Inalienability of the self

[gotlucky]

@NonAntiAnarchist

1. Selling yourself into slavery is impossible by definition, because slavery implies coercion.

This would seem to be an issue of semantics, though I think the point is absolutely correct.

It’s not that it isn’t impossible. Slavery is a legal institution. It’s just that slavery requires not only force, but aggression, and therefore cannot work with the NAP.

So, technically, there could be instances of slavery which are in fact in line with the NAP (i.e. indentured servitude). It would just have to not violate the NAP. So, forced resitution through indentured servitude could be in line with the NAP.

@NonAntiAnarchist

2. An individual somehow cannot enter a “slave contract.”

This would make no sense to me at all unless it was arrived at via the reasoning in (1).

So long as the “slave contract” is in line with the NAP, it is valid. Indentured servitude is a better name for this than slavery, as slavery has far more negative connotations than indentured servitude (not that indentured servitude doesn’t have any).

@NonAntiAnarchist

EDIT:

Just read through the thread. Can someone define slavery here? If I consented to 20 years of servitude, in which the terms explicitly stated that I subject myself to coercion at any attempt of mine to break the contract, is that slavery? Is that immoral? Is it antithetical to self ownership? I think answering yes to any of these questions disputes self-ownership itself.

Well, slavery is involuntary servitude. Indentured servitude is entering into a contract where one works for another and both have certain obligations. If you read the link, I think you will see a key difference between the two and I will quote the first line:

Indentured servitude refers to the historical practice of contracting to work for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities during the term of indenture.

Indentured servants and their masters both have certain contractual obligations, whereas slaves and their masters do not. So, if we take your example of entering into 20 years of servitude, we have to ask ourselves what is the relationship between you and your master. If it is a slave relationship, then as libertarians, we have to reject that as legitimate. The only way for your master to assert his ownership of you would be through aggression, and that would violate the NAP. If you enter into some kind of indentured servitude for 20 years, then it depends on whether or not you can break it. Historically, people entered into indentured servitude as a way to pay off a debt. If the indentured servant were to break the contract, they would actually be guilty of theft. Historically, at least in the American colonies, the debt was typically regarding passage to the colonies. Someone would pay for your travel, and you would pay off this debt as an indentured servant. If you were to quit before your time is up, then you would be stealing some amount of their money.

So the question really depends upon how one enters into servitude and the particulars of the contract. I think it’s really confusing how Walter Block keeps referring to “indentured servitude” as “voluntary slavery”. Perhaps I’m misreading him, but I think it would make a lot more sense if he distinguished between “slavery” and “indentured servitude”. Not doing so just creates needless confusion.