Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Can you please explain how that's not a textbook example of duress?

Sure. Duress requires an unlawful threat. Signing a contract to have a surgeon operate on you, when you will die if you don't get the operation, is not duress and the contract is enforceable.

Not that I really buy this:

> For the poor globally disadvantaged people we're talking about, the options are "work" and "die".

The options are more like "continue subsistence farming with risk of death, or work in factory under marginally better conditions with lower risk of death".




>Duress requires an unlawful threat.

You can use this argument to defend slavery or any manner of horrible things because it was lawful at some point (and still is, in many places).

Is it really a good idea to define duress so narrowly?

>continue subsistence farming with risk of death

At what point does causing an "increasing risk of death" start to equate with murder or manslaughter? Being shot at increases the risk of death sharply. What about being exposed to industrial effluent without consent?


> Is it really a good idea to define duress so narrowly?

The alternative is terrible-- otherwise anyone with the ability to possibly help is compelled to do so at any cost without recompense.

> At what point does causing an "increasing risk of death" start to equate with murder or manslaughter? Being shot at increases the risk of death sharply. What about being exposed to industrial effluent without consent?

That's the crummy thing with international law-- it's as each jurisdiction says.

The unfortunate thing is, there's large portions of the world that are poor enough that taking risks with industrial effluent seem to make sense. If the increased prosperity lets you pay for wastewater treatment and health projects, you could save considerably more lives. The first world went through terrible times to claw our way to modern prosperity.

The thing that is different now, of course, is that we have far more prosperous people looking on the sidelines. On the other hand, we've been trying to come up with a model for charity and NGO-driven durable economic development out of poverty and have very little to show for it.


>The first world went through terrible times to claw our way to modern prosperity.

The first world outsourced the terribleness to the "global south" (aka poor non-white people) and continues to do so.

>we've been trying to come up with a model for charity and NGO-driven durable economic development out of poverty and have very little to show for it.

Agreed, because you cannot fix the inherent problems of capitalism with more capitalism. As long as it's profitable to export misery elsewhere, the misery will keep being exported. It's absurd to try and mitigate the effects of large-scale perverse incentives with dribbles of toothless activism that doesn't challenge those perverse incentives at the source.


> The first world outsourced the terribleness to the "global south" (aka poor non-white people) and continues to do so.

A lot of terribleness just went away. Economic development takes economic output. Your early economic output, before economic development, tends to be bad.

Just clustering people in cities has myriad problems and teething pains before you get a lot of the real benefits.

> fix the inherent problems of capitalism with more capitalism

I don't consider most NGOs to be "more capitalism."

> misery will keep being exported

Countries and people are generally quite happy to receive these economic opportunities compared to what the alternatives (subsistence farming) would be.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: