Servants - yes or no?

[Draka]

Seems to me that paying them is proper justification. We pay people all the time for services like tax preperation, auto repair, healthcare even personal grooming (barber, nail tech) and food preperation (restaurants). Why should it matter where they do it?

I, and others, have brought that up before. Doesn't seem to matter to him. Certainly no one needs someone else to style their hair or file and paint their nails, but we go to salons to have it done for us. We don't have to have someone prepare our food for us, but we go out to eat and pay someone else to do it, what should be the difference between that and paying someone to come into our home and cook for us? We stay in a hotel and have housekeeping come in and make our beds and clean the bathroom, we could do that ourselves, but the service is paid for as part of the fee. What would be the difference between that and paying for someone to do it in our homes?

 

[Draka]

because having personal servants in the home is more for reasons of status and ego propping rather than for a needed function.

You keep saying this and no matter how many have stepped forward to refute it you refuse to listen and you refuse to back up your claim.

 

[nnmartin]

Why do you paint everyone that hires domestic help in that light? Absolutely screams false stereotyping.

try spending some time some of the poorer countries of the world and see how the maids fare

You would think twice then about hiring domestics and justifying it 'because you pay them'.

 

[ron4711]

me,me,me,me,me,me!

oh, and I forgot to say, me!

justification enough for you for sure, because it suits you to have a servant.

me,me,me,me,me,me!

oh, and I forgot to say, me!

justification enough for you for sure, because it suits you to be a servant.

how can you expect society to progress if you only think of your own personal situation?

Change must come from outside and within.

Instead of just thinking about what suits us in our day to day lives we need to effect change in the wider sphere.

This is the way ahead.

It sounds like you are opposed to conspicous consumption and demeaning the value of other individuals. Certainly having servants can be a sign of that kind of lordly behavior. But often time people have servants because those servants can perform a task much better then they could and the servants are happy for the employment.

 

[Draka]

me,me,me,me,me,me!

oh, and I forgot to say, me!

justification enough for you for sure, because it suits you to have a servant.

me,me,me,me,me,me!

oh, and I forgot to say, me!

justification enough for you for sure, because it suits you to be a servant.

how can you expect society to progress if you only think of your own personal situation?

Change must come from outside and within.

Instead of just thinking about what suits us in our day to day lives we need to effect change in the wider sphere.

This is the way ahead.

Sure, it suits me to be a servant if that's the job I decide to get. I see no shame in it. I see no issues with it. I see no shame in someone having a servant either. Domestic help isn't a shameful job to have and it isn't shameful to employ domestic help. You also have yet to provide verified reasons why such a change need be made at all. You haven't substantiated any of your claims and have pretty much either ignored those who state otherwise or called them liars basically.

 

[ron4711]

try spending some time some of the poorer countries of the world and see how the maids fare

You would think twice then about hiring domestics and justifying it 'because you pay them'.

In many poorer countries the husbands mistreat their wives. Does that justify us eliminating marriage here?

 

[Draka]

try spending some time some of the poorer countries of the world and see how the maids fare

You would think twice then about hiring domestics and justifying it 'because you pay them'.

But the "poorer" countries aren't indicative of how something goes everywhere else. you're wanting to declare that people have servants for such and such a reason and it really just appears that your views and experiences are the limited ones. You can't see that the world is bigger than where you are. Just because something may not be up to snuff in certain areas doesn't mean it's bad all over.

 

[ron4711]

because having personal servants in the home is more for reasons of status and ego propping rather than for a needed function.

So would you also prohibit the ownership of mansions or luxury cars? How about the newest smartphones that people get, to outdo others? What about those outrageous fasion statements such as jewlery or the latest Nikeys?

 

[Draka]

So would you also prohibit the ownership of mansions or luxury cars? How about the newest smartphones that people get, to outdo others? What about those outrageous fasion statements such as jewlery or the latest Nikeys?

Don't forget hair dye, make-up, pools, expensive dress shoes and boots and clothing, private jets, and acrylic nails.

 

[Penumbra]

The psychology and concept of having servants is what is being painted here.

Or the psychology of wanting a scapegoat or a straw man.

Painting a picture of what one thinks their enemy is without understanding a situation, and further, being willing to take away the rights of voluntary business between adults.

If you have, or aspire to have servants then you must expect tar and feather to come your way at some point.

I'd say that the willingness to take away the rights of people to form business relationships is at much larger risk for being a target of anger rather than people that have jobs to offer.

 

[nnmartin]

You keep saying this and no matter how many have stepped forward to refute it you refuse to listen and you refuse to back up your claim.

that's because the ones who use maids for reasons of ego have not ventured to step forward for these reasons:

1. They agree with me
2. They do not realise the ramifications of having servants
3. They do not care
4. They are not posting on this thread or forum.

 

[nnmartin]

It sounds like you are opposed to conspicous consumption and demeaning the value of other individuals

That is a good point and I agree with you there.

It most certainly is demeaning to have to clean up someone else's mess and this is one of the chief joys of those who have servants - power and status.

Certainly having servants can be a sign of that kind of lordly behavior. But often time people have servants because those servants can perform a task much better then they could and the servants are happy for the employment.

I fail to see how one is not able to clean one's own toilet or hold a door open for themselves.

Happy for employment? For sure, but this is no justification as our current system creates this situation intentionally - ie: the poor servant must serve the rich lord.

How can you not see that?

 

[nnmartin]

Sure, it suits me to be a servant if that's the job I decide to get. I see no shame in it. I see no issues with it. I see no shame in someone having a servant either. Domestic help isn't a shameful job to have and it isn't shameful to employ domestic help.

That is just right wing propaganda, serving merely to maintain the status quo.

You also have yet to provide verified reasons why such a change need be made at all. You haven't substantiated any of your claims and have pretty much either ignored those who state otherwise or called them liars basically.

I see you are going down the old 'logical fallacy' route again , ie: 'it cant be true if you do not provide evidence, source etc''

well, that really is a mighty old yawn and an utterly pointless and futile exercise.

do you mean to say you want this thread to descend into another dull monotony of source tennis -ie: 'my source is better than yours', refutations, and analysis of various random websites etc?

No, I'll pass on that chore of tedium if you don't mind.

 

[nnmartin]

In many poorer countries the husbands mistreat their wives. Does that justify us eliminating marriage here?

I've no idea, why not start a new thread on that topic.

 

[ron4711]

I fail to see how one is not able to clean one's own toilet or hold a door open for themselves.

Happy for employment? For sure, but this is no justification as our current system creates this situation intentionally - ie: the poor servant must serve the rich lord.

How can you not see that?

I fail to see how cleaning someone else's toilet or holding the door for someone is bad. We have a society where our skills have become specialized. WE DO NOT DO EVERYTHING FOR OURSELVES. We do not make our clothes or grow our food.

If I make $50 per hour and it takes me 4 hours to clean my house then I may value my time for cleaning as say $200 why not pay someone $100 to clean the house and have 2 hours of leisure, or work an extra 2 hours at my job.

How can you not see that?

 

[nnmartin]

But the "poorer" countries aren't indicative of how something goes everywhere else. you're wanting to declare that people have servants for such and such a reason and it really just appears that your views and experiences are the limited ones. You can't see that the world is bigger than where you are. Just because something may not be up to snuff in certain areas doesn't mean it's bad all over.

wrong again here, because I have seen how the servant situation works at both ends of the economic scale.

In poor countries, the 'employers' are more or less at liberty to do whatever they like and it literally is master and servant. In the more developed countries this kind of exploitation is only kept at bay due to the greater level of wealth. However, the psychological building blocks of abuse are there in the background, waiting for the chance to burst out when the economy descends enough.

The seeds are being sown now with this kind of false belief that 'paying = justification'

When the time is right, ie: when the money grabbers cannot get even fatter, slothful and pompous with their material goods, then the finger clicking and subjugation of the unwashed masses will begin in earnest.

 

[nnmartin]

So would you also prohibit the ownership of mansions or luxury cars? How about the newest smartphones that people get, to outdo others? What about those outrageous fasion statements such as jewlery or the latest Nikeys?

again, this is veering off topic because the servant issue is that in which one has to demean themselves to another, simply because that other has the ability to pay.

 

[ron4711]

I think you need to restate your question because what people are answering does not meet with your requirements of servant. Indeed I suspect that servant is just a subset of the problem. So I will be presumptious and state what I suspect is your issue.

I think you oppose people taking advantage of others and demeaning others.

Servitude can be, but usually isn't a subset of taking advantage of and demeaning others. Slavery certainly is. But so are a lot of other things such as bullying and making fun of others so as to make oneself look better.

 

[nnmartin]

I'd say that the willingness to take away the rights of people to form business relationships is at much larger risk for being a target of anger rather than people that have jobs to offer.

do you really mean to say that a person hiring a maid is a job creator?

How about if I choose to pay all my staff $1/hour and then give work to twice as many people - is that creating jobs too?

 

[ron4711]

do you really mean to say that a person hiring a maid is a job creator?

How about if I choose to pay all my staff $1/hour and then give work to twice as many people - is that creating jobs too?

You would not get anyone to work for $1/ hour in the US. Unless of course you buy goods made in countries like China or India where some poor sods are working for less than that to make shoes and clothes that you might wear.