pull down to refresh
In the writing assignment related to this, one of the students pointed out that indentured servitude isn't so dissimilar to being loaded under the weight of debt. Though I think the whole idea of prohibiting indentured servitude is that we no longer allow people to sell their freedom as a way of paying off debt. Instead we invented bankruptcy.
There's a stream of thought where fundamental rights can't be sold. You retain them even if you enter into an agreement to sell them. But if that's the case, and the sale of your rights won't be acknowledged in society, then society has essentially ruled out a certain class of otherwise voluntary transactions, which violates peoples' freedom to do with their own self what they will.
violates peoples' freedom to do with their own self what they will.
Is my present self and my future self the same self? They aren't exactly the same self at least. That's where this turns for me.
I find short periods of indentured servitude, agreed to and beginning at the same time, less offensive.
Ah, yes, the dichotomy between the present self and the future self. That's an entire subject of study that's really fascinating, but really calls into question what "self" even means.
I probably don't have anything too intelligent to say about it right now. It's something that requires a lot of deep thought.
But your basic insight into that is correct, which is that if the present and future self are likely to conflict, then it's safer for the present self to be limited to short-term commitment options.
I find none of it morally offensive except maybe indentured servitude. Selling fundamental rights isn't something I've thought about much and I'd be worried it'd snowball into a trend pretty quickly.