Anyone honestyl reviewing the debate over the past few pages will see that it is a non-sequitor.
i certainly hope they post and provide explanations belo.
it seems clear that you deny that people can contract away their lives and liberties, in general, and then when you are brought to account to specific instances thereof, you claim foul.
Brainpolice, What if every right that you say a person cannot alienate, he consents to pretend to alienate? Can you consent to pretend things? And what if every bit of evidence that you claim as proof of this person wanting out of the contract is accounted for as being part of the act?
I’m not sure if I understand your question. He consents to pretend to alienate? What does that even mean?
I think he pretends to consent to alienate.
Ah. I still dont get the question, and it seems like a really weird question to ask. I don’t see what they’re trying to get at. What does it mean to pretend to consent to alienate? My point was that it is impossible to alienate the will from the body. So “to consent to alienate” is a phrase I don’t understand. I cannot “consent” to alienate my will because it is impossible to alienate the will. Confusing matters further, how can I “pretend” to “consent” to “alienate”? This is incredibly weird language and the question seems logically incoherant in and of itself.
why do you think the issue of whether the ‘will’ is alienable relevant to the question of whether someone can be the absolute servant of another, and whether this outcome could be arrived at by voluntary agrement.?
who has what will isn’t in the question.
Guess UFC is done for in a libertarian society.
Or boxing for that matter.
or medical surgery, or anything that involves bodily risk/danger [:|]
These are nonsequiturs, guys.
Only because boxers and UFC wrestlers are masochists I would presume.
Mind explaining why? He said that unless you are a masochist you cannot consent to an act of violence. A boxing match is a consent to an act of violence, unless I am missing something somewhere (which is entirely possible).
You definitely can’t assume everyone who gets in a ring is hoping to get hurt.
non-sequitur back at ya.
You say someone can’t alienate certain rights. You say people can’t consent to slavery. I’m asking, Can I consent to pretend to be a slave? If I consent to pretend to be a slave then at what point do you know I’m not pretending? How do you know what I want or don’t want?
If you say, “Aha, he wishes to break the contract. See, he’s begging someone to help him out of his slavery.”
And I say, “Au contraire. His protestations are a part of his act. I have contracted with him to pretend to be my slave and that’s what he’s doing - pretending.”
Also, can’t contracts be transferred, ie bought and sold? If you wish to free someone from their contract isn’t it incumbent upon you to pay the cost of such a contract?
Pretend Slavery: “I, Jeffrey Tucker, consent to playing the role of Brainpolice’s slave. Any and all actions forthcoming shall be construed as part of this role playing.”
Are you saying we can’t delve into the fine arts?
There seems to be some bollocks floating around here, but maybe I have misunderstood the concept of ownership. I was under the impression that owning something implied the right to divulge one’s self of said object should one be so disposed. Thus, if there is a “self” which owns the body, then, yes, certainly, ownership of the body could be transferred. However, this brings in the question of mind/body dualism. I think BP’s two blog posts on the subject dealt with this fairly well.
Viewing the body and mind (/soul) as one is firstly more coherent, and secondly allows us a less cloudy vision of what it means to own. With this idea in place, there are clear logical problems with transferring ownership of one’s person. Who is doing the selling? Moreover, seeing as one’s person instantly the property of the new owner, equally, the money paid for the transferral of ownership would fall instantly into the new owner’s hands; the new owner has paid nothing.
My biggest problem with the argument I have just made, is the fact that one can clearly rent one’s person (e.g. labour, prostitution).
I’m beginning to suspect this thread is a retard fest. I’m not pissing on anyone’s beliefs. I’m saying that there’s waaaaay too much trolling going on right now, keeping this from being a constructive conversation.
Now, if slavery is the ownership of one person over another, and if self-ownership is axiomatic, then how can there be “voluntary” slavery?
im not trolling. Ive asked this question for over a year and get no answer.
Simple. If you agree to sell your all your rights to someone in exchange for x or y indefinitely, then that is a particular case.