Hobbesian Manifesto...of an economic sort

Workers of the World...shut-up and get back to work!

You can't legitmately oppose a sovereign authority that was granted power by a valid social contract. Your chains are an imaginary construct of your own making.

And look at that! Right over there...a football game!




How's that, Mac?

But look...pro wrestling!

By defintion, serfs are intransient and tied to the land by feudal obligation. Peasants have more freedom in this regard, but not much more.

"Gypsies" would be a more appropriate classification, for a number of reasons. There are few people still alive in today's world that lived in Europe in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. That time and the role of the gypsies therein is largely a void in historical understanding.

But "gypsies" is so much nearer the mark. The gypsy population was not recognized as a legitmate part of most nations through which they roamed. They went where the work was, though did have close-to-permanent settlements in some places. And for a people so apart from recognized society, is it any wonder that many were involved in illegal activities?

Think on this: if the gypsy population was still what it was by the time of the Soviet expansion, how would they have been treated, en masse? If they somehow made it through this period, how would the EU view them now?

MacAllister said:

Hmm. To my knowledge, though, entire industries weren't more-or-less dependent upon year-round gypsy labor, to continue to function.

Click to expand...

Entire industries aren't depnedent on illegal immigrant labor here, not really. companies are just using an available market in labor, illegal though it may be. Stop all illegal immigrant labor and the industries won't go away, they'll adapt. Though your sugar might cost a few more pennies on the pound...

Of course, I could be wrong. What I actually know about gypsies is almost as much as I know about String Theory.

Click to expand...

The viability of string theory is based on a view presupposing a certain rigidity of space, with limited parameters of n-dimensions. Moreover, the term itself suggests a wholly Euclidean perspective, making it a misnomer from the get-go...

SpookyWriter said:

There is a certain feudal obligation with serfs in America. I suspect they are obliged to Taco Bell, big farms, and greedy companies that take advantage of their legal status. So the feudal system (in America) might not have Barons or a monarchy, but it does exist in other forms.

Click to expand...

But it's not feudal, not in the least. Find a different term.

SpookyWriter said:

Are they not tied to the land (corporate) owner? So what other term is there to describe a class of peoples who are obligated to their masters (so they don't get turned into CIS) that would be fitting?

Click to expand...

By defintion, feudal systems involve more than two parties. Feudal obligations must exist throughout a society, at large, for that society to be properly labelled 'feudal.' Thus, the term is not appropriate here. Yes, it's a bit of a catch-22--that's why there have been many scholars who have suggested getting rid of the term 'feudalism' altogether. It's almost as poorly understood and improperly invoked as 'fascism.'

Also:
1) They are not tied to the land/corporation in a legal sense--feudal obligations are enforcable legal contracts, within the framework of a feudal society.
2) Their obligations are self-imposed, any way your slice it. Their potential difficulties with INS and the like are a product of their choices. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem, but the problem should be characterized correctly.
3) As to other terms--how about 'illegal workers'?

A semiannual conductor is another name for water pipes in Moose Jaw.