Indentured Servitude

[unskinned]

Every man has the individual/personal/self justified right to life. Included in that right is the right end his life, whenever he pleases. It has been said "you own your own life." So does that mean that indentured servitude is legitimate under capitalism? If you can end your own life, why can't there be legitimate circumstances for buying or selling it?

Question: why would you want to? Answer: For the same reason people did in 17th Century England -->America, to make money for when you are freed. Just for example.

[neuromancer]

You do sell you "life" when you get up and go to work or do any kind or work for an employer in exchange for something else.

[White Eurocentric Male]

See other threads about owning one's life and suicide. I think in a free capitalist society you have the right to sell your life or give it away. However it's illegal to own somebody elses life. Like neuromancer said, you sell bits of your life when you go to work for an employer. But this is based on mutual consent and free will.

[wishbone]

... does that mean that indentured servitude is legitimate under capitalism? 

What is "indentured servitude"?

One aspect is that the person will serve for a specified duration?

What else?

[Som Guy]

What is "indentured servitude"?

One aspect is that the person will serve for a specified duration?

What else?

Essentially it is the promise to work for someone for a certain duration in place of monetary payment. A very good solution for people who cannot pay thier debts.

[Oakes]

Anyone who says it would be okay to sell oneself into slavery is ignoring the hierarchy of rights. Your right to property comes AFTER your right to life, and cannot exist without it.

[Som Guy]

Anyone who says it would be okay to sell oneself into slavery is ignoring the hierarchy of rights. Your right to property comes AFTER your right to life, and cannot exist without it.

Now it isn't slavery. It is indentured servitude. The main difference is that you maintain all of your rights, while serving someone for a period of time. All it is is a contract where you recieve your payment before you return yours to them. Just think of it as recieving your paycheck before you have worked. Slavery is a whole different issue.

[Oakes]

Now it isn't slavery.  It is indentured servitude.  The main difference is that you maintain all of your rights, while serving someone for a period of time.  All it is is a contract where you recieve your payment before you return yours to them.  Just think of it as recieving your paycheck before you have worked.  Slavery is a whole different issue.

Am I supposed to ignore the subtitle to this thread, "Can the right to life be bought and sold"? How can you retain all your rights if you sell them off?

[jedymastyr]

You are allowed to make whatever contracts you wish, but the government can only enforce those that do not violate anyone's rights. If you would make some sort of contract with someone to be their slave for a period of time in return for some financial or other gain, the government has no power to enforce that contract. The government will protect the "slave" 's rights.

[Oakes]

The government will protect the "slave" 's rights.

You mean the rights he just sold off? This is a blatant contradiction.

[Megan Robinson]

As long as no coersion is involved, and a person voluntarily becomes a servant..of course its alright. Indentured servents don't stay indentured forever; usaully for about seven years. As long as there is no breach of contract on either the servant or master's end (i.e, no physical punishment, and all terms are understood) then it is competely acceptable.

[DavidOdden]

As long as no coersion is involved, and a person voluntarily becomes a servant..of course its alright.

As long as "it" includes the right to walk away from the contract at a just price.

Indentured servents don't stay indentured forever; usaully for about seven years.

But that is arbitrary: nothing in principle prohibits a lifelong contract.

As long as there is no breach of contract on either the servant or master's end

But it must always be possible to break a contract, at a price. The possibility of breaking a contract must be anticipated.

(i.e, no physical punishment, and all terms are understood) then it is competely acceptable.

Eh? Why is it not possible to include in a contract a set of conditions under which one party might get a beating?

[jedymastyr]

You mean the rights he just sold off? This is a blatant contradiction.

This is definitely not a contradiction. If you read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that he has no right to "sell" his rights. There is no right to violate rights--you cannot give someone the right to violate your rights.

You can only sell that which you own. You do not own your rights--they are a set of principles that define what each man can and cannot do (or, more specifically, just what others cannot do to you).

For example--the right to property. You can own your property and you can sell your property--but you can't sell your right to property.

That is to say that your rights are inalienable.

in·al·ien·a·ble   

adj.

That cannot be transferred to another or others: inalienable rights.

Apparently a lot of people haven't taken the time to discover what the word "inalienable" means--they just associate it with rights and not being able to be taken away by force. Well, it is more encompassing than that--they cannot be transferred by force or consent.

In the case of life, it is a bit more complex than property, given that we are dealing with a more abstract right (it gives rise to the right of property, pursuit of happiness, etc.). You can sell the product of your decisions over a period of time--but you cannot sell the right to make those decisions. You can make a contract that everything you produce at work (a result of your decisions) belongs to your company--but you can't make a contract that gives the company the ability to physically force you to do certain things throughout your shift without the ability to stop it whenever you so choose (i.e. the ability to make you act against your decisions).

You can sell the result--but not the cause. You cannot sell your rights, though you can sell the things you produce as a result of exercising your rights. This is the meaning of the term rights--they cannot be legally violated by anyone, ever.

[jedymastyr]

I should add that "your rights" is really a confusing phrase. As I mentioned, you don't own rights--they are basic principles that define legal and illegal actions. By saying "your rights," what one means is man's rights applied to you. In other words, "your rights" would be referring to the principles that define what other men may not do to you. It would not be referring to "rights" as some sort of property you own. (You don't even have the right to own property--this supposed right to own a right--until rights are established. This is the fallacy of the stolen concept)