[stcredzero]

> 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."

[vinceguidry]

> 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.

[stcredzero]

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.

No disagreement.

[vinceguidry]

> 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.

[stcredzero]

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.

Even so, nothing is perfect.

[vinceguidry]

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.

[phs318u]

> 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.

EDIT: spelling: their/there

[stcredzero]

I disagree.

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.

[phs318u]

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.

EDIT: last sentence - clarified my position.