> The Hong Kong opera school is described as indentured servitude.
Which is considered by many to be a form of human trafficking. Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get out of it. I'm not entirely certain where to draw the line.
Particularly in the case of a minor, who has no say in the contract. Chan was sold into servitude while most of were still in primary school. The way I read it, he wasn't able to break free until his early-20s.
Particularly in the case of a minor, who has no say in the contract.
Wasn't the contract entered into by his parents?
The way I read it, he wasn't able to break free until his early-20s.
Was he kept under lock and key by armed guards willing to main or kill him to keep him from escaping? Or did he primarily think of it as working through a contract his parents had signed him up for?
Are you actually arguing parents should be allowed to self their children into servitude? If so, there's no point debating with you - I find the practice morally reprehensible (and yes, the systems that make such an arrangement in any way palatable are also reprehensible).
Are you actually arguing parents should be allowed to self their children into servitude?
No one wants children to be sold into servitude. However, the state impinging into family affairs to the point where it can be 100% prevented is essentially making the state the full de-facto guardians of the children. This is the state of affairs where children are informing on their parents to the state.
It's in part up to the parents in a case like this, to determine if what they're doing is selling their children out. That should be a matter of relationships within the family. (Government should be supervising how such business treat and house children. It shouldn't be impinging itself on the relationship between parent and child for any but the most extreme circumstances.)
If so, there's no point debating with you - I find the practice morally reprehensible
Using such debate tactics is dishonest on a few levels. 1) The likelihood that you are talking to someone that reprehensible is rather small 2) The likelihood that you are not exercising the principle of charity and imposing unnecessary emotional toxicity in a nuanced discussion (to your own short-term rhetorical benefit) is rather much larger.
and yes, the systems that make such an arrangement in any way palatable are also reprehensible
There are and always will be a few horrible people who will do that to their own children. Giving over tremendous power to the state over the intimate affairs of absolutely everyone for the sake of preventing rare instances strikes me as hugely unwise. Imagine what the plight of gay teenagers in the past would have been like in an unfriendly regime of such power, where state power reached into family affairs. (Or the plight of such teenagers in totalitarian theocracies today.)
Sorry, I read your initial response as rather glib about a practice that is generally considered wrong. If that wasn't your intention, I apologize.
I do understand that the contract was legal. And suspect Chan's parents likely gave it great consideration. Doesn't make the practice, or the circumstances that lead to it, any more palatable to me.
I do understand that the contract was legal. And suspect Chan's parents likely gave it great consideration. Doesn't make the practice, or the circumstances that lead to it, any more palatable to me.
Very often, the reality is quite nuanced. What are your feelings about parents who pressure children to practicing sports or music for long hours from a young age? How is such a school different? At what point should a 3rd party intervene?
A contra point to the example you give regarding gay teenagers (last para), is the persistence in many parts of the world of "honour killings" contrary to government proclamations against such practices. In these situations, government failure to intervene (and educate, and...) renders legislative protections useless.
Also, it seems to me that in the past (and the present!) gay teenagers had just as much (if not more) to fear from their parents than from the state. Even in totalitarian theocracies, I'd suggest that in such regimes it's often outraged parents that "out" their gay children to the state. I could be wrong.
In these situations, government failure to intervene (and educate, and...) renders legislative protections useless.
No one would disagree that intervention at the level of preventing murder is probably a good idea. I'm sure no one would disagree that intervention by the state at the level of injections of hormones and anti-gay "therapy" would be an overreach. Preventing murder is objectively something the state should do. States that cannot maintain an monopoly on the use of force are failed states. However, the state should intervene as little as possible on things like family life. How much should the state intervene? Answering this question was the purpose of the exercise above, which you apparently missed. Take the policy and power you propose and put it into the hands of the worst state you can imagine. A policy to prevent the murder of children, if practiced correctly, would still be a good thing, even in a theocracy. (Perhaps especially there.) Once you start adding the enforcement of things like social standards and societal mores, then such power looks less palatable in the hands of the state. It's easier to see that if you imagine a horrible state.
Even in totalitarian theocracies, I'd suggest that in such regimes it's often outraged parents that "out" their gay children to the state.
This would also be a tragedy. Children outing their parents to the state would also be a tragedy.
I could be wrong.
Many of your statements are correct. What's to question is your positioning those statements as somehow contradicting my position. They do not.
In reading your comments I felt they came across as "absolutist" i.e. "governments should not have the power to intervene". My apologies if I misunderstood. If in fact we agree that governments must have the power to intervene in support of the safety of its citizens, then all we (perhaps) disagree on is the threshold at which such powers kick in.
e.g. in my state in my country we have "no jab, no play" laws to penalise parents (and indirectly, their children) that refuse to vaccinate their kids. Note, that in this example, vaccination is not forced, however there's plenty of stick to "encourage" desired behaviour. I think this is a valid use of the intervention power. Others disagree.
Do the answers to your rhetorical questions matter?
As someone who was a child who was sent away to school by his parents, let me tell you that they matter a great deal. (Particularly from the POV of an adult looking back vs. the experiences of a child.) They are precisely the questions that should be asked to distinguish manipulations of "Think of the children!" hysteria and genuine issues of the human rights of minors.
Is there any answer to your questions that makes indentured servitude of minors acceptable?
Of course not. But I can imagine the level of state power and impingement on private family life needed to prevent that 100%, and that would be quite horrible as well. Government should regulate the conditions under which children are kept and raised by schools. However, the degree to which someone else should decide for parents what to do also needs to take into account the rights of parents and families.
Your last paragreaph sounds contradictory to me. In order to "regulate conditions", the government must reserve the power to intervene should said conditions fail to meet regulatory minima. Failure to reserve such power automatically neuters any "regulation". There are only two distinct choices - no government power over these conditions and therefore no regulation (in effect, irrespective of contrary claims), or regulation (with government power to intervene). In the latter case there is broad scope for where the threshold for intervention is set and most discussion centers on this. But in all cases, the existence of such a threshold requires government power to intervene.
In order to "regulate conditions", the government must reserve the power to intervene should said conditions fail to meet regulatory minima.
Of course. Read the whole thread as if I think the government should reserve that power. My position is that the government should use such power as sparingly as possible.
There are only two distinct choices - no government power over these conditions and therefore no regulation
False. There is a "dial" here. The question is how much government should intervene. In that, there are far more than 2 choices.
> My position is that the government should use such power as sparingly as possible.
Apologies. I misunderstood and it seems we agree on the fundamental principle that the government should have such power and disagree only on it's extent, as per my other reply to another comment of yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18870396
> False. There is a "dial" here.
Which is exactly what I go on to say in the rest of the sentence you quoted - "...there is broad scope for where the threshold for intervention is set"
Do you understand the plight of being an exploited child?
I understand what it's like to be sent away to school by one's parents to experience significant hardship. It's not a matter where one should cry out for more state intervention, lightly.
One can always find a singular example of something really horrible, then try to use the emotional energy of that to drive their point home. In most cases, and in this case, there are other issues which you can't disentangle so easily.
My reply does indeed answer the question, as to the part of the experience of such a child I could understand. In particular, I was severely abused by a classmate, and felt unable to ask for help. I felt a great many things about my experience, and I know this from my personal experience: The POV of the child is truly paramount. It can turn a voluntary contractual experience of privilege into a horrible coercive one, or something that someone might call "indentured servitude" into something positive. It may well be that what appear to be the exact same circumstances are one thing to one child, and the opposite to another, or that it's remembered as a mix of both.
My lived experience tell me this, and in light of that experience, your comments strike me less likely to be a genuine concern for and understanding of those experiences and more as a rhetorical tactic using people's protective feelings towards children.
It could be argued that it does. The commenter states the parts of their experience that are relevant and extrapolates from that.
As mortals, our experiences are limited. Having a good imagination and intuition allows us to extrapolate from these limited experiences to better understand the world we live in. Otherwise, discussions would be very limited and stilted indeed. Unless you never join in a discussion that you don't have direct (exact) personal experience in?
My statement is that being bullied in school(I believe that is what the experience is, I cannot be sure) is not a relevant experience to being a child whose labor is being exploited systematically in a society whose colonization prevents better opportunities.
Being able to relate to things using personal experience is important. It is equally important to understand when an experience is distinctly different from our own and to be willing to intake new information, including recognizing nuances that causes seemingly-similar situations to become drastically different.
> The Hong Kong opera school is described as indentured servitude.
Which is considered by many to be a form of human trafficking.
My own family history has a lot to do with indentured servitude. If you watch Korean historical dramas, you'll find the condition described as being a "servant" but at other times, the same condition will be described as being a "slave."
In terms of being signed up as minors, exactly how do you draw the line? I went to a boarding school where they didn't let us off school grounds without getting leave.
Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get out of it. I'm not entirely certain where to draw the line.
How about physical coercion? Did 19 year old Jackie Chan consider himself a slave? Was he kept in a place through physical coercion and torture? Did he dream of jailbreaking himself out of his barracks and wire-cutting the fence and running to freedom while being chased by guards prepared to main or shoot him? Or was he thinking of it as working through a contractual debt?
The line should be firmly held at physical coercion. As always, there will be people who skirt the lines by coming up with things that have the same effect, but which are "technically not coercion."
> In terms of being signed up as minors, exactly how do you draw the line?
I think minors need to be free to follow the wishes of their parents who are free to exercise authority as guardians. Interfering with that should be a human rights violation. But if the parents wish to send their kids to a boarding school, that has a long history of being a successful way of providing children with an education.
If Chan was sold into servitude by his parents, I think that's de facto slavery, you can't sell the personal autonomy of another person, not even your children.
> How about physical coercion?
Certainly. But there might be trickery involved as well, which should be considered criminal. If I offered you a well-paying job in Dubai, then when you got there told you you were only going to get paid a tenth and further charged you exorbitant rates for food and lodging, that should absolutely be considered trafficking.
I don't have all the answers. But certainly there's more to it than what we'd call kidnapping.
If Chan was sold into servitude by his parents, I think that's de facto slavery
What would you think of a boarding school, where there is a meritocratic selection of child candidates from among primarily underprivileged families? The families that are selected receive a payment. The child is housed, schooled, and given rigorous training in a prestigious performance art.
Is there something in that which is de-facto slavery? Isn't that a description of the circumstances of Jackie Chan's family? I would agree with you, that there is significant potential in such an arrangement for abuses, but it's not a simple black&white situation for instantly considered condemnation.
you can't sell the personal autonomy of another person, not even your children
Parents often override the personal autonomy of their children "for their own good."
I don't have all the answers. But certainly there's more to it than what we'd call kidnapping.
> What would you think of a boarding school, where there is a meritocratic selection of child candidates from among primarily underprivileged families? The families that are selected receive a payment. The child is housed, schooled, and given rigorous training in a prestigious performance art.
If this is a public, regulated social institution, then I see no problem with it. I don't want to say that children shouldn't be made to do work, but removing them from a family environment to be exploited absolutely draws the line. I just don't know where precisely to make that legal distinction.
> Parents often override the personal autonomy of their children "for their own good."
And that's fine. We have a fairly good understanding of what constitutes child abuse, it's the removal from the family that needs to be carefully considered.
If this is a public, regulated social institution, then I see no problem with it.
I would rather live in a society that's free enough for private schools to be established.
I just don't know where precisely to make that legal distinction.
I think we can set objective standards for the housing and treatment of children. Objective standards make it easier for government to adjudicate fairly, and prevent the abuse of power by officials and regulators.
Apologies, what I meant by public is that they are visible and an integral part of society, not necessarily their specific ownership structure. The visibility is what prevents abuses, not the ownership. They can well be privately owned, they just need to operate overtly.
If these organizations were trying to keep a low profile, then that would be cause for concern.
> I think we can set objective standards for the housing and treatment of children. Objective standards make it easier for government to adjudicate fairly, and prevent the abuse of power by officials and regulators.
We are in agreement on this point. I was merely expressing ignorance of the specific standards that I would consider to be ideal.
> The line should be firmly held at physical coercion.
I disagree. Mental coercion is a thing. Also, children (and often adults too) don't have the knowledge that there exist alternatives i.e. that they have choices. Denying people that knowledge removes their agency. In the case of children they look to their parents as providers - not just of nurture but of knowledge. They trust them and often accept without question. Should instinct be seen as a failure on the child's part or a conscious agreement/submission to the conditions they are subjected to? If so, then whole areas of jurisprudence concerning minors will have to be re-written.
No you don't. "The line should be firmly held at physical coercion," is meant as a statement of a baseline minimum. Principle of charity, please.
Mental coercion is a thing. Also, children (and often adults too) don't have the knowledge that there exist alternatives i.e. that they have choices.
Been there. I've been in the position of having a mob, powerful community leaders, and people with police connections arrayed against me, not knowing the law was actually on my side.
Did not intend to be uncharitable but I think I've misunderstood your statement "The line should be firmly held at physical coercion". In the context of the discussion, I took that to mean, "the line (e.g. the point at which government intervention in the private affairs of individuals is justified), should be firmly held at physical coercion (i.e. where one party is being physically coerced into a situation)" with the logical (to me) implication that in the absence of physical coercion, government intervention is not justified - a position with which I do not agree.
Which is considered by many to be a form of human trafficking. Just because you signed a contract doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to get out of it. I'm not entirely certain where to draw the line.