NationStates Jolt Archive

On the theory that a thing worth doing is worth overdoing, we offer the following proposal for consideration by the assembled intellects of this chamber.

Eliminate Debt Bondage

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild

The United Nations,

DEFINING "debt bondage" as a contract by which a debtor will pay outstanding loans to a creditor through direct labour instead of cash or kind,

CONSIDERING debt bondage as an invidious form of slavery,

EXPRESSING utter contempt for those who would use such means to become slave masters,

REGARDING it as the responsibility of each individual to decide how and when the various demands upon their personal finances are serviced, and to accept the consequences of those choices,

BANS the practice of debt bondage within member nations,

DECLARES all debt bondage contracts to be illegal within member nations,

NOTES that this does not forbid the employment of debtors by creditors, but simply insists that the payment for such employment must be in cash or kind, not in the notional reduction of debt.
The proposal strength is perhaps a little questionable, but the evidence we have suggests that debt bondage is not a commonly encountered evil. We ask the assembly's assistance in making it rarer.

Edit: Woot! Post 1000! How did that happen?

as soon as my region gets around to endorsing someone for UN delegate, I'll work for your proposal. It sounds good to me as is.

We strongly disagree with the views of Gobbannium. A debt bondage contract is a freely-entered contract, in which the debtor chooses to be in. It's not at all like slavery, where the person is forced to work for a slave master. A person cannot be forced to work (except in extreme cirumstances), period, thanks to Abolition of Forced Labor.

We need regulations on Debt Bondage, rather than a blanket ban that is not in the best interest of many people today. In fact, we wonder why would one not care about the plight of the debtor, and not seek any way of resolving it?

However, we understand that you raised these objections before, so we wish you the best of luck anyway.
---Mr. Peon

so im confused how this is slavery. if it is demonstrated to be, ill endorse it. i dont understand how signing a contract saying ill work in exchange for repaying my debt is significantly different from signing a contract saying ill work for money (as in a job). not attacking, but honestly confused. as long as the wage provides for subsistence and paying the debt, and as long as it is legal to leave that contract for a job that would pay the debt quicker, and humane working conditions are used, what's wrong? despite peolpe's horrific objections to every RL example ive used, one might be helpful to explain it to me at least....

REGARDING it as the responsibility of each individual to decide how and when the various demands upon their personal finances are serviced, and to accept the consequences of those choices,

might be trouble with commies, psychotic dictatorships.

also, wouldnt the above quote allow people to freely enter into these contracts? because then if i decide to service my personal finances by working off debt, and i accept the bondage..........

and what about (dont know if this has ever actually happened) the stereotypical scenario of a person not having the money to pay a restaurant bill and working as a dishwasher? is that debt bondage?

i seem to constantly critique definitions.

DECLARES all debt bondage contracts to be illegal within member nations,

this is an easy one, include the fact that this does not cancel the debt, or itll destroy the economies of nations.

First off, I fully agree with the arguments of Decapod Ten. We are looking to institute this as a way to decriminalise debtors and institute checks for the safety of the debtors, rather than criminalise them, and sentence them to hard labour, as we have heard several nations are doing.
Technically, the dishwashing example - which has happened to me - is classified as debt bondage, both under the terms of this and our own proposal.
We are strongly opposed: to our mind, human rights would be much better served if people were not sentenced for shortcomings that may not be their own doing, which is, to our mind, what would happen if this proposal would get through, and the last option - we do stress that at any time it should be the very last option - is taken away.

We, naturally enough, disagree with the supporters of debt bondage.

There are two issues that spring most readily to mind as regards the slavery-nature of debt bondage. The first, most obvious, and in many ways most pedestrian is suggested by the name itself; how freely entered into can such bondage truly be? By simple virtue of the debt itself, the creditor holds a great deal of power over the debtor. Such leverage can and typically is used to secure extremely favourable contractual terms for the creditor, and where such agreements are legal it is trivially easy to engineer the terms of contract such that the debtor cannot escape from it without severely worsening their situation.

The second point to bear in mind is that while working under a debt bondage contract, the debtor is earning no cash or kind. The debtor's need for food, water and similar essentials is undiminished, indeed quite possibly increased by their workload. Absent fortuitous charity, the most likely means of provision of such basics is a kindly creditor -- who will naturally pass on to the debtor the costs incurred in the process. A wily creditor can thus keep a debtor in de facto slavery by carefully balancing the assessed cheapness of the debtor's labour against the expense of keeping them alive, all without breaking any contractual terms of reasonableness. A truly skilled legal artist may even be able to use incautious local laws to pass the debt and possibly even the contract on to the debtor's heirs in the event of their demise, prolonging the misery for a further generation with no clear end in sight.

It is also worth considering that the situation is inherently unfair to any other creditors the debtor may have. As previously mentioned, while they are engaged in debt bondage, a debtor is earning no money. Other debts cannot be serviced under such circumstances, including, we note, any non-progressive taxes that the debtor may be liable to. This is unlikely to leave the debtor in improved circumstances, no matter how genuinely kindly the owner of the contract may attempt to be.

The second point to bear in mind is that while working under a debt bondage contract, the debtor is earning no cash or kind. The debtor's need for food, water and similar essentials is undiminished, indeed quite possibly increased by their workload. Absent fortuitous charity, the most likely means of provision of such basics is a kindly creditor -- who will naturally pass on to the debtor the costs incurred in the process. A wily creditor can thus keep a debtor in de facto slavery by carefully balancing the assessed cheapness of the debtor's labour against the expense of keeping them alive, all without breaking any contractual terms of reasonableness. A truly skilled legal artist may even be able to use incautious local laws to pass the debt and possibly even the contract on to the debtor's heirs in the event of their demise, prolonging the misery for a further generation with no clear end in sight.

It is also worth considering that the situation is inherently unfair to any other creditors the debtor may have. As previously mentioned, while they are engaged in debt bondage, a debtor is earning no money. Other debts cannot be serviced under such circumstances, including, we note, any non-progressive taxes that the debtor may be liable to. This is unlikely to leave the debtor in improved circumstances, no matter how genuinely kindly the owner of the contract may attempt to be.

OOC: Which is why the proposal being drafted by the supporters of debt-bondage clearly made the employer responsible for supporting the creditor during their period of service, without allowing this to result in any increased obligation by the creditor.
And making the debt itself hereditary might be legal in some nations, but requiring the creditor's heirs to work for the same employer in order to repay that inherited debt should be illegal under the terms of 'Abolition of Forced Labour' (whose prohibition against coercion by means of "enforced indebtedness" would also seem relevant to your main complaint here...).

I fully agree with the arguments of Decapod Ten

i made no arguements, i only asked questions and gave conditions under which my nation would support this proposal.

ok, first off, i posted before i read about half of the Convention. secondly, im not going to read that entire thread. third, i remain unvonvinced that it is NECESSARILY slavery for the following reasons:

how freely entered into can such bondage truly be?

ok...... so if we ensure by UN resolution that they are freely entered into we're good?

The debtor's need for food, water and similar essentials is undiminished

so if we make sure theirs a provision for subsistence, both in terms of fod/water and rent (i can still pay my rent while working, or a tenament up to standards is given to me) its fine?

A truly skilled legal artist may even be able to use incautious local laws to pass the debt and possibly even the contract on to the debtor's heirs in the event of their demise

oh, so easily a practice ended without outlawing the entire institution.

It is also worth considering that the situation is inherently unfair to any other creditors the debtor may have. As previously mentioned, while they are engaged in debt bondage, a debtor is earning no money. Other debts cannot be serviced under such circumstances, including, we note, any non-progressive taxes that the debtor may be liable to.

first off, ive never met a creditor that doesnt charge interests or late fees, so i dont think they mind so much the delay of time. also, if its a freely entered into contract, one must be aware of his financial situation and the cost/benefit of entering such a contract. secondly, "including, we note, any non-progressive taxes" i agree that there should be a provision to allow for a contract to be entered into, the debtor will be able to continue to live, including food water, rent, taxes, other crap.

I, as a person who has ZERO stake in this debate, and hadnt read anything until yesterday/10hrs ago, remain unconvinced that it is slavery, if the following provisions are enacted by UN resolution:

-freely entered contract
-debt ends with death and cannot be passed to posterity
-debtor is allowed to subsist, including food, drink, taxes, rent(or up-to-code tenament is given) and the work is held to the same safety and working condition standards as any other job of the same type.

with these rights (i have no idea if theyre in the Convention draft) i dont see how its slavery. without them i do, dont get me wrong. convince me of that, and ill line up to endorse.

i also see it as a perhaps beneficial situation, not only the dishwasher situation (which i believe should be legal), but also to the unemployed debtor. if one is unemployed, a contract like this is a godsend as interest wont mount. i also can see situations where the contract is going to end the debt quicker than a normal job could, if i could get a normal job which would allow me freedom to do whatever, why would i enter a debt-bondage contract without knowing that it is beneficial, what economic incentive would i have? if it pays my debt quicker/the same time as a normal job would, it is paying me the same/better wage, and i dont see how that is bad.

We apologise for taking your questions as arguments, but do stress their legitimacy.
The convention does provide housing and all necessities of life, including but not limited to food and water; we mean to imply that all necessary costs of life, that in any situation should be paid, are covered. Of course, and we would advocate this, all nations would be free not to tax any person working under such a contract. The taxes, in some systems, would amount to zero anyway.
Next, the conditions are set to be those of the industry or above that; so safety and working conditions are potentially even better, and at its worst, no worse than for any worker in the nation.
We thought that it would be implicitly clear that the contract is ended at death, as any contract; we assume the debtor to be a private person. To erase the debt at death, however, we feel reluctant to do so, as in many countries, debts can be inherited. The contract, however, cannot, as we feel that would be an extension of the contract. Hence, it would only be possible if the heir agreed to it.
Also, we provide for the free entering, and leaving of the contract, providing legal assistance during the process. Naturally, when leaving the contract, before the debt is paid, and providing the contract is not in certain ways broken by the creditor, the payment should be continued per conventional media.

You will find, upon closely reading the proposal of the convention, that if there is one party who seems to have less rights, it is exactly the creditor. It has always been our foremost interest to protect the debtor from the cited wily individuals. A few amendments have been made, to protect the debtor from equally wily debtors, but it is our opinion that the rights of the debtor are still the ones that have been put forward strongest

yeah, i read that proposal, and am in favor of that, but if Gobbanium can make an adequate case that its slavery, and craft a resolution that allows for the dishwashing scenario im fine with that.

OOC: Which is why the proposal being drafted by the supporters of debt-bondage clearly made the employer responsible for supporting the creditor during their period of service, without allowing this to result in any increased obligation by the creditor.

On the contrary, the weasel words "in so far as this is not covered by other arrangements" impose upon the creditor no obligation whatsoever to avoid any increase in the debt in compensation, if that is the arrangement concerned.

first off, ive never met a creditor that doesnt charge interests or late fees, so i dont think they mind so much the delay of time. also, if its a freely entered into contract, one must be aware of his financial situation and the cost/benefit of entering such a contract.
We must beg to disagree. We are after all speaking of someone who has become indebted to the extent that they can see no alternative to this bondage, whatever its specific terms. Even the proponents of debt bondage have made it plain that they envision its use only in rare, extreme cases. Such a person has clearly indicated their inability to fully comprehend their financial situation on a long-term basis. Assuming that even with independent assistance they are capable of accurately making such a cost/benefit analysis is at best optimistic. When the independent assistance that our opponents propose is limited to legal counsel, we venture to suggest that optimism is far too mild a word to employ.

We suppose this must be the most basic disagreement in approach between ourself and our opponents. It seems clear from their representations that they consider the contract to be between two intelligent, considerate beings seeking a mutually beneficial resolution. It is our contention that two intelligent, considerate beings would not be in this situation to start with. Relying on it as one's philosophical mainstay is thus highly unwise.

I, as a person who has ZERO stake in this debate, and hadnt read anything until yesterday/10hrs ago, remain unconvinced that it is slavery, if the following provisions are enacted by UN resolution:

-freely entered contract
While we fully accept this as an honourable aspiration, under the circumstances of immense debt we must still question whether it is any more possible to legislate this than it is to legislate bright sunshine from 10:31 to 10:37 every Monday morning. Persons in debt have vastly constrained options compared with those of us more fortunate and prudent in our finances. In particular, the freedom to refuse a contract may be in practise non-existent. Suppose a contract sees a debtor's family fed while reducing the debt a mere ceiniog every year; in the not unlikely circumstances that the debtor has genuine difficulty putting food on the table, such a contract will at least provide sustinence, even if it never measurably improves the debtor's financial situation. Emotional blackmail of this nature, to use an overly dramatic term, makes the true freedom of choice surrounding bondage contracts highly questionable.

-debt ends with death and cannot be passed to posterity
While we have no doubt that most nations would concur that any debt bondage contract ends with death, we strongly suspect that very few would support the termination of the debt itself. Given our mistrust of the very nature of the contracts concerned, we are concerned at just how much of the sins of the fathers may be visited upon the sons.

-debtor is allowed to subsist, including food, drink, taxes, rent(or up-to-code tenament is given) and the work is held to the same safety and working condition standards as any other job of the same type.
On these points we all appear to concur.

i also see it as a perhaps beneficial situation, not only the dishwasher situation (which i believe should be legal), but also to the unemployed debtor.
As regards the dishwasher situation, we are not sure what all the fuss is about. In those cases a clear causal and expectational link can be made between the work done -- the dishes -- and the advance payment in kind -- the food -- as a simple renegotiation of the more traditional payment of the bill. This argument does not hold for medium to long-term cases, where putative links between a notional advance payment and work performed become tortuous and unreasonable.

if one is unemployed, a contract like this is a godsend as interest wont mount.
We see no such cause for rejoicing. The compact does not limit the interest which may be charged, except in so much as it comprises part of the agreement which must be reached in the contract. Given our previous observations with regard to the financial awareness of debtors, we do not find this thought heartening.

i also can see situations where the contract is going to end the debt quicker than a normal job could, if i could get a normal job which would allow me freedom to do whatever, why would i enter a debt-bondage contract without knowing that it is beneficial, what economic incentive would i have? if it pays my debt quicker/the same time as a normal job would, it is paying me the same/better wage, and i dont see how that is bad.
We notice the frequency of the word 'if' here. Turning the question on its head, what economic incentive would an employer have for offering such a beneficial contract? And more cynically, who has the more expensive lawyers advising them?

Although the idea is noble, the region of World Conglomerate cannot agree to such a stand, since all member countries are entirely corporate based and by eliminating the monetary recall option, our loans would provide useless. We have no need for excess labor, as we are a small, economically powerful, but small region. This would greatly shake the financial situation of the world market.

Although I understand your view and seeing the need for such an implementation, I feel its a bit too unrealistic in terms of the world economy.

If it ever comes to the voting table the World Conglomerate region would have to answer no to the proposal.

--Yuto Yu Han
Chairman of The People's Republic of XanaMing
Founder of the World Conglomerate

If I may be allowed to say so, but all this has been considered. The only reason why most of it is not implemented in the proposal of the convention is a very practical one; the limited length of the proposal.

And we fail to see what is inherently different from the dishwasher situation; the legal advice should not matter either, as you will see that there is a clause stipulating all parties' rights to legal counsel at any time in the process.

Furthermore, we object to your calling our clauses weasly. We merely wanted to say, as is clear from one of the earlier drafts, that other relatives might take pity, or that the debtor may profit from other initiatives.


Respectfully,

Count de Saint-Germain à Clercques,
NSUN rep for Beaucalsradt,
lord steward of Kastelre

OOC: yes, this is the same person speaking.

First, Kastelre, OHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! im wrong. flat out. i read "as a contract by which a debtor will pay outstanding loans to a creditor through direct labour instead of cash or kind," to be debtor will pay outstanding debts...... which is where the dishwasher situation would apply. oops my bad, good call.

Second, Gobbanium, i dont think i have ever been responded too as thuroughly or as thoughtfully as you did. thank you.

We are after all speaking of someone who has become indebted to the extent that they can see no alternative to this bondage,
Suppose a contract sees a debtor's family fed while reducing the debt a mere ceiniog every year; in the not unlikely circumstances that the debtor has genuine difficulty putting food on the table, such a contract will at least provide sustinence, even if it never measurably improves the debtor's financial situation. Emotional blackmail of this nature, to use an overly dramatic term, makes the true freedom of choice surrounding bondage contracts highly questionable.

while you have throughly demonstrated that a contract may not be entered into freely (condition #1 of slavery) you have not demonstrated that they are entered into exclusively unfreely(as is the case with slavery). also to convince me its slavery, it must be impossible to get out of. and the condition passed down to posterity.

lets set the scenario that the economy goes to crap, i have no job, prospects are low to get a job, and i am in debt to multiple creditors. creditor A offers me a debt bondage contract that will allow me to feed my family and reduce my debt, two things i could not do otherwise. the contract allows the creditor to have my debt payed off and pay a worker less (because much of my wage would go to paying off the debt, and a normal worker would get all money). given my three conditions (freely entered, debt ends with death,same safety and working condition standards) how is this a scenario disadvantageous to anyone? the creditors not employing me are in the same situation they would be if i werent employed. by the other resolution i can freely leave my bondage if a better job comes up. I can feed my family where if unemployed i could not, i can reduce my debt {mental note to check for a provision that a debt bondage contract is guaranteed to reduce my debt in other resolution} whereas otherwise i could not.

i see debt bondage as a last resort, it is not the creditor's first choice, and doubtfully is the debtors, but, with my conditions, it seems to be a beneficial to both parties and distinctly different from slavery because:
-it is freely entered (while it is possible to be forced into it via "emotional blackmail", or "no alternative to this bondage" youve written it yourself..... there is no visible alternative.)
-it is as free to leave as a like job (allowing improvement of one's situation)
-it is as safe as a like job
-it is mutually beneficial by paying my debt and allowing my subsistence
-it ends on death (im going to try to get this in the other proposal perhaps?)

given this level of autonomy and legal assurances that the situation is escapable, i see it as different and inherently better than slavery.

While we have no doubt that most nations would concur that any debt bondage contract ends with death, we strongly suspect that very few would support the termination of the debt itself. Given our mistrust of the very nature of the contracts concerned, we are concerned at just how much of the sins of the fathers may be visited upon the sons.

yeah....... actually........... id like to see a clause insisting on the end of debt bondage contracts on death or impossibility of passing the bondage to posterity in the other resolution......... should check if there is........ im going to write a proposal on making it UN-illegal to pass debts and legal conditions on to posterity.........

yeah....... actually........... id like to see a clause insisting on the end of debt bondage contracts on death or impossibility of passing the bondage to posterity in the other resolution......... should check if there is........ im going to write a proposal on making it UN-illegal to pass debts and legal conditions on to posterity.........
'Abolition of Forced Labour' forbids hereditary contracts outright.

Although the idea is noble, the region of World Conglomerate cannot agree to such a stand, since all member countries are entirely corporate based and by eliminating the monetary recall option, our loans would provide useless. We have no need for excess labor, as we are a small, economically powerful, but small region. This would greatly shake the financial situation of the world market.
We must confess we are not entirely certain what the honoured ambassador is referring to. Neither our proposal nor the convention being assembled by those we disagree with would in any sense eliminate "the monetary recall option". They would permit -- and force us to accept -- an alternative that we wish to prevent, but neither option on the table speaks to repayment of debts in cash.

If I may be allowed to say so, but all this has been considered. The only reason why most of it is not implemented in the proposal of the convention is a very practical one; the limited length of the proposal.
We have to say that in law-making, this ranks only marginally above "because I don't care" as bad reasons for creating a particular situation.

And we fail to see what is inherently different from the dishwasher situation;
The dishwasher situation involves a single, simple transaction, with causal linkage between the two, the work involved being of essentially brief duration and with little or no delay between payment and service, whichever way round you see those two as being. This is an entirely different situation from placing oneself in the long term service of another for the reduction of an intangible accumulated over a considerable period of time, with no causal linkage between the debt (in as much as it can be considered a single entity) and the services rendered (in as much as they can be considered a single entity).

the legal advice should not matter either, as you will see that there is a clause stipulating all parties' rights to legal counsel at any time in the process.
Indeed. We stated that our remark was cynical, and we stand by that cynicism. We also note that the financial advice quite possibly more crucial for the debtor for reasons we outlined earlier is not present.

Furthermore, we object to your calling our clauses weasly. We merely wanted to say, as is clear from one of the earlier drafts, that other relatives might take pity, or that the debtor may profit from other initiatives.
As the ambassador of Ausserland is fond of saying, "the law means what the law says." Weasel words appear to mean one thing but actually say another. We made no reference to your intentions, Count, much as we may speculate over them personally; it is the effects that matter, and the ambiguity of that clause gives it meanings other than your stated desires.

OOC; first, allow me to apologise for pointlessly switching nations in answering; it just so happened that I was logged in as my puppet nation this morning, and had no time to log in properly.

IC;
The count once again rises to address the assembly in this debate; "First we would like to thank Decapod Ten, as you have put very eloquently the main reasons for both parties to enter the contract. It is indeed our opinion that the creditor as well would be better served by any form of repayment, than none at all. Also, we trust that the members of this glorious body have at any time the best in mind for their population, and therefore have existing efforts for social security, on which the unfortunate could rely in times as those.
We also wish to encourage those people to actively try to resolve their situation, rather than, as we observe it, rely on wellfare and not re-enter a healthy economic cycle- as you will see, our proposal does provide for the possibility of the latter.
Therefore, we think there is a choice between working for your family, which is in the end the more rewarding, and living on the expenses of your fellow taxpayer. This is not to say that we disapprove of welfare schemes, quite in the contrary, we deplore the fact that these do not seem to be in place everywhere.
Indeed it is our goal to deminish the debt of the debtor, and even more, provide a budget to re-enter the normal economic society.
Expertise which otherwise would be lost in unemployment, can thus be regained.
I wish, furthermore, to thank St. Edmund, for pointing the assembly to the relevant clause in the Abolition of Forced Labour resolution.
We - the Principality of Beaucalsradt, and the representative of Servant Corps - have been very careful, and have deliberated the issue whether it would be contrary to any existing resolution - which it is not- and whether it would be desirable to have this regulated or banned; our conclusion was that it would be better to regulate this, in stead of banning it, so as to exclude inappropriate use, but to keep the possibility open, as this could be the last straw for any family that might otherwise be doomed to poverty for a couple of generations. We have known examples of this.

Finally, I must say that I have the feeling that in some parts of this debate, we are speaking more about debt itself, than about debt bondage. While we think that any initiative to globally - or at least in the NSUN membership- deminish or abolish debt, at least at death, would be laudable in its intent, yet it would be unpractical if implemented. This would be an incentive for more than some, to just keep amassing debts, with the certainty that at their death, it would be gone anyway. This would, in our opinion, eventually collapse the economy of all members.

Before I surrender the floor, I should wish to clarify the point of Kastelre; Kastelre was a colony of the principality, on which my family holds a claim. My hereditary title of Lord Steward, has, in the recent gain of self rule, been solidified as the ruler of the dominion. Therefore, we wish to apologise, if we at times seem to speak under the wrong banner.

Edit: OOC: Apparently the nation of Gobannium posted a reply while I was typing this.
IC:
We still fail to see what is essentially different, although we grant that what is happening in the dishwashing incident, is on a smaller scale.
I gather though, that one of your objections is the absence of financial advice for the debtor? We wish to express our regret that you did not inform us of that, during your presence at the initial debate.
I should like to point out once more that in one of the very first clauses, it is clearly stated that any nation retains the right to either allow, regulate, or ban debt bondage. In response to your objection as stated during the convention, I can only say, that the convention would affect nations, to have the right to ban, regulate and allow, not private persons or corporations; therefore, we do not see how, if you choose, as is clear, to ban debt bondage, others could practice it within your borders.

'Abolition of Forced Labour' forbids hereditary contracts outright.

oh! excellent! that solves that.

We still fail to see what is essentially different, although we grant that what is happening in the dishwashing incident, is on a smaller scale.
We will try to be clearer. In the first case, there is the meal and the dishwashing, and the two are directly connected. In the second, there are many steps leading to the final debt or debts, and many services rendered, and connecting any of them together is nearly impossible. In the first, there is considerable room for interpretation. In the second, essentially none.

I gather though, that one of your objections is the absence of financial advice for the debtor? We wish to express our regret that you did not inform us of that, during your presence at the initial debate.
There are two reasons for this. First, our primary objection stated very early in the discussion has not been addressed at all; under such circumstances, why should we imagine than any other concern of ours would be even remarked upon?

Second, we trust that it has not escaped your attention that we have been vexed with your co-author's sponsor nation, and most particularly its ambassador, for some while. At the conclusion of his most recent debacle, we believe we made it abundantly plain that neither he, nor his nation, nor any person or organisation appurtaining thereunto, would receive the smallest amount of assistance from us that was in any way avoidable.

We shall address your remaining point at a more appropriate time (OOC: i.e. in the thread on your proposal!) in an attempt to gain more opinions from others concerning the legal, grammatical and practical areas of difficulty with our own proposal.

Originally Posted by Beaucalsradt View Post
We still fail to see what is essentially different, although we grant that what is happening in the dishwashing incident, is on a smaller scale.
We will try to be clearer. In the first case, there is the meal and the dishwashing, and the two are directly connected. In the second, there are many steps leading to the final debt or debts, and many services rendered, and connecting any of them together is nearly impossible. In the first, there is considerable room for interpretation. In the second, essentially none.

yeah.... i apologize for bringing it up. it came from my mistaken reading of this proposal. niether proposal outlaws this practice. i used it as an example of debt-bondage that is completely harmless and obviously not slavery. yes, it is extremely short term, and i see no point in arguing about it as niether proposal outlaws it.

Prince Rodhri, while we fully understand your vexation, we wish to point out that your first reply in that debate was far from encouraging to seek your advice.
I hope you will find us very cooperative, if you should simply clear the skies, and put your objections and arguments forward in the calm, civilised way that is befitting for us both. You expressly said that there was no way that this clause would ever become acceptable, citing your moral objections to the entire resolution, while accusing us of putting this proposal forward on the grounds of national sovereignty. I hope you will see the irony in this.
Anyhow, I propose we leave this in the past, and try to find a way to cooperate and come to an agreement, in the dignified way befitting us.

We would find the Count's moral high horse more befitting if (a) his position was moral, and (b) he spelled our name correctly.

Fine then. We wish it to be noted that at least we have tried to reach out to reach a compromise. Which offer still stands, of course.
As for the spelling of your name, we apologise, but feel that this is entirely beside the matter.

We would like to congratulate the Count on his words, whose recognition of fact if not consequence at least exceeds that of his colleague. It puts us in mind of a former royal tutor, whose apology for the manner in which he had spoken to his charge concluded by stating that "my words in no way conveyed my disrespect for your daughter."

As to the substantive matter, we cannot see that there will ever be a meeting of minds on the subject. You consider the matter acceptable; we see it as evil.

Very well; we all are entitled to our own moral convictions, after all.
I see you are a man of principle.
We never meant disrespect, although we realise that at times, the debate may have been at least close to crossing that line. We trust you to be a gentleman, of the same conviction.