What We Keep FAQ

[poisontaster]

I suppose the first thing we'd like to say about this universe is that it is not completely mapped out. Part of that is because of the impromptu nature of the originating story, A Kept Boy. It's a story I began on a lark and it's been written (and world built) on the fly. The other reason is that we don't want to get overly detailed to a point where the canonical 'rules' of the system become oppressive to free storytelling. We want there to be enough room for people to have fun in this universe. And sometimes that means not parsing things out too finely.

Next, a word on the nuts and bolts. This is an open universe. That means anyone is able to write in it, talk about it, create for it, without having to get prior permission. Stories do not have to be canon compliant; it's up to you, as creator, how close you want to stick to the 'rules' of the universe. On the other hand, that obviously means that not everything will be considered universe-canonical. It's up to you how much you want to incorporate other people's ideas and creations. It's up to me how much I (or darkrosetiger) want to incorporate into my/our own story/stories.

The FAQ will also probably not answer all questions that you might have. For the most part, darkrosetiger and I tried not to get too bogged down in specifics. Part of the fun of throwing the universe open is leaving room for other people to bring their ideas and stories.


When is A Kept Boy (and associated stories) set?

The answer is that I've kept that somewhat deliberately vague, in the interest of greater storytelling flexibility. What I posited is a future not far from now where the technological level is close but slightly ahead of our our own. At least one mention has been made of orbital stations and resource collection in the near solar system; on the other hand, corporations like Apple and HP are still very much going concerns.


Why slavery?

Again, a lot of the fine details have not been explained or worked out to give greater flexibility to the universe. However, roughly four generations before the current "now", the countries that compose the Empire were on the verge of financial collapse and the political climate had changed to a degree that the divide between haves and have-nots had deepened to a chasm, with the Haves very much in control. The New Articles of Slavery were instituted to put some kind of control on the rampant debt and out of control spending that was bringing the country to its knees. The premise was that it would promote better, more judicious spending on the part of the population and that the only people who would be 'punished' were people who were already a burden on the system.

For the system to work, the slaves had to be employed and the money to house and keep the slaves needed to come from a non-governmental source. Thus, the Commerce Department 'contracts' the services of the slaves to corporations and the wealthy and in return, the corporation or individual owner gets labor at a far cheaper rate than they would by hiring a free person. However, this 'social responsibility' to own slaves is backed by legal articles designating the number of slaves a corporation or owner must contract from Commerce on a scale similar to that of income tax. Failure to comply with these laws can result in legal censure up to and including imprisonment and/or placement in the slave labor pool.


Is slavery world-wide?

The re-institution of slavery is a movement that originated in the US. It's pretty open-ended whether it's practiced in other countries or not, but it's known that "some" countries have instituted similar policies in recent years in imitation of the US. Recently, Britain--which does not practice slavery--has broken off all diplomatic ties to the US and closed their borders to all US traffic.

In truth, though there is some international travel, US citizens (and attendant staff) are generally encouraged to remain in-country for fear of terrorist attacks. The only slaves permitted out of the country are body-slaves and Agents (and only if accompanied by their owner) or slaves sold overseas.


How do people become slaves?

There are basically two ways a person can become a slave. 1) They can be seized or sold for debt or 2) they can be born to a slave. In theory, even well-to-do people can become slaves, but in most cases, their families bail them out of their financial troubles before it gets to that point rather than face the humiliation of having a member of the family become a slave. However, there have been a few (very few), notable cases where a scion of a rich family has become so estranged from his/her family that the family did not rescue them from debt repossession. For the most part, slavery is largely a function of the poor. A parent can only sell a child or have the child be considered their (disposable) asset until the child reaches 18. In rare instances, children are sold to the Department of Commerce for money rather than to settle a specific debt.

In theory, children can be sold at any age. However, before the age of five or so, they're generally not valued very highly because the cost to keep them is not mitigated by any labor offset.


Is there any way for a slave to become free again?

Not at this time. Once you are branded (literally) as a slave, both you and any children you might bear are considered slaves for your full life-span. The abolitionist movement has pressed for a manumission clause to the New Articles of Slavery, but at this point, their movement has little traction and little political power.


What is the Empire?

The Empire is the geopolitical entity that comprises the former United States of America, Mexico and large portions of what was formerly known as Canada. Formally, it's called the United States of North America, and the old republican institutions still exist. In practice, the government is an oligarchy run by a small segment of the upper economic classes.


What about the Constitution, and specifically, the Thirteenth Amendment?

As in our own world, the civil rights and civil liberties guarantees of the U.S. Constitution were slowly eroded by successive governments under the pretext of "security". The Supreme Court later ruled that it was legal to contract to buy and sell an individual's labor. This paved the way for the New Slavery Act, which explicitly overturned the the 13th Amendment, which had abolished slavery in the U.S.


Who is Commerce?

The Commerce Department (usually just 'Commerce') is a semi-autonomic branch of the government. On a large scale, they are responsible for the Empire's finances. More minutely and specifically, they own the entire slave work-force of the Empire and contract their services to corporations and individual owners.

When people are sold for debt, they are sold to Commerce, who then guarantees and dispenses the monies to the persons or corporations that hold the debt. Any remaining funds are given to the family or individual who sold the slave.

The Commerce Department has its own slave labor force that does not come from the public labor pool. Its slaves are chosen from a very young age and trained in Commerce-only facilities. Commerce slaves are never sold, never put to any other industries/tasks and are never 'put out to pasture', once their usefulness is presumably outlived. In fact, it's not really known what becomes of Commerce slaves once they become too old to perform their functions.


Who are the Laborists?

The Laborists are the reformer political party that pushed--and passed--the New Articles of Slavery. The Laborists (largely) represent the wealthiest and most powerful of the Empire. The Lord and Master classes are, for the most part, Laborists.


What makes someone a Lord (or Lady) versus just plain Master (or Mistress)?

The designation of Lord or Lady is largely determined by two factors: wealth and influence. The titles are not hereditary and are largely given as terms of respect, rather than any actual nobility.

(Sidenote: As this was all based on an RPS system of RL actors, I largely designated Lords/Ladies as actors who are considered A-list, like Tom Cruise, etc. and Masters/Mistresses as less well known actors like Jeffrey Dean Morgan. The system's not perfect, by any means, so it's not a hard-and-fast rule.)


What is Escrow? How does it work?

In a normal sale of a slave, when negotiations are opened, the slave in question is placed in a sort of waystation hostel colloquially known as Escrow. This is to guarantee that the slave remains in the expected or promised condition until negotiations are concluded as well as giving the slave some distance from their previous owner and giving them a sense of closure necessary for optimal adjustment to their new situation.

The slave in question will remain in Escrow until negotiations are concluded and a sale is made or until one or both parties withdraw from negotiations. The successful conclusion of a sale results in a Closing, where the new owner will visit the hostel to inspect and claim their property.

Not all slaves go through an Escrow process. When a slave is of low-enough value to be purchased outright--particularly if the slave has already been remanded to Commerce--the Escrow process may be skipped.


What kind of slaves are there?

This is a difficult question to quantify. A slave can hold nearly any position that a free man can, from unskilled, field labor to highly technical work as an engineer, programmer, etc., depending on their training. In fact, an increasing proportion of the national workforce is slave labor. In corporations, slaves are often designated by their position and are collectively called corporate slaves. On an estate, slaves are generally just designated as field slaves, house slaves, etc. The exceptions to this would be--obviously--body-slaves and Agents, who are slaves authorized to act with a certain amount of autonomy and owner discretion. Technically, body-slaves are also Agents.

The value of a slave is based on a number of factors, including age, fitness and training. With body-slaves, physical appearance is also paramount.


What are a body-slave's duties?

A body-slave's duties are largely dependent on their owner. From a social standpoint, it is considered highly unseemly for a person of a certain station (someone wealthy enough to own slaves) to appear in public without a body-slave. It's not unlike appearing in public without one's clothes. The body-slave is both a symbol of status and a sign of social responsibility. A person with social pretensions may purchase a body-slave to make themselves seem more important and respectable than they actually are. Sexual service is also generally part of their mandated duties, and most owners of both genders take advantage of this.


How are body-slaves trained?

There's no set standard; it depends on a variety of factors including the age of the slave, the age of the master, the size and wealth of the household, and what functions the owner wants the body-slave to fulfill.

Because of the rigors of the position, body-slaves are generally selected as children. However, their longevity in that position depends on their maintenance of a pleasing appearance, tractable demeanor, skill at performing their duties--and the prevailing social trends. Currently, the fashion is for young, physically attractive slaves; older body-slaves are often sold and replaced with newer models.

In terms to the actual content of the training, it ranges from mentoring by more experience body-slaves, to individual tutoring provided by licensed trainers, to training services that provide in-home instruction as well as classes. As it becomes increasingly common for wealthy children to receive their first body-slave at a very young age, some private schools have begun to develop parallel classes for masters and slaves (for an additional, extremely steep fee).

Slaves and sex, or, Why is the age of consent for slaves so low (10yo)?

While the initial drafting of the New Articles of Slavery contained the core ideals of the now burgeoning slave labor pool, it did not cover all contingencies and Articles have been added since its inception. Concerns about the sexual abuse of slaves resulted in the creation of an stated "age of majority" of 10 years old (the age that most children of the time are commonly beginning puberty) and the restriction of sexual contact to body-slaves only.

The reasoning behind the age of majority was a compromise between the Laborists and the fledgling Reformer party, given that many slaves are capable of siring or conceiving children of their own at that age. However, it is not customary for owners to have sexual contact with children that young and most owners wait until their slaves are well into their teens or older.

How much sexual control or permissiveness is exercised varies from owner to owner. Some owners allow their slaves to have sex and propagate indiscriminately. Others have more stringent or refined methods. Though a certain amount of propagation is normal and expected, mass breeding is illegal under the New Articles of Slavery and is punishable by law.


What happens to slaves when they no longer can fulfill their function?

What happens to 'useless' slaves really depends on the owner and, to some extent, the region. Most slaves who are found to be otherwise unsaleable are sold to conglomerations that specialize in cheap slaves and dangerous labor. In individual households, slaves with long service may be given less-demanding tasks as they age. Body-slaves are sometimes transitioned into full-time Agent roles, serving as factors or managers of their owners other properties.

In some places, most notably Hawai'i, the re-emergence of the traditional clan-based system means that to a far greater extent than on the mainland, slaves are considered part of the family. Slaves are rarely sold out of the family and are cared for in their infirmity; selling your body slave because he's too old is seen as the mark of a vulgar mainlander.


Are there rules or laws for owners about the treatment of slaves?

Yes, of course there are. The enforcement of those laws, on the other hand, is another matter. Owners are responsible for the health and well-being of their slaves--within 'reasonable' parameters. They are required to clothe, feed and house their slaves appropriately. As slaves are still technically the property of Commerce, owners are not allowed to kill or permanently damage (maim) slaves. Owners are supposed to reserve their sexual contact for their body-slaves exclusively.

There is a Commerce-run review board for slave-initiated complaints, but few complaints are actually lodged. If the review board should find in favor of the slave, against the owner, the owner is generally fined and the slave may be removed from the household or corporation.


Are there rules or laws for slaves?

Again, of course there are. Slaves are considered property; they don't own their own bodies. Therefore they are legally obligated to take care of their bodies. They're mandated to follow the orders of their owners (within the legal parameters of ownership). They're expected to stay in such quarters as are provided for them and behave in an appropriate, respectful manner, not attempting to offer or foment defiance, violence or other forms rebellion against their owners.

More specific rules and/or expectations are generally laid out by a slave's owner and may change from owner to owner. It is a slave's duty to perform those tasks and/or abide by those rules specific to their owner.


How are slaves identified? And what's the deal with those collars?

When slaves are seized by or sold to Commerce, they are given a small freeze brand and tagged with a microchip. In addition, slaves who work in the public arena or--like Agents and body-slaves--are frequently off their owner's estates or grounds are required to wear a collar. The composition of the collar depends on the discretion of the owner, but all slave collars are further tagged with the slave's identity and the extent of their permissions to conduct their owner's business.

Slaves are further identified by their provenances, documents that come in both written and online forms. The provenance contains salient details like physical description, the physical condition of the slave, identifying marks, previous ownership and relevant experience.

It is important to note, however that, while Commerce does everything in its power to match slaves with appropriate owners, slaves are not considered individually valuable. Thus there are checks and balances in place within the system to keep searches for slaves general, rather than specific.


Is there any opposition to the current system?

Yes. There is a loosely-organized abolitionist movement centered around the San Francisco Bay Area that primarily seeks minor changes in the law to improve conditions for slaves, with the ultimate goal of legalizing manumission.

More radical "purist" factions of the movement support the idea that any accommodation with the system is inherently immoral, and that the only true way to oppose the system is to refuse to be part of it--which means keeping one's income level below the threshold where one is required to own slaves.

The Empire allows the abolitionist movement to function both to preserve the fiction that dissent is tolerated and to provide a convenient scapegoat if the government does need to tighten security measures due to "terrorist activity." However, the strictly regimented society of the Empire makes it difficult for militant elements to plan Harper's Ferry-style armed uprisings.

Although there are always rumors of attempted escapes, and every slave has heard the stories of severe punishment inflicted on captured runaways, the Commerce Department has never reported any loss of slave labor other than through natural death, job-related accidents or misadventure. The measures in place--microchipping, physical freeze-branding, and the restrictions on slave travel, as well as the cooperation of most other industrialized nations--make it virtually impossible for slaves to escape their employment.

Comments

[ysbail.livejournal.com]

Bleak and disturbing... Jeff's kind of going for the Hawaiian model of slave management. While abolition and manumission are pipe dreams, it seems like the best model to follow.

[poisontaster]

Well, I think abolition and manumission are a long way from HAPPENING at this point in the timeline, I'm loathe to call any human rights movement just a pipe dream. Or...if it is, I think it's a pipe dream worth having. :) But yes, it's definitely a very controlled, dystopic environment.

[spae.livejournal.com]

Eeeee! Awesome! Can't wait to see what appears in this comm!

[poisontaster]

Me either! *bounces*

[wickhouse2005.livejournal.com]

If Great Britain has cut ties to USA, has Canada? It would be expected that we would, but not enforceable. If Canada is anti-slavery have we accepted slave refugees?

[poisontaster]

"Canada" as an entity doesn't really exist anymore. The majority of it got rolled into the USNA. What's left are isolated provinces with no central governmental power. As far as anyone knows, there ARE no slave refugees.

[andycake.livejournal.com]

Awesome.

So much juicy information. Thanks for sharing.

[poisontaster]

Thank you! It was fun trying to organize all this to make sense. And it gives me a better picture to work from too. When I forget stuff, I can just consult my own FAQ! :)

[shalom]

In fact, it's not really known what becomes of Commerce slaves once they become too old to perform their functions.

I've been giving this a lot of thought, and this is additionally worrisome, because when you think of the current general population, there are many many people who are getting home care or are in nursing homes. I fear that Commerce would not be willing to absorb those costs.

[poisontaster]

Well, Commerce slaves, as stated, are kind of a different breed. But often, older slaves who are no longer able to perform are put to more hazardous tasks. Which...usually takes care of the problem.

At the same time, in the free sector, the best assisted living facilities and nursing homes in the free sector generally have contracts with Commerce and are run almost exclusively by slave labor. You just have to be able to afford them.

[amorymichelle.livejournal.com]

A really interesting universe! I've been playing around with stories based on this world since I first read 'A Kept Boy'! It really is intriguing and fascinating... and maybe a little scary, what with the US' *real* economy trembling like it is, LOL! ;) Somehow I think I would make a very bad slave. Just don't have that Jensen temperment!

[poisontaster]

Does that mean we might see a story from you at some point? :)

[msilverstar]

Wow, this is so interesting. Are you & other writers going to post the fic or links here? I hope so because I'd like to keep up.

[poisontaster]

I'm kind of OCD about it, so since I started my story in my journal, I'll probably keep it there and post links here. :) I really hope that people post links and/or stories here!

[lj_stowaway]

Wow. Making a comm is a *great* idea. Thank you!

This 'verse is, as ysbail says, bleak and disturbing, but god, does it resonate. So much to work with here; so much to think about. I look forward to seeing what develops.

[poisontaster]

It was totally darkrosetiger. Her brains, see how shiny they are! *laughs*

I do like how many directions there are for people to work with. It really is a whole world and people can go in almost any direction with it. I think it's going to be kind of awesome!

[gypsy-atavari.livejournal.com]

An intriguing world, like I said. I'd be curious to see the fics that spring from it. :)

[poisontaster]

I'm really excited (and flattered, don't forget flattered) that people have been interested in the universe so much and in writing in it. I never expected such a response. It's kind of amazing.

[marta-kent.livejournal.com]

I've just opened this page and reading now... have my own questions in my head, but I'll translate it for your Russian readers, definitely. Your FAQ will help to understand AKB Universe, idea is simply brilliant.

[poisontaster]

Awesome! I know I owe you a response to your email. I got it, but I haven't had a chance to view the vid yet. Thank you so much, Marta. You're a real hero.

[helloapollo.livejournal.com]

Wow. This sounds incredibly interesting. I'm excited to read and participate.

[poisontaster]

Awesome! Thank you!

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

Great work on the FAQ -- I saw my error in thinking that Laborists were pro-labor when actually they are pro-slavery!
I had also really been wondering how long slavery had been established and had guessed about four generations -- so you all must've planted enough clues to make me deduce that.
It's all very well done -- thanks!

[poisontaster]

Thank you! Really, I don't know if I'd have gotten this far without darkrosetiger; she's really created as much of this as I have, at this point.

I do try and implant enough contextual information to make it all make sense without being a huge anvil. *nods* Thanks!

Re: Commonwealth?

[poisontaster]

Yes, I definitely saw Lady Kidman as a willing participant in Lord Cruise's treatment of the slaves, including Jensen, though I always imagined it was from personal preferences than any social climbing reasons.

Though...to be fair, the USNA has become very xenophobic in recent times, so you do find people from other countries who now reside in America often trying to out-Jones the Joneses, as it were, in regards to slavery to "show" their loyalty.

As I said, the universe is open for exploration, so if you want to write about Cruise/Kidman/Jensen, feel free...as long as you don't mind potentially getting contradicted if/when I reference them in my own story.

[calico-jane.livejournal.com]

Delurking to second (third? fourth?) all the "wow, thanks" comments thus far. Really enjoying all the fic (subtext - more, pretty please? With cherries on top?).

One query as to the general organisation of Commerce. Do they in fact own all the slaves and simply contract out their services (sort of a contract/leasing arrangement, either on a permanent or fixed term basis), or do they sell them outright? With the general control freakiness of Commerce and the ruling elite, it seems unlikely that they would let go of slaves unreservedly. Would they have built some sort of break clause into any contract to prevent slaves being used for purposes they didn't approve of? (Either by those too obvious in their abuse or well meaning abolitionists for propaganda purposes). Or would the relevant legislation allow for simple seizure of property in those circumstances?

Possibly overthinking this *grins sheepishly*.

Also - Great Britain: yay for us! I'd love to think that we're the end stop for the new underground railroad, but I have a suspicion that blockade running would be far more likely...

[poisontaster]

Yes, Commerce owns all the slaves and 'contracts' their service out, which is why it's referred to as a contract and not a bill of sale. They do also reserve the right to reclaim their property if the legal parameters of the contract are not met--though that usually takes a complaint from a slave to put the wheels in motion and that rarely happens.

And you canNOT be overthinking this any more than I am. *laughs*

[poisontaster]

Ha. There's been lots of frantic scrambling behind the scenes trying to piece it all together as I/we made it up. I'm impressed that it hangs together at all! *laughs* Thank you.

[adina-atl.livejournal.com]

*waves* I wanted to let you know how much I'm enjoying this universe and all the stories in it. But of course I also have a question. *grin*

You mention the abolitionist opposition to slavery, but is there any free, non-slave-owning, working-class resentment of slaves? I would think that with the precarious nature of freedom in this society, where losing your job and getting in debt can result in slavery for you, your children, or both, that there would be a good idea of economic anxiety. Focusing the resulting anger against "the slaves taking our jobs!" would be safer than focusing the anger against the slave owners and corporations that use slaves rather than free labor.

I'm also wondering if the aboltionist movement is primarily an upper class movementt or if it also includes working class? (Upper class people who deliberately reduce their income to avoid having to own slaves aren't the same thing as working class, in my opinion.)

[darkrosetiger.livejournal.com]

For the most part, slaves are doing jobs that no one else will do, jobs that in our world are done by illegal immigrants, if they haven't been outsourced already. The fiction of upward mobility is still intact, as well, so working-class people tend to hope that they can stay a step ahead of the game, so that eventually, they can have slaves of their own.

The abolitionist movement is very much an upper-class thing. The government propagandists have done a good job of making the system look better than it is (you can assume that the media is completely bought and paid for). When the abolitionists start talking about how awful the system is, most people who don't own slaves think about the body-slaves, who appear to be pampered pets who don't have to worry about food and clothes and health care.

As far as upper class people who deliberately reduce their income, while it's true that it's a choice, the result is that they're still doing the equivalent of living barely above the poverty line. Keep in mind that people who do this won't have support from their families, and in addition to the economic burden, they'll be watched extremely closely by the government. telesilla's started a piece about David and Kate Hewlett when they were younger, and one of the things that David's worried about is that his mother's convictions will mean that Kate won't have all of the educational and job opportunities that she should.

[angiepen.livejournal.com]

So slaves are tracked via their microchip, yes? And the provenance, or records kept? So some new person is taken into slavery, they get the brand, and the chip has, like, name and stats and I assume some kind of ID number keyed to the Commerce database, so that if someone finds a runaway and scans the chip, the relevant info pops up and they know whom to return the slave to?

IOW, I'm not seeing DNA records here, and I don't remember them being mentioned in one of the existing stories. Correct...? I mean, if they need to have "identifying marks" in the provenance, then obviously they must not have DNA samples of all the slaves, right? [innocent humming]

Angie, who's got a bunny lurking under her desk

[poisontaster]

No, we did not mention anything about DNA samples. *grins*

[asknosecrets.livejournal.com]

...how do you feel about things that are simply smut being written in this universe?

See... I have a Gina Torres muse, who came from a slave fic I was writing a while back. She's got Eric Bana as a body slave. And she's poking me with pointy sticks to write her in this universe (she has Plot. And it's bad plot. I'm facepalming and going "You what?" at her over it). So I've thrown her some smut to hopefully shut her up. But it's kind of plotless/pointless - just pwp. Is that allowed, or is this story-only?

[poisontaster]

*laughs* Smut is DEFINITELY allowed. Not everything has to be (or even SHOULD be) Deep Thoughts. I only WISH I could get to the smut.

[angiepen.livejournal.com]

Seeing other people mentioning whom they're writing about makes me ask whether we should have some sort of claiming post? :/ The character who makes me ask was only a supporting and I'm not even at that part of the story yet, so he's pretty easily replaceable, but I do have about 7K words at this point and it'd kinda suck if someone posted something with one or more of my major characters before I finished. [flail] Or do we not care since this is AU and you stated in the FAQ that whatever's posted here isn't necessarily canon? Is it all right if different writers spin off separate 'verses where they're both writing completely different storylines about Joe Smythe and Bob Jones?

Also, I've been assuming that since this is an AU, if I want to declare that Joe Smythe and Bob Jones's families actually emigrated to the US a few generations back, rather than being (say) Brits as they are in realspace, that's also not a huge deal because hey, it's an AU, and I want to play with Joe and Bob in certain roles. (I probably should've asked this one earlier, but I didn't think of it until now; my main fandom is pretty AU-friendly so I'm not used to thinking about what might or might not be okay elsewhere.)

Or am I overthinking this...?

Thanks!

Angie

[poisontaster]

Personally, I'd prefer to keep it as flexible as possible. I know that it'll become impossible for me (and my memory issues) to keep up with and account for everything in everybody else's stories, so my feeling is that *I* don't really care whether other people are writing the same characters that I am, or whether they spin off in directions that go counter to what I'm doing. I look at it a lot like comic books; each writer picks and chooses what "their" canon is and they write from that place and they happily ignore the rest.

Is that workable for you?

[gblvr.livejournal.com]

So...if an owner is abusing a slave, is the only recourse a slave-initiated complaint? Can someone else make a complaint against an abusive owner?


EDIT: How does this work if the person in debt is not a citizen? Say someone comes over on a work visa, and it expires, and one thing leads to another that leads to said person acquiring the type of debt that would lead to servitude -- if they're British citizens, would they be deported, or become the property of commerce?

[poisontaster]

Yes, outside complaints can be made against abusive owners. In fact, that's the most common source of complaints against owners. But these are the rich and powerful, so it's not necessarily a WISE proposition to go against them, you know?

It depends on the political relations with the country. As Britain has closed off all commerce and travel with the US, Brits are largely persona non grata in the US. Therefore, loss of proper work visas and/or other documentation would put them in a position of being seized for the "debt" of their upkeep as an illegal.

[metropolis22786.livejournal.com]

Is there a limit to the amount of body-slaves someone can own? Or is it as many as they feel able to keep up with?

[poisontaster]

Generally, they only have ONE body-slave, though they can trade hir in pretty much as often as they want (and their budget will afford). They can have other slaves that have comparable amounts of power (Agents), but they really only have the one body-slave.

OTOH, I don't really see any reason that someone couldn't have multiple body-slaves, I think it's more of a convention than a law. I think it would just be seen as excessive and gauche.

In the eternal words of Tim Gunn: Make it work!

[ladyoflisquill.livejournal.com]

Running in quickly to say the more I read about it the more I'm finding this world so facinating.

Wondered if we could get a meta tag though. Some of the "thinking thoughts" post are really interesting and it would be a good way to keep track of them and the discussions they prompt.

I'll be back.

[poisontaster]

I will work on tags, yes.

[alldunn.livejournal.com]

I was inspired and now have a few specific questions that will affect my storyline.

What happens when someone is seized for debt? Are they literally grabbed, are courts involved?

Are children of a slave and a non-slave still slaves? If yes, if the non-slave actually claims them as theirs, does it make a differnce?

Darkrosetiger, can I use the character Dylan Neal? I don't actually need him to make a physical appearance, just use his name as an abolitionist lawyer who could help.

Thanks for any answers and for letting me play.

[poisontaster]

It would depend on the situation, as to whether someone was physically seized for debt. In cases where someone volunteers to be sold for debt, they would have to turn themselves into a Commerce site before any monies would be paid out for the debt. In the case where someone is being forced to sell themselves for debt, then yes, I imagine them being actually physically seized to make sure they don't renege on the debt. Basically, they are arrested for non-payment and then sold to Commerce to resolve the debt.

Whether the child of a slave and non-slave is free or not depends on the parents. If an owner impregnates a slave and chooses not to claim the child as his, the child is a slave. If an owner is impregnated by a slave then she can deny that the slave is the father and claim the child as wholly free. If a slave becomes pregnant by a free person and the owner wants the child, then the child is usually taken from the slave and raised as part of the family...often not knowing who their real mother is. Etc.

You have to talk to Darkrose about Dylan....

Sorry it took so long to answer. I've been a little crazy.

whatwekeep FAQ

[thessaliad.livejournal.com]

Just want to make sure: all slaves are actually property of Commerce, and not of an individual Master or Lord. That is to say, an owner couldn't use a slave as collateral against a bank loan. While a slaves, or their labor, could be used to settle a private transaction between individuals, a slave would not be considered real property in the same manner as a house or a car. So someone who owns a great number of slaves couldn't leverage that into a different form of wealth.

Also, when you say roughly four generations ago, are you talking eighty or forty years? Does that mean slavery became a legal institution after the Great Depression?

Just trying to flesh out some things for my outline. Thanks!

Re: whatwekeep FAQ

[poisontaster]

We deliberately left the timeline vague so that people could play with it how they like. However, it's important to remember that the "current" timeline is somewhat forward of now, as there's orbital stations of sufficient complexity/luxury to host civillian living and planetary mining.

As for using a slave as collateral, that's where it gets a bit wonky. The owner could not use the SLAVE specifically for collateral, but they could use the CONTRACT (and the remaining value on it) as collateral, as Commerce will "buy back" a slave's contract when the owner decides to (or is forced to) sell the slave, just as an owner could sell the remainder of the contract to another interested party. Does that make sense?

(sorry it took so long to answer; things have been hectic)

[ixchel55.livejournal.com]

OK, this is coming in nearly a year later than everyone else, but I have a couple of points I need to clarify. Truthfully I am woefully behind in reading the stories in this 'verse (from all authors) but I intend to catch up in the next few days.

So, questions, observations and more than a little rambling:

). Slaves are owned by Commerce and their contracts are rented by individuals or corporations. During a bankruptcy would slaves (their contracts) be seized by the individuals to whom money is owed to work out the remainder of their contract or would they revert to Commerce where the balance of their value would be disbursed to creditors?

2). Slaves are contracted out and I've seen mention of 'value remaining on their contract' (paraphrased). How often is 'rent' paid on slaves? Monthly? Quarterly? Yearly? Multiple years? Or does it just depend on the chunk of money the owner is willing to lay out at a time?

3). Can a slave's contract be taken over by someone willing to pay a higher price? Say Lady X wanted Slave A, owner by Master Y? At the time of the contract renewal could she sweep in and offer to pay more and obtain the slave?

4). Are slave contracts inheritable? Can their contracts be disposed of in a will?

5). I've seen mention of slaves going back to Commerce while contract negotiations are going on. I'm assuming if someone is willing to pay the asking price to another individual for a slave's contract and the funds are available for immediate transfer, the new owner can take possession of the slave immediately? No need to go into 'escrow'?

6). It seems logical that a slave's value would decrease if he were damaged in some way or as he aged. Would a slave's payment price (to the same owner) decrease over the years? It also follows that if a slave is returned to Commerce much better trained than when he went out, the next owner would be charged more. Could an owner be charged more for the next payment for a slave if the slave's knowledge or skills increased as a result of that owner's training? Or would the price be locked in? If a slave is damaged while in a household (like Misha in nilchance's story) assuming the slave isn't sold or the contract lapses back to Commerce, would the next contract payment remain the same or be reduced?

7). Body slaves and Agents have a great deal more freedom than other slaves. Is this something that has to be approved by Commerce or is it solely up to the owner?

8). Suppose a body slave ages but is still too knowledgeable and valuable to replace: at the owner's discretion can that body slave's job description be transferred to that of Agent?

9). Lastly (and aren't you glad *G*), what exactly is an Agent?

[poisontaster]

1. During a bankruptcy, common practice is that slaves revert to Commerce and their remaining value disbursed to the creditor.

2. The phrase "value remaining on the contract" is simply a term for the value of the slave. After a certain age, a certain amount of damage, etc., a slave can be determined to be "of no value" and sold to the highest bidder. There is no set term of service on a slave's contract. The owner pays a one-time price and then is charged with feeding and care--including required medical services, etc--of the slave until the slave is sold back to Commerce or to a new owner.

3. No. An interested party could approach the slave's current owner and offer to buy the slave, but the interested party could not go over the current owner's head to Commerce and buy the slave out from under them.

4. Slave contracts are inheritable, with proper estate tax.

5. Yes, Escrow is not always necessary for each sale. In the case of Jeff, Jensen and Bill Crudup, Jeff didn't trust Crudup not to damage or otherwise harm Jensen and Crudup was reluctant enough about selling Jensen that he wanted to make Jeff pay through the nose for it. If agreement is immediately agreed upon and the funds are available, then no, there wouldn't have to be an Escrow holding.

6. A slave-price is a one-time payment, as I said above. So, as in Misha's case, his value is now considerably lower--based on age and damage--than it was when Vincent Price originally purchased him. Any training that an owner gives the slave does potentially increase his value, but that only comes into play when/if the slave is sold.

7. This is a hard one to answer. By the nature of their job, body-slaves and Agents have a certain amount of autonomy/freedom...but how much is given and how it's exercised is at the discretion of the owner. For example, when Jensen was owned by Hutton, he ran Hutton's entire household, including the disbursement of funds. When Jensen was owned by Cruise, he was responsible for certain functions--largely social--but not others (he didn't handle money, he didn't run the household, he had no real business functions). When he was owned by Crudup, Jensen wasn't much more than a pretty, sexual house-pet.

8. Yes. That's what happened with Kane, Zach and Mary-Louise. Going into question 9, an Agent is generally just an upgraded body-slave; one who has the discretion to handle higher function affairs of his master, make deals/promises for his master, run businesses. S/he acts as an extension of the Owner, the representative of the Owner hirself.

Did that answer everything?