I don't think you are right here. The institution of government plays very deeply on people's inherent wish for a moral society. People respond very strongly to "moral imperatives" why do you think every evil nonsense evil senate boondoggle bill is to save the children puppies and kittens?

I'm very surprised that the AC consensus in this thread has been that slavery, if initially agreed to by the slave, is ok. I can't help but wonder if it would have been different if zaster had included Rothbard's position and argument as well in the original post, and then asked you who you side with.

And treating the reluctance among statists to answer the "what about joining the military?" question as any kind of sign that you must be right that slavery is ok, is pretty lol. So statists operate with a double standard, where they allow government to do all sorts of terrible things that they don't think individuals should be allowed to do. Big discovery imo.

Why isn't it OK? As far as I can tell, in this thread it seems the main reason that it is not OK is that people don't like the emotionally-charged word "slave" and reflexively react.

Is it OK if the slave gets some payment?

Is it OK if the slave gets to some rights, such as (as one poster here put it) "the right not to be raped"?

What WOULD make it OK?

It is not OK because people own themselves, and this cannot be changed. Every second that passes, I am not the same person as I was the previous second, and with every new second, the new person that I am has ownership of himself. I cannot sign a contract that makes someone else own my future self, because I don't own my future self, my future self owns him.

So when my past self borrowed money to buy this house, my present self is not obligated by the contract? I mean, who does that guy think he is, that he could sign a contract that he would never have to honor and would instead be dumped on ME???

You are obligated by the contract in the sense that the house (and depending on circumstances some other money) will be taken back if you refuse or can't to pay. Not in the sense that you will be physically hurt or forced into slavery if you refuse to or can't pay.

And that's all?

So I can borrow some money to buy a car, crash it into a bridge, then just say "Hey, my past self made that deal with you guys, and a less-past self crashed your car, sorry, but you can have it back now, kthnx." No further obligation for my present or future selves?

If my present self burns the house down, do you think the mortgage company has any claim upon my future self?

If I stabbed you yesterday, does my present self have any responsibility for my past self's actions?

For a seemingly intelligent person I don't see how you are completely missing his point (or you are deliberately making strawman arguments). He is stating that no one has the right to own another human- as humans aren't property. Therefore any contract declaring humans as property and transferrable should be null and void- plus the fact that if the person changes his mind he is therefore no longer a voluntary slave- he is being forced to be a slave. You would propose if he changes his mind he be forced into slavery to carry out the obligation of the contract on the grounds that doing otherwise would be theft- even though some type of financial arrangement for a third party doesn't have to have been stipulated in the contract.

Question to PVN. If a financial arrangement is stipulated in the contract of say $1 million and therefore the person agrees to signing the slave contract... what do you propose should be done if the slave owner once the contract is signed says to the slave that is now their property; "I order you to give me back that $1 million". Is it just tough love for the slave and his "silly mistake" (as Block asserts) for not making sure there was a clause in the contract preventing it?

If humans aren't property, then there can be no self-ownership. And without that we can come up with all sorts of things that everyone here would agree are rights violations.

Well, changing your mind later is really besides the point.

But I DO agree, human ownership is not transferrable. The dispute in this thread is over what constitutes "slavery" (in the sense that such a contract would be void). Just saying that "slavery contracts are obviously void" is meaningless because nobody will even offer what they mean when they use the word. Is a military enlistment enslavement or not?

Why would the slave want the $1MM? He obviously won't be able to use it, at least on the front end of the contract. Wouldn't he stipulate that it would be paid to some third party, or paid at the end of the contract? These types of "gotchas" are just dumb games. See previous comments about contracts without consideration.

I meant that humans aren't physical property that can be transferred.


Grrrr. then you must reject slave contracts as that would be the extreme epitome of a transfer of human ownership and loss of inalienable rights. Rothbard bases his whole argument against slave contracts on that very notion you just stated;

"Let us pursue more deeply our argument that mere promises or expectations should not be enforceable. The basic reason is that the only valid transfer of title of ownership in the free society is the case where the property is, in fact and in the nature of man, alienable by man. All physical property owned by a person is alienable, i.e., in natural fact it can be given or transferred to the ownership and control of another party. I can give away or sell to another person my shoes, my house, my car, my money, etc. But there are certain vital things which, in natural fact and in the nature of man, are inalienable, i.e., they cannot in fact be alienated, even voluntarily."

If you acknowledge that human self-ownership is not transferable, then how on earth can you defend the legitimacy of slave contracts and subsequent enforcement of them? Thats illogical. As Rothbard points out; you have every right to promise yourself to someone, and be morrally obligated to carry it out, but it is a incompatable arrangement and neither party has the right to expect such an arrangement to be validated by any libertarian legal system as the contract proposes a rejection of inalienable rights.

"There is no transfer of title in Smith's agreement, because Smith's control over his own body and will are inalienable. Since that control cannot be alienated, the agreement was not a valid contract, and therefore should not be enforceable."

He may no be so bright as to think of that. If i'm perfectly honest I did not think of this until I read the Walter Block link someone posted earlier. I assume you are of the opinion that this is just 'tough luck'.

I answered this so I don't know why u keep bringing it up. I have outlined what I mean be slave contracts being void; it is the transfer of ones own body and loss of self-ownersip which lacks the controls of a legitimate contract. Any contract for military enlistment that stipulates deserters have there inalienable rights removed I would oppose.

Yes, I would reject contracts that are the extreme epitome of a transfer of human ownership and loss of inalienable rights. I don't think that everything covered by the label "slave contract" falls into that category, but I'm not sure since the people opposing slave contracts won't ****ing tell me what they mean when they use that word.

Jesus, all this fixation on the extreme examples of voluntary slavery is just preposterous. NO ONE IS GOING TO SELL THEMSELVES INTO SLAVERY FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES, ESPECIALLY IF BY DOING SO THEY LOSE ALL OF THEIR RIGHTS. Zaster, how stupid do you think people are? Who would sell themselves into horrible slavery for the rest of their lives?

No obligation for your present or future selves, except that you owe them money.

Yes. Your present self is nearer to bear the responsibility for the stabbing than I, as the innocent stabbed guy, is.

We keep bringing it up because all military enlistments have punishments for deserters that involve the deserter losing his inalienable rights. They go to military prison. Do you agree that every nation in the world has voluntary slavery? If so, why are you singling out ACists and libertarians for their support for voluntary slavery?

"If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life and death; and that to enslave a man is to kill him... Liberty is inviolable. I can neither sell nor alienate my liberty; every contract, every condition of a contract, which has in view the alienation or suspension of liberty, is null: the slave, when he plants his foot upon the soil of liberty, at that moment becomes a free man"

Proudhon

It would depend on whatever the socio-economic conditions are of a given society. There are numerous extreme examples of societies where in fact many people would sign slave contracts. There are a minority of cases in our current society such as this. Luckilly there are laws in place (which you oppose, and even oppose a Libertarian court ruling against it in your ACist utopia) to prevent this and rescure her despite her "stupidity" in signing such a contract. Historical examples would have been the African slaves in America where some wanted to stay with their masters as the fate of many of the freedmen was disease, poverty and persecution. However, it is safe to say we are much better off now that slavery was abolished regardless of the turmoil and horrors of Reconstruction and fate of many of the freed slaves. Denying legal status for voluntary slavery upon abolishing involuntary slavery was indeed a very good thing despite there being a small demand.

I would not call it voluntary slavery but I seriously oppose contracts for military enlistment that stipulate the loss of inalienable rights to deserters, as stated. So I am guilty of no double standard whereas you oppose what you deem as voluntary slavery perpetrated by gov't but so long as its not perpetrated by gov't you think its kosher.

wtf? no one would recognize a "contract" between a boyfriend and girlfriend for sex slavery as binding.

From your linked example:

Looks like this is more an issue of fraud / misrepresentation / meeting of the minds than one of slave contracts per se. If one is tricked into signing any contract, it should be null and void.

As an aside, I've long given up on trying to shed some definitional clarity into this thread, as no one successfully addressed and refuted my previous attempt to do so.

I didn't read the link beyond the first paragraph. Someone else in this thread linked an example of a slave contract that conformed more with the type of contract the ACist here support..

Why would you not call it voluntary slavery? I don't oppose military enlistment as practiced by the state, for what it's worth.

Why not? It's none of my god damn business what some uneducated BONEHEAD does. I am not going to use FORCE to prevent some parasite being dumb enough to sign up to a sex slave contract.


oops im turning into u

[qutoe]I don't oppose military enlistment as practiced by the state, for what it's worth.[/quote]

Exactly. You support military enlistment in of itself, just not when practised by the state. =double standard

what? It's obviously not a real contract. Why would anyone sign such a contract?

huh? I said that I don't oppose military enlistment as practiced by the state. Again, why don't you classify military enlistment as voluntary slavery?

The whole point of this discussion is to see if, hypothetically, ACists would support the extreme example of a total slavery contract. Not some form of indentured servitude, but absolute slavery which strips the signer of the contract of any and all human rights, forever.

Suppose you have a car accident on some rarely-traveled road, and find yourself bleeding to death and in need of immediate first aid in order to survive. Luckily, I just happen to be in the area, and offer to provide you the life-saving first aid, just as long as you agree to be my slave for life. Faced with the prospect of bleeding to death, you sign the contract. Should I now be able to legally own you as my slave for the rest of your life?

(Cue reply: But if slavery is preferable to death, you have improved his predicament! The free market works again!)

LDO.

The main reason zaster thinks he has a case is because of the large degree of conflation in this thread between the following two things:

1) varying degrees and conditions of compensated indentured servitude, and

2) absolute irrevocable slavery with no rights, which no person in their right mind would agree to.

Zasterguava is taking a hypothetical extreme edge case which would pretty much never occur in the real world, and is trying to use it to argue against the much broader example of compensated indentured servitude, and against ACism in general.

No reasonable court would uphold a contract of the type Zaster is hypothesizing, as they would hold it to be signed: 1) under duress, or 2) by a person not in their right mind, or 3) by a minor, or 4) without valuable consideration (a million dollars is not consideration if the slave-owner can just take it back or totally control its usage).

I agree with jman that IF such a totally ridiculous contract were to be in force, it would be immoral and should be broken. But it's a ridiculous hypothetical edge case and you might as well be arguing something about what will happen 10,000 years from now and will it be "moral" to do something no one today has even conceived of doing...it just isn't a real thing to argue about.

Probably ANY moral, philosophical or political system can be confounded with some ridiculous hypothetical edge case example. Heck there even are some logic paradoxes that apparently confound logic. So what?

Give this thread some reasonably real-world examples, and I'll bet the ACists can answer the examples just fine.

Finally, if there ever were to be a case to show why Jury Nullification is so vital to the preservation of essential rights, this extreme edge case would be it. I'd imagine it would also be a case that if it were ever to come to pass, it would be nullified by most juries (now hear the judges solemnly intoning before the voir dire: "Would you be willing to uphold the law even if you disagree with it"? lol). With this example maybe even those who are system-beholden judges or prosecutors can see why the right to jury nullification is so essential to true rights, liberty and justice.

Maybe too, Zaster can see why having judge-only trials and dispensing entirely with juries wouldn't be a good idea. Nearly any jury would nullify this contract somehow: thankfully, and thank God.

This is my third post of the month, and I'm trying to post only about a half-dozen posts each month nowadays, so hopefully you'll understand if I don't happen to revisit this thread. Thanks for reading.