Can slavery Work in a modern society?
Can slavery work in a modern society today such as the U.S or Britain? I don’t think so, these days we have something called human rights and the duties that slavery entails strips a person of these rights. Even as Rodney Allan and Ian Hunt propose chattel (optional) slavery, it is not a rational option to rid the world of poverty, unemployment, inequality, insecurity, or social exclusion. Even if all of these economic problems were solved through slavery it is a step backward in the laissez faire economic society that we have created, and even if the most impoverished people in the world wanted to sell themselves into slavery so that they would be provided healthcare and three meals a day it would not solve the problem of inequality or social exclusion as Allan and Hunt non-convincingly claim.
Instead it worsen these things, people would be even more socially excluded, their lives would be sold away and the incentive system that the United States and other capitalist economies have come to live by would not apply to the slaves. Their standard of living would not increase one bit since the beginning of their commitment to slavery. So they would have no incentive to work hard except for to be fed and receive healthcare. As far as being included more socially, this is also a fallacy. Though it may seem that these people were socially excluded before their term of slavery, at least they had a chance to improve themselves by obtaining education and get out of their previously wretched condition, instead of signing up for a life sentence of wretchedness. Furthermore, my becoming a slave your social standing moves from freeman to slave. You are put into a caste system at the bottom of society with no way out.
It is my opinion that the reason Allan and Hunt promote this social agenda is their attempt to say hey look at all these problems in the world, our idea can fix them and it won’t cost the taxpayers a penny in fact it will make them money. But what this argument really is at its basis is an argument for eugenics. It’s trying to caste out the people who have been stuck at the bottom of society to be slaves for the rest of society. It’s saying that if people are born into a bad situation it is for a reason, and instead of offering the other hand, let’s enslave them and make their whole lives work, make us money while all they earn is the right to breathe another day.
The realistic approach to fighting poverty is not to enslave the population but create programs to help educate, offer Medicare for all, and create a system of opportunities for the under privileged. Yeah this will take social funding, and in most cases be very expensive, but it can bring a lot of good to society. If everyone is educated that’s that many more minds working to solve the problems of the world, which means there’s a better chance for finding cures to cancers and diseases, and more people have a chance to have a good free life, it may not be an equal chance, but at least it’s a chance.
Portrait of Frederick Douglass
Frederick Douglass
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I read Rodney Allen and Ian Hunt's "A Modest Proposal for the New Millennium." I found it fairly compelling. Fixing the problems, however severe, of an old institution that had huge economic benefits is a really good idea. I agree with Zach in that we should be very wary when dealing with slavery as a solution to anything but, I don't think the idea should be eliminated just because it is SLAVERY. Also, Zach is absolutely correct in that chattel slavery will not end social exclusion. Chattel slavery would create a defined bottom level of society that is absolutely excluded from all others in that they have none of the rights that the rest of society has. However, is it not conceivable that this a better option for certain people? Wouldn't this give impoverished people a chance at life rather than death? There are people all over the world that would love to spend the rest of their lives working as a laborer for some wealthy person in America if it meant they didn't have to worry about whether or not they would get their next meal. Obviously this slavery would be well regulated. These people would not endure what Frederick Douglass had to. It would be completely voluntary. Also, there is the possibility of a temporary slavery or indentured service. This would have the same results for the people involved except a slightly higher cost for the owner and an incentive in the end for the slave/servant.
You may have noticed that the argument that chattel slavery would increase social exclusion did not bother me at all. It really doesn't. Having a bottom level of society that is completely socially excluded is not a bad thing. The seeming awfulness of slavery would encourage people not to fall in to it. Rather than welfare systems that have zero incentive for people not to use them, slavery would be a person's last resort. People would be more proactive in taking care of themselves. Then, if a person was forced in to slavery because of poverty, rather than being a drain on society, that person would be contributing.
The biggest question that arises is what happens to the family of a slave. The last thing we want is for people to be born in to slavery. It seems like an arrangement could, and likely would, be made such that parents of an extremely destitute family could become slaves (possibly temporarily) in exchange for food and shelter for the entire family. The children would be cared for in all respects, would not be considered slaves, and could then attend public schools and have a chance at bettering their social situation.
That is why this is not an argument for eugenics. It has nothing to do with what you are born in to. If at a certain point in a person's life, say by age 30, they are in a bad situation, it is for a reason. It is because either they got themselves in that situation, or they did nothing to get themselves out of it. For some reason people in poverty like this have gotten the idea that they deserve certain things like free healthcare and subsistence money. WHY? For what reason do you deserve things that must be provided by others? These people don't do anything for anyone. Why shouldn't they be forced to do something productive in order to get the benefits of being apart of society.
The horrors that Douglass writes about should not be ignored when talking about slavery. They should be used to remind people of what can happen and that injustices such as these should be avoided at all costs. However, slavery has undeniable economic benefits for both parties involved. It seems like a voluntary system could be arranged that would solve a lot of economic issues while still avoiding what happened in the early part of America.
When reading this blog, a quote by Karl Marx kept popping into my mind. He once said that capitalism is equal to modern slavery. I think he wasn't that wrong. It's easy to say that "we have something called human rights and the duties that slavery entails strips a person of these rights." Don't these rights often exist only on paper?? Slavery still exists, not only in Third World countries, but also in the U.S. It is estimated that one million people are enslaved within America. Often, these are immigrants who are lured by people, who promise education and a job in the US and facilitate illegal immigration to America. They are then forced to work as domestics, prostitutes, wood cutters, etc. The threat of arrest by US authorities keeps these slaves silent.
And what about those who work but simply don't earn enough to make a good living, that is to pay for health insurance, education, etc.?
Please check out the following web sites:
http://www.anti-slavery.org/
http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id686/pg1/
I agree with the first commentator in part. I also believe that there are people who would rather choose to live as a "modern slave" as proposed by Allen and Hunt than being impoverished all life long. I don't favor this kind of solution at all, but it could give better prospects to certain people. After all, this would be on a voluntary basis.
Of course, education, as Zach proposed it, is "the solution". But not all people are willing to pay for other people's education (see last commentator). This whole issue of equality is very complex; there is not "the" solution.
VERY IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER: the title of Allan and Hunt's piece echoes the title of Jonathan Swift's famous satire of English treatment of the Irish of 1729, called "A Modest Proposal." See here: http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
ALSO, FROM THE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY:
"satire"
I. 1. A poem, or in modern use sometimes a prose composition, in which prevailing vices or follies are held up to ridicule. Sometimes, less correctly, applied to a composition in verse or prose intended to ridicule a particular person or class of persons, a lampoon.
2. a. The species of literature constituted by satires; satirical composition.
b. The employment, in speaking or writing, of sarcasm, irony, ridicule, etc. in exposing, denouncing, deriding, or ridiculing vice, folly, indecorum, abuses, or evils of any kind.
The satire was not lost on me. I caught on right around the part about selling slave's organs for science. Obviously, a lot of the arguments here are absolutely ridiculous. At least Allan and Hunt don't propose eating the people as a part of the solution like Swift does. However satirical, I still think it could work in some way or another.
Yes this could be a piece written as a satire, but the point of bringing the article into this project was to use as a thought experiement. Is there a civil way for slavery to be conducted, or is it wrong in every aspect? And even if it is wrong morally, what if it was a better alternative to the current situation for a group of people? These are just some ideas to ponder..
Post a Comment