As long as we are on the topic of slavery, why not consider fiction? This science fiction novel has an intriguing economic premise: you're born a slave and you're not free until you can buy yourself back from your owner (which may be a corporation).
It may sound funny to think that a slave can save money but arguably an optimal slavery contract in a high-productivity society will give the slave some residual claimancy and some property rights, in order to spur work effort.
At some point you wonder whether a slave in this futuristic society is better off buying the rights to himself or herself. (Then he has to find individual health insurance!) If the system of slavery is truly secure, it's like living under Laffer Curve-maximizing taxation. That's oppressive, but many people have lived under worse. There would be lots of "Nudge" as well and with advanced technology very effective monitoring and control.
Is it possible that in such a world you would trust only a person who was a slave?
In many historical instances, slaves cannot precommit to "no revolt." So slaves aren't allowed to earn at the Laffer maximum point, for fear they will rebel or otherwise receive or lobby for greater rights. Real world slavery is much much worse than this hypothetical portrait might make it seem.
I won't have time to read through the novel (the new Alice Munro is out, for one thing) but I thought the premise was an intriguing one. The Amazon reader reviews are favorable.
Also, you have to pretend that this isn’t already the case.
There are plenty of people in this country still trying to pay off their college loans into their 50′s. Slavery..indentured servitude….words…
In the course of the brutal history of humanity, slaves quite often have been able to save and to own property (sometimes including owning other slaves). On occasions, these have been slaves’ legal rights. More often, they have been rights conceded by the slave owners. I have puzzled about why this behaviour reccurred in different eras and separate societies, but Tyler’s (Tyrone’s?) idea that it reflects an “optimal slavery contract” (as if slaves had freedom to contract?) may show that one or more of the omnipresent invisible hand’s fingers are usefully double jointed.
Isn’t that pretty much the definition of retirement?
I have read this book.
The premise is not that you are a slave, but that everyone is his own corporation. The government and your parents get a big chunk of your stock when your born. Most people sell off a fair bit more to raise capital for education. Then the goal is to make enough profits to buy back a majority stake in yourself. This is difficult because your share price goes up on he exchange as you become successful. The protagonist _thinks_ that this is slavery and seems immune to all arguments to the contrary.
For me, the predictions of what would happen under this premise did not withstand much economic scrutiny. Internal consistency was sacrificed whenever a plot device was required. That’s not to say it wasn’t an enjoyable read. Just not a real exploration of the consequences of personal incorporation.
Roman slaves generally were able to buy themselves out of slavery. It wasn’t common, but slaves could hold property, and accept tips, gifts, money from side businesses and so on. A freed slave was a freedman and could not become a citizen, though his or her children could. If the ancient accounts are correct, Rome was full of people you could trust and plenty of those that one couldn’t.
Free Romans could sign contracts placing themselves in slavery. This was customary if one wanted training as a gladiator. Of course, it was generally easier to become a slave than to arrange one’s freedom.
Remember, too, that women were problematic, since they were generally considered property, even when of higher birth. Depending on circumstances and the era, they could or could not own property, and, in any case, required a male relative to stand for them in court. Most of economic theory collapses when applied to the traditional situation of women. Luckily, they are only about half the population, so the economic theorists are safe.
Americans tend to think of slavery in terms of chattel slavery, since that is what we had in the South, and in the North up to a certain point. Most societies had varying levels of slavery. For example, in Sumeria, there was slavery to pay off debts in which a certain amount of work was demanded. Once the debt was repaid, one was a slave no more. Serfs were slaves who conveyed with the land, and they had various rights as well as responsibilities. The Old Testament limits slavery to a term of seven years, or perhaps to the next seven year jubilee, depending on the reading.
The economics of slavery led to all sorts of interesting economic history. The canals of Mississippi were dug by Irish immigrants because no slave owner wanted to risk his capital in that horrid, deadly work.
Should children pay back parents for the cost of raising them?
Should parents pay back children for the pleasure of raising them?
If raisig kids isn’t fun, why are so many people parents in the first place?
Hey Tyler,
First, thanks for the shout out. Second, and possibly of interest to you is a quote by Milton Friedman (which opens the book) in which he all but suggests the indentured servitude discussed in our novel:
“The counterpart for education (financing) would be to “buy” a share in an individual’s earning prospects; to advance him the funds needed to finance his training on condition that he agree to pay the lender a specified fraction of his future earnings. There seems no legal obstacle to private contracts of this kind, even though they are economically equivalent to the purchase of a share in an individual’s earning capacity and thus to partial slavery.” – Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, 1962
Dani Kollin
Comments on this entry are closed.