Okay, if you define a required short limited period of service for public good as slavery then sure most civilized and uncivilized countries implement it and many people support it. I&#x27;ll concede this point, though I don&#x27;t think there&#x27;s very many people in this universe who would use the word &#x27;slavery&#x27; to describe this so you may be a unique snowflake in this regard.<p>I think the reason multinationals treat employees better is because that since they are multinational, they are a single company subject to the laws of every nation: it is more efficient for them to treat EVERYONE by the same rights as the most stringent (Europe) whereas companies local to India or the US can abuse the lack of rights these countries give workers since they only deal with local workers.<p>And I would agree with you about consent being the big bright line. Except I think consent is very complicated. If you allowed people to sign themselves into slavery, people would consent to slavery. No matter how awful something is, if it&#x27;s allowed, people will &quot;consent&quot; to it -- the most desperate in society are forced by circumstances to consent to it. I think the word consent only has meaning when there are other meaningful options available. Which I think is the fundamental difference: the definition of consent. We all agree if someone puts a gun to your head and demands consent it&#x27;s not consent: but what if a faceless nameless system forces you to die or consent to whatever some collection of business owners demand and you agree: is this consent or not? I say not really.