Exploitation

This topic follows on as a natural corollary to my paper ‘Condemned to Enslavement’, to expand the context to the inevitable friction between liberty and regulation.  

The earlier philosophers of Kant and Rousseau held the position that one only need to obey laws one could rationally commit to as can be personally justified.  Rather obviously that is an untenable position and prompted the search for a system aimed at protecting citizens from exploitation, but at the same time to recognise a citizen’s right to liberty. The solution was largely provided by John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) who championed both utilitarianism and liberalism

His philosophy forms an important backbone for moral concerns later incorporated into public institutions, governance and political theory

But firstly to reiterate a few points on the enablers of slavery where I was motivated principally by two factors: a lack of philosophical papers on the subject and a tendency for historic accounts to be confined to the grim plantation exploitation in America that resulted in the fog of the civil war. There are brief histories, but they only flirt around its enablers which underpinned its longevity. My aim was to find grounds for fruitful discussions, by analysing the various sage’s contributions at strategic points of time.

The conclusions were hardly reassuring, from Aristotle’s idea some are naturally best considered as only suitable to exist in a situation where they are subservient to a master, to Augustine, Aquinas, and Kant and remarkably to John Locke, who to-day might be regarded as a rather extreme libertarian, but all argued racialist or flawed arguments justifying its existence.

We see further evidence of this factor in the brilliant 15 year old student, Nietzsche, penning an essay championing aristocratic control being exercised over what he described as lesser human beings. Similarly, Heidegger, was empathetic to the German Nazi regime. 

Those arguments and a general ambivalence seeped into society ensured its longevity up until very recent times, only to see the same prejudices creep into different forms of exploitation. Our own history has also skirted around the brutality of convict labour until such epics as the likes of the late  Robert Hughes’s  ‘Fatal Shores’  exposed the early appalling brutality so that for some who rebelled, death was seen as the glorious saviour. Intermingled amongst those grim accounts were some notable exceptions of governors who opted not to use an iron fist along with paternalistic pastoralists. Progress then was made until such generosity was again thwarted by the English homeland  authorities, intent on seeing austere punishment and unsavoury conditions be reintroduced swiftly of even harsher flogging as a justifiable deterrent seen as what represents a lower level of humanity. Even so, the early progress in the colony would not have been possible without the substantive work of convict labour and those who were eventually granted freedom and became its pioneers.   

At this point you might excuse a brief indulgence to provide some relevant history of my great great grandfather on my father’s side.  

Patrick Byrnes was born in Tipperary, Ireland in 1816. He was convicted of highway robbery in 1836 and sentenced to death, a sentence then revoked in exchange for transportation to Australia. It is likely that he resorted to crime just to survive as many poor and oppressed Irish of that era did.
After gaining his ‘ticket of leave’ in 1848 Patrick married in Sydney and moved to the then remote unsettled Nambucca region in northern NSW, to become one of its most prominent successful  pioneers.
Patrick established his family and shrewdly chose a site; well-watered, flat but not marshy, suitable for farming if cleared and ideally located close to established tracks and river transport. Patrick named his house and land “Congarena”.  

He also established a successful store and pub called “The Shamrock Tavern” and ran a punt at the river crossing nearby. The site was strategically located as a resting place along the tracks used by the massive timber Bullock trains of that era. 

There are only small clues available about what Patrick Byrnes’ personality and values might have been like. We could easily “jump the gun” and suggest Patrick was an immoral man, committing crimes of terror against innocent highway travelers. 

However, if we consider the poverty and oppression that existed in Ireland the 1830s and how a large majority of the convicts sent to Australia were poor and illiterate, we can suggest that Patrick was simply a victim of circumstance. More than likely, he was part of a highway robbery gang that stole for survival or to access a lifestyle beyond backbreaking farm work combined with extraordinary poverty that meant there was insufficient staples of potatoes and milk just to survive.  Also, from the 17th through to the early 19th-century acts of robbery in Ireland were often part of a tradition of popular resistance to British colonial rule and settlement and protestant domination. 

Perhaps Patrick was part of the last wave of resistance robbers, claiming loot as revenge. With a name like Patrick and the Gaelic surname Byrnes, Patrick was almost certainly born Catholic and the fierce tensions between Protestants and Catholics are well documented.
It’s interesting though that he then denied his Irish roots later in life. In historian Norma Townsend’s book on the regions early settlers it’s noted that Patrick was “known as a peppery Irishman, but he later claimed to have actually been born in Rochdale Lancashire in 1820.” Perhaps it was religious tensions between his wives Emma Howell, who he married in the Church of England that led to this false claim. Patrick was buried a catholic in 1883. Did Patrick want to be “beyond the pale of the law” ... simply to be free, to have a chance at making a better life for himself or did he find himself at home amongst the scenes of infamy. One can only guess!

Returning to the thrust of this paper, it is to be noted that slavery or brutality as it was known long ago, to a large degree, no longer flourishes.  Notwithstanding there remain significant isolated pockets, together with various forms of entrapment and bond servitude. So that when the headlines of organisations devoted to stamping out those practices or bringing an end to slavery appear in the press , they are more likely to be rallying against the various forms of hideous exploitation.

Where I think the world has changed significantly, to the extent some positivism and negativism might be noted, is the fact, more than ever, we are all part of a global village. So that events elsewhere have an immediate rippling effect domestically.

For instance, markets have the capacity, given good governance, to be instrumental in ensuring societies reap more just and sustainable outcomes. There is some encouraging evidence to suggest inroads are being made into achieving this outcome but more needs to be done. The opportunity is contingent on the continuing freedom for information to be exchanged, to ensure there is a contest of best

practices for the advancement of equality and just outcomes. What is important is to ensure one has contusing cultural exchanges between nations.

What is often overlooked in relation to free markets of the Australian aborigines prior to colonization.  They possibly operated one of the most successful free markets in the world, albeit I do not wish to give the impression of any utopian existence. Similar to indigenous elsewhere, (although the barter system mostly was used ) they successively traded  ‘water rights’  beyond tribal boundaries to sustain their existence.  Although there were tribal skirmishes no major wars are apparent and no doubt the respect and reverences to the land to which they believed one is inextricably linked played a major role. Scarce resources in one nation were traded for bountiful resources in another and rights were defined per the Moety, Totems and Skin types in relation to their culture and existence.   

  

Elsewhere of course, no empire dating back to the fall of the Roman Empire can rival  that of the British,  ushering in the Industrial Revolution in England  from 1740 - 1780, -  that became a logical melting pot for trade and progression of the recently discovered Newtonian mechanistic world - as suggested by John Cribbin in ‘Science a History 1543 -2001. 

Although the industrial revolution underpinned improved living standards to support much larger  populations, it also led to massive exploitation of people and land. The so called ‘Mercantilists’ ensured laws were passed to preference British enterprises and shipping companies, to the detriment of other nations. 

But philosopher and moral ethicist Adam Smith criticised mercantilism in his ‘Wealth of Nations’ published in 1776. Smith pointed out the creation of a monopoly, due to bans on foreign competition. They also manipulated exchange rates associated with exported bullion which ensured downward pressure on prices at the expense of impoverished workers. The end result, was the colonies were forced to use English ships, pay exorbitant duties and to only trade in commodities whose prices were set by the British Empire. This resulted in an underclass of colonial citizens, a factor leading to eventual war and American independence.

The tide turned as the classical ideas of Smith brought an end to mercantilism with his legacy continuing until confidence evaporated given the misery and extreme poverty of the great depression of the 1930’s. 

Following in the footsteps of Smith, John Maynard Keynes set about disproving the free market ideas. Keynes, correctly in my view, concluded the invisible free hand of the market, to ensured the most efficient best choices will be made, could not be relied upon. Keynes pointed out there will be inevitable swings and roundabouts in the trade cycle that had wreaked havoc on employment and ensured widespread poverty. In simple terms this could be thought of as in human nature, one becomes reckless and fuels an overheated economy in good times and the reverse when the boom ends in a recession. The worst possible result is to tighten up on spending in downturns and loosen in booms, as the reverse is true.        

Keynes also said that any system must, at its heart, lead to fairer more equitable outcomes for everyone. 

I don’t propose to elaborate on his theories, which were based on a strong regulatory regime to prudently effectively use both monetary policy (supply of money and interest rates ) and fiscal policy (government spending and taxation , except to say, where used they have served Australia well. 

Currently his ideas are making a comeback under various modern day guises.

The idea of a system that ensures a more equitable system for everyone might seem like an impossible dream, but it remains as a reliable anchor to find ways to stamp out exploitation that ensures the freedom we relish is not thwarted by exploitation of one kind or another to insidiously take root in society. On a personal consumption level what we consume and its origin is increasingly of interest given the idea of fair trade that allows the sources providers a living wage. The ideas of corporate brands associated with slave labour is an anathema to most and tarnishes its products and standing in the community. A whole plethora of new age agreements ensure industries commit to a more sustainable future. 

There is nothing new here, for it is indictment on our civilised society that should not be the case.

But there is an ongoing need for vigilance and updated regulation as the lessons of the past continues to be repeated today in various forms of enslavement and exploitation.