I don’t know what semantic tricks you are talking about. Are you saying that slavery is not involuntary servitude? And I assume you think murder is not killing someone without their permission either, right?
I don’t disagree. But that is not slavery.
@SpideyNW, that depends on what the courts say. If the courts say that I can keep a slave against their will provided they signed their name on a piece of paper at one point, then I can. If the courts say I can’t then I can’t.
Contracts work in whatever way the courts decide they work. And since there would be multiple courts (probably regional courts) it’s fair to assume that contract law could vary greatly depending on the region.
“To say that this is equivalent to any other contractual dispute is simply false.”
Well every situation is unique, but having the quality of uniqueness is not unique.
Still I don’t see the problem here as at all insurmountable.
Suppose you are a slave, and most would estimate the probability that you entered into the contract voluntarily is about 50%. We may not want to liberate you, because if it turns out you entered into the contract voluntarily, we could be liable for theft.
Simple solution, the large powerful economic interests should boycott your master. And remember, in a society without anti-trust laws and laws against discrimination, this could be very powerful. We might be living in a world where all the highways are owned by some GM/Microsoft/AT&T conglomerate, and your master’s options would be very restricted. Eventually the master would renounce ownership of you just so he could drive from LA to St. Louis.
Furthermore, I think that most Heathian Anarchist communities, which I imagine would dominate, would ask its members to sign contracts promising not to buy slaves, with some significant consequence if the contract is violated.
I look forward to reading it.
But the whole point is that I don’t think any aggression takes place in a slave contract. So any discussion of this misses the mark.
You need to get better hookups, I’m making money off my wife.
I think the biggest market for slavery might be adult Latin American women selling themselves into slavery in exchange for large payments to said woman’s family.
Spidey, I just see the sale of one’s body into a slave contract as no different from the sale of one’s car. If you sell me your car, it is my car, if you sell me your body, that body belongs to me. Or do you believe any kind of contract, such as the sale of one’s car, can be invalidated if the seller has doubts?
The courts will say that you cannot force someone to abide by a contract. Again, the natural consequences of not following through on a contract would be that people would not trust you as much and there is always the possiblity of someone taking matters into their own hands.
And again, there is no such thing as a slave contract. Slavery is involuntary. That is like saying one could consent to being murdered. You can’t, because by definition, murder is being killed involuntarily. But one could sell one’s body, sure.
@PirateRoghtbard, as I keep saying, slavery is involuntary, so it cannot be contracted voluntarily. That is not to say that one cannot sell one’s body to another to let them do with you as they please. On the other hand, one can always invalidate such a contract at anytime, just like one will be able to invalidate any contract.
Interesting, We’ll just have to agree to diagree on that one. If you sell me a car and come back two weeks later saying you changed your mind, as far as I’m concerned, that’s my car and you’re trying to steal it.
In the same way, if you sell your body to me, and your family comes back two weeks later and says they want to liberate you, they are attempting to steal.
It really sounds like you have a very radical view on contracts which I have yet to come accross, but I’m still not totally sure. Tell me on this specific issue, do you really believe you can reclaim a car that you sold to me two weeks ago? (And let’s assume that I have held up my end of the contract, ie I did not give you fake money or something like that)
I’d prefer indentured servitude to…
Some tyranical rogue minarchist utopia that can declare a 14th Amendment ratified when not done accoridng to law in which all persons become defacto federal citizens at birth subject to random exise taxes for the privileges of a democratic rule by the majority congress.
At least the former is subject to negotiated terms.
This assumes one would own an acquired slave forever, which is an assumption not regularly made for, say, a tractor. Plenty of flexibility could be achieved through a vibrant slave market. You sell slaves when you don’t need them and buy more as needed. Freely formed slave prices would quickly adjust to the market’s supply/demand of/for them, just like for anything else in the market.
Here’s a thread on the idea of personal incorporation (i.e. ownership/market in shares of others) which would cover the grey zone between 100% self-ownership and outright slavery (0% self-ownership). Decent brain-gymnastics, I thought:
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/the-unincorporated-man-book/9826
Z.
"Interesting, We’ll just have to agree to diagree on that one. If you sell me a car and come back two weeks later saying you changed your mind, as far as I’m concerned, that’s my car and you’re trying to steal it.
In the same way, if you sell your body to me, and your family comes back two weeks later and says they want to liberate you, they are attempting to steal.
It really sounds like you have a very radical view on contracts which I have yet to come accross, but I’m still not totally sure. Tell me on this specific issue, do you really believe you can reclaim a car that you sold to me two weeks ago? (And let’s assume that I have held up my end of the contract, ie I did not give you fake money or something like that)"
You can sell your body, but you cannot sell your mind. As such, there is no permanent purchase of another human. Once a car is sold, the contract is completed, and as such, taking the car back would be theft. Once one sells his body, the contract is not completed, because the individual still has his mind. The contract is in effect until the seller decides against it. It is no different than me contracting with you to mow your lawn all summer. In the middle of the summer, I can invalidate the contract if I wish, just like if I sell you the use of my body for the rest of my life, I can terminate the contract at any time I wish.
Bro, if you prematurely terminate the contract, you get sued for breach of contract.
Slaves might be able to run away but if they get caught, they’re supposed to be returned. Just like a stolen car would be returned.
If they’re not returned then I at least have to be compensated for loss of property.
What you’re saying is that no one can own another person, but that’s nonsense. It all depends on what the law says. If the law says I can own another person then I can. If it says I can’t then I can’t.
Also, someone can consent to be murdered, it’s called assisted suicide.
Also, someone can consent to be murdered, it’s called assisted suicide.
assisted suicide…that’s consenting to be killed. consenting to be put to death. However, being ‘murdered’ is something else. look it up if you don’t believe…
Lol Semantics with Libertarians, with your hosts NirGraham and Spidey
I don’t like these emoticon choices.
All hail the holy, infallible LAW!
All hail the holy, infallible LAW!
What regard you have for the law, and how much mind you pay to it, is your own affair, but that does not mystically revoke its status.
Law and morality are unrelated subjects.
For one, law exists (at least in the sense that ‘chess exists’) and morality does not (at least not in the sense that logic exists).
“Bro, if you prematurely terminate the contract, you get sued for breach of contract.”
You do realize the way lawsuits work, is that even if you “win”, you still have to collect. I would imagine it would work the same way in a voluntary society. That’s why it would not be very smart to buy a person, they could always run away.
“Slaves might be able to run away but if they get caught, they’re supposed to be returned. Just like a stolen car would be returned.”
Returned by whom? It would be up to you to get it back. Of course if the thief did not return it, and an arbitrator determined it was stolen, then the thief would probably have a hit to his credibility and no one would complain if you took it back when you found out where he lives. Just like today, it is up to banks to get their cars back, not the government, I would guess it would work the same in a voluntary society.
But good luck getting a person back. Of course, if you paid them thousands of ounces of gold, then I would probably watch out if I were that person that sold her body as well. But if one did pay thousands of ounces of gold for a person, then I would think the buyer was pretty stupid anyways, since their property can probably run off.
Thanks for your clarification. You’ve added a new dimension to this discussion, the whole question of mind body dualism.
I reject any kind of mind/body dualism, I don’t believe there is a ghost in the machine. However, this is a snoozer of a topic in my book.
I still see no reason why a body, a brain or a “mind” can’t be sold. Obviously you disagree. If you were my slave I would give you 30 lashes for your arrogance.