I’ve been mulling this idea over in my head for about a month.

Not all, but a lot of relationships in this world are similar to a relationship between ‘servants’ and ‘slaves’. To define terms:

A ‘servant’ is someone who is on call 24/7 to do whatever is required, food or health related. If they are not able to be on call they must arrange for someone else to take their place.

A ‘slave’ is someone who has to be in a certain place to do certain tasks at specific times, whether they want to be or not. Or suffer a severe penalty.

I claim that often servants have slaves and slaves have servants

Examples of the servant-slave relationship:

• Pet owner and pet
• Farmer and stock
• Nurse and patient
• Overseer and slave
• Small business owner and wage staff

This arrangement doesn’t seem to existed prior to the invention of agriculture.
It doesn’t apply to pre-contact aboriginal man and wife for example, or does it? Would an aboriginal woman be the slave, or servant? A bit of both, perhaps.

servus

SCIENCE said:

servus

Never

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been mulling this idea over in my head for about a month.

Not all, but a lot of relationships in this world are similar to a relationship between ‘servants’ and ‘slaves’. To define terms:

A ‘servant’ is someone who is on call 24/7 to do whatever is required, food or health related. If they are not able to be on call they must arrange for someone else to take their place.

A ‘slave’ is someone who has to be in a certain place to do certain tasks at specific times, whether they want to be or not. Or suffer a severe penalty.

I claim that often servants have slaves and slaves have servants

Examples of the servant-slave relationship:

• Pet owner and pet
• Farmer and stock
• Nurse and patient
• Overseer and slave
• Small business owner and wage staff

This arrangement doesn’t seem to existed prior to the invention of agriculture.
It doesn’t apply to pre-contact aboriginal man and wife for example, or does it? Would an aboriginal woman be the slave, or servant? A bit of both, perhaps.

My staff were known as my minions. And I was the Boss Lady.

buffy said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve been mulling this idea over in my head for about a month.

Not all, but a lot of relationships in this world are similar to a relationship between ‘servants’ and ‘slaves’. To define terms:

A ‘servant’ is someone who is on call 24/7 to do whatever is required, food or health related. If they are not able to be on call they must arrange for someone else to take their place.

A ‘slave’ is someone who has to be in a certain place to do certain tasks at specific times, whether they want to be or not. Or suffer a severe penalty.

I claim that often servants have slaves and slaves have servants

Examples of the servant-slave relationship:

• Pet owner and pet
• Farmer and stock
• Nurse and patient
• Overseer and slave
• Small business owner and wage staff

This arrangement doesn’t seem to existed prior to the invention of agriculture.
It doesn’t apply to pre-contact aboriginal man and wife for example, or does it? Would an aboriginal woman be the slave, or servant? A bit of both, perhaps.

My staff were known as my minions. And I was the Boss Lady.

Clearly a path to happiness via humour?

I think no to the premise in the OP.

“Slave” and “Servant” are specific words which have a specific meaning. They define a particular type of legal status.

People without this legal status are not slaves or servants, even if they have some kind of work obligations which are quite demanding of their time. Some careers require a certain level of commitment.

But it doesn’t make people slaves or servants in a legal sense. You can’t redefine a narrow word into a broader meaning and then claim all these other things now fall into this category. That is what politicians do. It is a question of Venn Diagrams, you can’t redefine the sets.

party_pants said:

I think no to the premise in the OP.

“Slave” and “Servant” are specific words which have a specific meaning. They define a particular type of legal status.

People without this legal status are not slaves or servants, even if they have some kind of work obligations which are quite demanding of their time. Some careers require a certain level of commitment.

But it doesn’t make people slaves or servants in a legal sense. You can’t redefine a narrow word into a broader meaning and then claim all these other things now fall into this category. That is what politicians do. It is a question of Venn Diagrams, you can’t redefine the sets.

Slavery is dressed up in the modern world to be more palatable, its not quite whipping black slaves living on plantations but not much better for some people.
They live and work in poor conditions, get a wage (perhaps some don’t) and don’t have a choice to leave (either captive literally or captive to the money they need to survive)

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

I think no to the premise in the OP.

“Slave” and “Servant” are specific words which have a specific meaning. They define a particular type of legal status.

People without this legal status are not slaves or servants, even if they have some kind of work obligations which are quite demanding of their time. Some careers require a certain level of commitment.

But it doesn’t make people slaves or servants in a legal sense. You can’t redefine a narrow word into a broader meaning and then claim all these other things now fall into this category. That is what politicians do. It is a question of Venn Diagrams, you can’t redefine the sets.

Slavery is dressed up in the modern world to be more palatable, its not quite whipping black slaves living on plantations but not much better for some people.
They live and work in poor conditions, get a wage (perhaps some don’t) and don’t have a choice to leave (either captive literally or captive to the money they need to survive)

Slavery exists in many parts of the world, particularly in less developed countries. I think it diminishes the word when you broaden it to include first world problems when it comes to the downsides of having commitments or obligations in a chosen profession. It is not slavery when you ultimately have the choice of leaving and doing something else.

probably start with all relations have structure (for the purposes of considering it), then consider the power relations of influence

an example of a master-slave relationship, of physics, would be when you depress the clutch in your car, the master and slave are hydraulically linked piston units, the top one which a lever from the clutch pedal pushed on is called the master unit, and the one down on the bellhousing is called the slave unit, same applies of the hydraulically coupled piston units used in brakes

the hydraulic lines deliver the (pressure of) the fluid

party_pants said:

Cymek said:

party_pants said:

I think no to the premise in the OP.

“Slave” and “Servant” are specific words which have a specific meaning. They define a particular type of legal status.

People without this legal status are not slaves or servants, even if they have some kind of work obligations which are quite demanding of their time. Some careers require a certain level of commitment.

But it doesn’t make people slaves or servants in a legal sense. You can’t redefine a narrow word into a broader meaning and then claim all these other things now fall into this category. That is what politicians do. It is a question of Venn Diagrams, you can’t redefine the sets.

Slavery is dressed up in the modern world to be more palatable, its not quite whipping black slaves living on plantations but not much better for some people.
They live and work in poor conditions, get a wage (perhaps some don’t) and don’t have a choice to leave (either captive literally or captive to the money they need to survive)

Slavery exists in many parts of the world, particularly in less developed countries. I think it diminishes the word when you broaden it to include first world problems when it comes to the downsides of having commitments or obligations in a chosen profession. It is not slavery when you ultimately have the choice of leaving and doing something else.

True

I was thinking China at the moment has the ultimate economic wet dream, capitalism combined with communism so you can make huge profits with an almost slave labour force whom if they misbehave you can harvest their organs.