See, this is a philosophical trap that lead Descartes to absurdity, it leads to solipsism/brain-in-a-vat stuff. The fact is that you are both your mind and your body. You are a coherant whole. Without the mind, the body is useless. In turn, the mind is dependant on the organic functions of the body. It is impossible for me to own you as a coherant whole unless I can separate your mind from your body, which is impossible. A claim to own someone else is, in effect, a claim that you can control whatever that person does against their consent. This is slavery. It cannot be reconciled with personal sovereignty because personal sovereignty means that the individual has independance from the control of others.
if its possible for me to enter into a contract that if i should dare to press the big red button in your house, i will be put to death by your sword. and if this could be a legitimate contract, then so too can a voluntary body transfer, or servitude contact, with a cancellation clause allowing the ‘slaveowner’ the right to kill. so the contract could be broken as you say, in a legal sense, and penalty for that exacted; but this is just proof that its a valid contract when its coined, and when its enforced, and when its penalty is exacted.
I’m sorry, but you cannot contract away the right to life and liberty. In libertarian social theory, these are inalienable.
you are begging the question, by insisting slavery mean own every attribute of person X, and not merely subset of concrete real physical propoperties of person Y.
i.e. you decide what they do, and what they materially endure, but not what they think etc.
so you are opposed to assisted suicide.
That is a non-sequitor.
are you allowed to contract away the possibility of life and liberty? i.e. are voluntarily playing russian roullete, or flying experimental aircraft, impermissable acts?
I’m sorry, but you’re simply making bad philosophical arguments for chattel slavery.
You cannot contract away someone’s capability to consent or not consent.
if by non-sequitor you mean a true statement of the logical consequences of your doctrine then yes,. otherwise no
and what does the word chattel add to our word of the day ‘slavery’?
and you arent sorry.
You cannot contract away someone’s capability to consent or not consent. This is absurd. I’ve already demolished this in great detail, and over the course of this debate I’ve added even more philosophical detail as to why this is absurd.
is consent a physical act or a mental one? if the latter it is not necessary to be part of the property title and has no place in this thread.
if the former then it is perfectly alienable, just like i can refrain from walking to aprticular room.
Your questions and argument relies on the very mind/body dichotomy that I have already demolished.
i didnt notice any demolishing.
either; consent is a physical act, or a mental one, or is some mix of both, or neither, what is it?
When you epistemologically and metaphysically break it down, the answer is both. The explicit expression of consent is physical in nature, it’s a matter of action. Consent is not merely a matter of thoughts, it’s a matter of human action. If you make a statement, and my thought process agrees, this isn’t “consent”, its “agreement” in a more purely mental sense of the term.
ok, now we bypass the problem of continous consent, bercause we say
a) we dont care about the mental aspect.
b) in so far as the ‘slave’ wants to physically express the withdrawal of his consent he is contractually obligated to hold back from physically expressing (i.e. make known) his inward rejective thought.
c) if and when he acts physically so as to obviously withdraw consent to the continued operation of the contract (assuming as you insist that is a continoius process, though i think that is heavily debateable), the Master party will have the legitimate right to extract the stated penalty.
the penalty could even by an act of violence. as acts of violence can be agreed to voluntarily. and when agreed to do not violate NAP.
Unless one is a masochist, it cannot be said that an act of violence can be consented to. An act of violence inherently is not consented to by the person who the violence is being used against.
Your argument is bunk and you’ve helped me better flesh out the details of the case against voluntary slavery and a dualistic definition of self-ownership, so I must thank you in this regaurd.
so i cant consent to a surgeon cutting me open . thanks Brain
(or if i do, im a masochist)
That’s a non-sequitor from my argument, not a legitimate reductio.
you keep claiming things are non-sequitors without justification. its really annoying