

Same can be said about pretty much every negative social phenomenon up to and including rape and murder.

This is also the most common fallacy when talking about laws.

The willingness he was talking about was that of the employees.

[Eddie Teach]

  For instance Russia abolishes slavery under Peter the Great, and it's not like there were alot of steel mills in Russia at the time.

Russian elites didn't need to buy and sell slaves, they simply needed slaves to work their land. That continued until 1861. Freedom was a response to the zeitgeist which emerged first in more industrial countries.

As for the parsing of whether slavery was abolished in the North before industrialization, that really depends on how you define industrialization. It certainly wasn't full-scale industrialization, but the process was well underway in the 18th century. The point is, their economies and the status of (most) people in power didn't depend on slavery.

[Martinus]

For instance Russia abolishes slavery under Peter the Great, and it's not like there were alot of steel mills in Russia at the time. 

That's a really retarded argument, given that (as most things about Russia) this was purely on paper and Russian peasants continued to be de facto slaves until the 19th century.

[Martinus]

Same can be said about pretty much every negative social phenomenon up to and including rape and murder.

This is also the most common fallacy when talking about laws.

The willingness he was talking about was that of the employees.

Really? You are going to make this cretinous argument again?

[Admiral Yi]

Really? You are going to make this cretinous argument again?

I was going to, but you just talked me out of it.

[Eddie Teach]

Marty is very persuasive. 

[Tonitrus]

Can somebody add an option for hot chick robot sex slaves PLZ?

You should be choosing real love over Cherry 2000. 

[Razgovory]

  For instance Russia abolishes slavery under Peter the Great, and it's not like there were alot of steel mills in Russia at the time.

Russian elites didn't need to buy and sell slaves, they simply needed slaves to work their land. That continued until 1861. Freedom was a response to the zeitgeist which emerged first in more industrial countries.

As for the parsing of whether slavery was abolished in the North before industrialization, that really depends on how you define industrialization. It certainly wasn't full-scale industrialization, but the process was well underway in the 18th century. The point is, their economies and the status of (most) people in power didn't depend on slavery.

It was before trains in the US, that great symbol of industrialization.  In the United States industrialization increased the demand for slaves, not decreased it.  The price of slaves kept increasing in the years prior to the civil war.  If the elites didn't need slaves the price would go down.  Russian slaves eventually became serfs but they could not be bought or sold (previously slaves in Russia could).  If we are counting serfs as slaves then why should slavery be abolished in 1864?  The elites still depended on it and it's not exactly like Russia was an industrial power.  Going back further we see slavery decline in the late Roman empire and serfdom decline in the West in the late middle ages, again not time known for industrial output.  There is no particular reason to see Industrialization as antithetical to slavery.  The "zeitgeist" you spoke of has nothing to do with industrialization but rather the religious and philosophical ideas that opposed slavery in the last few centuries.  Slaves were used in non-agricultural tasks in the past and are to this day.  For instance slaves were used to maintain rail lines in the US prior to and during the US civil war.