It seems to me that the majority of Libertarians are against allowing a person to sell themselves into slavery. (Block and some others being exceptions).
By extension, I would assume they would also oppose “lashing contracts”, as in I sign a contract allowing you to lash me under certain conditions. (Say, for example, if I don’t pay back certain debts.
I view this as a very sad limitation on libertarian theory. In the above example, for instance, I might have to pay much higher interest rates if any “lashing contract” if the lender believes that a lashing contract is not a genuine contract.
Uh, I thought Block was for voluntary slavery on a free-market? Voluntarily choosing to become a slave seems like one of the ultimate undefendables to defend, methinks.
Slave contracts (and any contract that is not an exchange) is not a praxeological category of exchange, and thus the economic benefits of free market activity do not apply to it.
“Slave contracts (and any contract that is not an exchange) is not a praxeological category of exchange, and thus the economic benefits of free market activity do not apply to it”
I fail to see the distinction between a person putting their house up for collateral as a loan and putting themselves up for collateral as a loan. .
“Slave contracts (and any contract that is not an exchange) is not a praxeological category of exchange, and thus the economic benefits of free market activity do not apply to it”
I fail to see the distinction between a person putting their house up for collateral as a loan and putting themselves up for collateral as a loan. .
The popular thing among mises forum Rothbardians is to claim that anything they don’t like is ‘praxeologically’ wrong. Your best option is to ignore this.
Liberte: “The popular thing among mises forum Rothbardians is to claim that anything they don’t like is ‘praxeologically’ wrong. Your best option is to ignore this.”
I mean yeah, if it’s not legal to intervene and force people to stop making these arrangements then it will probably happen sooner or later. Not a big selling point on libertarianism to me either tbh.
Liberte: “The 48 million pages of ‘natural law’ arguments wilderness is involved in?”
So Wilderness (and I suppose you mean a few others in those threads as well) represents all Rothbardians on the Mises forum? I thought you were against these types of generalizations. No wait, your 48 million condescending posts prove that you like to generalize a lotz.
Slave contracts are exchange. I give license to punish me in any way possible. You are just totally wrong here. See Block’s paper on this.
Also, a crime like murder is an involuntary exchange. One then has the right to enslave a murderer (imprison/kill).
People seem to assume that since we say something ought to be legal, it would happen more often than it does now if it were to be legal. There’s lots of bridges around, but I don’t go jumping off them.
I’d be interested to read more about ‘slave’ contracts from an informed perspective that considers title-transfer theory. e.g. is being a ‘slave’ an act of specific performance? perhaps the person that wants to be on the slave side should offer his enslaver a performance bond, in the case that the enslaver thinks the slave will later suspend his slavishness. … kinda would defeat the purpose though i guess…
And too bad if there are multiple courts and no single common law system, it’s entirely conceivable that one regional circuit would declare slavery legal and there would be no federal system that could overturn that ruling.
One voluntarily signs one’s name on a slave contract.
The execution of the contract is involuntary, but entering into the contract was not.
If we took your logic to apply to all things legal, anytime someone signed a contract they could just nullify it by saying they no longer wanted to be a party to it.
You have to go back to why there is law in the first place. In human affairs, disputes arise. Disputants can resolve their disputes through violent means if they so choose, but violent dispute-resolution is costly and risky. Since humans have the capacity to talk and reason, there is another option, verbal dispute-resolution. Verbal dispute-resolution is vastly less risky and costly and, where both parties can impose roughly the same costs on one another in the event of violent confrontation, it is in the interest of both parties to resolve their dispute verbally. The systems of verbal dispute-resolution which have emerged over time we call “law”. Law is the alternative to violent dispute-resolution.
So, whether a slave has rights depends on whether he can bring his master to task and provide sufficient incentive to his master to seek legal resolution of the dispute. Many of the pro-voluntary slave contractarians want to treat contractual slavery as if it is not a complicated problem but it is different from other legal disputes since the slave likely has no property with which to purchase legal representation or secure protection from a protection agency. But it doesn’t make sense to simply presume that any slaveholder waving a slave-contract actually has rightful ownership of his slaves. At the very least, such contracts must be subject to review. The real question is who will advocate for the slaves since, absent advocacy, their situation is pretty much hopeless. Family members, friends or charity groups (with an abolitionist bent) could fund advocacy for individuals held in unjust slavery. Whether a contractual agreement to accept enslavement will be legally binding is, I think, something we can’t know ahead of time and likely would vary from one place to another (slaveholders’ property rights have varied significantly through history and from one region to another). Only a process of legal discovery fueled by free competition in customary law could tell what the “right” answer is.
Oh, slave contracts. An oxymoron. The classic. What if I am masochist, and I wish to have a master (preferably a woman) to punish me very very hard? Can I “sell” then my body?
P.S. If I can’t, then who the hell owns me? THE OTHERS!!!