zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. mft_+(OP)[view] [source] 2024-03-02 21:16:33
If you pass by the slightly inflammatory language (“indentured servitude”) it’s just a different model.

As in: if I want to go and work on Mars, but can’t afford the flight, it’s not unreasonable to take a proportion of my earnings up front (in kind) and then work off that debt subsequently. Obviously the devil is in the detail of how that would work, and which protections I might be afforded, but the underlying concept doesn’t seem bad to me.

replies(1): >>kerkes+H3
2. kerkes+H3[view] [source] 2024-03-02 21:48:54
>>mft_+(OP)
> If you pass by the slightly inflammatory language (“indentured servitude”) it’s just a different model.

"Indentured servitude" is the nice way of saying this. "Slavery" is the inflammatory way of saying it.

> As in: if I want to go and work on Mars, but can’t afford the flight, it’s not unreasonable to take a proportion of my earnings up front (in kind) and then work off that debt subsequently. Obviously the devil is in the detail of how that would work, and which protections I might be afforded, but the underlying concept doesn’t seem bad to me.

Those who do not learn history are bound to repeat it.

replies(1): >>mft_+4J
◧◩
3. mft_+4J[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-03-03 05:21:18
>>kerkes+H3
Repeating the same things without additional explanation or arguments doesn’t really progress the discussion.

Slavery is involuntary and unpaid, so it wouldn’t be that.

The form of indentured servitude that was outlawed a long time ago was also involuntary, so it’s not that either.

Would you have a problem with someone taking out a bank loan to travel to Mars, and then working there to pay off the loan?

[go to top]