Having a Servant Is Not a Right • Hacker News Board

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#71

Post by sliverstorm » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:40 PM UTC

arsenerei wrote: post #56

sliverstorm wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you feel there's nothing wrong with placing non-violent criminals in with violent criminals?

I guess rather than what could be wrong with it, why do you think or feel it's necessary to have them separately placed? Is it that you believe non-violent offenders shouldn't be at risk to violence from violent ones? Do you find there to be a societal benefit to this? To the inmates? I honestly just want to know your take on this.

Well, two reasons:

- It seems to break the rule of punishment matching the crime. I wouldn't say violent criminals "deserve" to be locked in with other violent criminals & get stabbed, but at least the violent ones might be better able to fend for themselves.

- Violent criminals require more security, so if we separate the violent & nonviolent criminals it will be cheaper for the US taxpayer

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#72

Post by asimov42 » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:45 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #53

asimov42 wrote: post #25

Isn't it obvious this is the result of a country of extremely low average income and extremely high population? Of course it would be great to have even a semblance of equality, but I dont see a solution given the current economic model.

Low average income, but extremely low median income. There's nothing obvious or inevitable about that.

Can you clarify what you mean by that? The slightly less poor exploit off the extremely poor?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#73

Post by sjtgraham » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:48 PM UTC

Did anyone else read the title as "Having a Servant is Not Right"?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#74

Post by GabrielF00 » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:49 PM UTC

suprgeek wrote: post #59

While this diplomat person as an individual is none too commendable (back home in India she is involved in some questionable property dealings [1]) - there is much more to the story than this shallow but seemingly introspective "article". The lady (servant - according to the article) was brought in on an authorized "Au pair" visa. Indian Diplomats in the US are paid little in-terms of monetary benefits. Most compensa…

So, let's say that the au pair finds out that she's getting paid a third of what her employer claimed on an official document to be paying her (and also considerably less than the legal minimum wage). What's wrong with the au pair then leaving the employer? What's wrong with her seeking legal advice? What's wrong with her lawyer threatening legal action?

Also, I find it very sleazy that the diplomat's sister possesses and released to the press a personal letter from the au pair to her family.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#75

Post by allochthon » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:50 PM UTC

suprgeek wrote: post #59

While this diplomat person as an individual is none too commendable (back home in India she is involved in some questionable property dealings [1]) - there is much more to the story than this shallow but seemingly introspective "article". The lady (servant - according to the article) was brought in on an authorized "Au pair" visa. Indian Diplomats in the US are paid little in-terms of monetary benefits. Most compensa…

American here. Watching this case intermittently, it's a little hard to fathom the seething anger in India. The matter seems fairly straightforward:

- Rule of law applies, regardless the person; that's the theory, anyway. In practice, the laws tend to favor the wealthy and powerful; but whatever gets into the books tends to be applied as resources permit. In other words, this had nothing to do with the fact that the diplomat was Indian; it had to do with a point of law.

- There are well-known limits to diplomatic immunity.

Recall the reckless young American that went around and broke a bunch of car windows in Singapore sometime back. Americans were all upset that he was caned. But on one level, it was quite fair -- any Singaporean would have received the same punishment, and Singapore did not budge on the rule.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#76

Post by genwin » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:53 PM UTC

suprgeek wrote: post #59

While this diplomat person as an individual is none too commendable (back home in India she is involved in some questionable property dealings [1]) - there is much more to the story than this shallow but seemingly introspective "article". The lady (servant - according to the article) was brought in on an authorized "Au pair" visa. Indian Diplomats in the US are paid little in-terms of monetary benefits. Most compensa…

Getting a fraction of the wage the law requires => treated well

Demanding the wage the law requires => extortion

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#77

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:53 PM UTC

wrongc0ntinent wrote: post #70

toufka wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having lived in the US, and then having encountered 'servants' in other countries, a striking difference is the respect for the person when they are not 'on duty'. In the US, when I go to a restaurant, I am being 'served', but after the waiter gets off work he's a full and equal neighbor of mine under both law and custom. A lifetime servant is conditioned to be deferential, in every part of their life, not just while…

You cannot figure out the "servant" business in India without considering the caste system. We get the income inequality side pretty well, it makes sense. But until the caste crap gets replaced by a different currency, being/having a servant is a different concept from a westerner's.

India doesn't have much income inequality. Their Gini is 33, same ballpark as France, Bangladesh and the UK. (For comparison, Denmark is at 25 and the US is at 45.)

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#78

Post by scott_s » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:54 PM UTC

suprgeek wrote: post #59

While this diplomat person as an individual is none too commendable (back home in India she is involved in some questionable property dealings [1]) - there is much more to the story than this shallow but seemingly introspective "article". The lady (servant - according to the article) was brought in on an authorized "Au pair" visa. Indian Diplomats in the US are paid little in-terms of monetary benefits. Most compensa…

The support for "being treated well" in the Daily Mail article is a letter written to her family, one month after arriving in the US. That's not strong evidence for the claim. One, it was only after one month, which may not be representative of the rest of her working time. Two, when people aren't doing well, they don't always tell their family so, because they don't want their family to worry.

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#79

Post by yetanotherphd » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:54 PM UTC

I wonder if the same people who say "If you can't afford to pay a servant a living wage, you shouldn't have one" also like to claim the raising the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment?

Re: Having a Servant Is Not a Right

#80

Post by wozniacki » Sat, Dec 21, 2013, 7:55 PM UTC

allochthon wrote: post #75

suprgeek wrote: post #59

While this diplomat person as an individual is none too commendable (back home in India she is involved in some questionable property dealings [1]) - there is much more to the story than this shallow but seemingly introspective "article". The lady (servant - according to the article) was brought in on an authorized "Au pair" visa. Indian Diplomats in the US are paid little in-terms of monetary benefits. Most compensa…

American here. Watching this case intermittently, it's a little hard to fathom the seething anger in India. The matter seems fairly straightforward: - Rule of law applies, regardless the person; that's the theory, anyway. In practice, the laws tend to favor the wealthy and powerful; but whatever gets into the books tends to be applied as resources permit. In other words, this had nothing to do with the fact that the…

Ahem.

Raymond Allen Davis is a former United States Army soldier, private security firm employee, and contractor with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). On January 27, 2011, Davis killed two reportedly armed men in Lahore, Pakistan. Although the U.S. government contended that he was protected by diplomatic immunity because of his employment with the U.S. Consulate in Lahore, Davis was jailed and criminally charged by Pakistani authorities with double murder and the illegal possession of a firearm. A car coming to aid Davis killed a third Pakistani man in a "hit and run" while speeding on the wrong side of the road. On March 16, 2011, Davis was released after the families of the two killed men were paid $2.4 million in diyya (a form of monetary compensation or blood money). Judges then acquitted him on all charges and Davis immediately departed Pakistan.

The incident led to a diplomatic furor and deterioration in Pakistan–United States relations. A major focus of the incident was the U.S.'s assertion that Davis was protected under the principle of diplomatic immunity due to his role as an "administrative and technical official" attached to the Lahore consulate. The U.S. government claimed that Davis was protected under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and demanded he be released from custody immediately. President Barack Obama asked Pakistan not to prosecute Davis and recognize him as a diplomat, stating, "There's a broader principle at stake that I think we have to uphold."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident