Voluntary Slave contract?

[Brainpolice]

@Stolz25

@Brainpolice

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.

Guess UFC is done for in a libertarian society.

That’s a non-sequitor. It would fall under my definition of masochism technically. Mutual masochism.

[Brainpolice]

@scineram

These are nonsequiturs, guys.

Yes, all of them are nonsequitors. Thankyou.

[Brainpolice]

@Thedesolateone

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).

Right, but renting out your labor is not literal ownership over your body.

[Brainpolice]

@pairunoyd

im not trolling. Ive asked this question for over a year and get no answer.

Your question is rhetorical trick.

[Brainpolice]

@RogueMerc

@krazy kaju

Now, if slavery is the ownership of one person over another, and if self-ownership is axiomatic, then how can there be “voluntary” slavery?

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.

Rights are not bought and sold, they are inalienable by natural rights theory. I’ve already explained this pages back.

[nirgrahamUK]

is masochism a legal term in natural law, or is it just a pschological/opinion evaluation thats personal to you.

if the latter, then you launched the original king of all non-sequiturs on this thread

[banned]

@krazy kaju

Now, if slavery is the ownership of one person over another, and if self-ownership is axiomatic, then how can there be “voluntary” slavery?

You could construct an axiom of self-ownership but for it to be applicable you would first have to show that there is a duality of the self. Without first demonstrating mind/body dualism the axiom is meaningless. In fact, many ideas on self ownership simply lead to a regress of the self owning the self owning the self and so on.

[RogueMerc]

@Brainpolice

@RogueMerc

@krazy kaju

Now, if slavery is the ownership of one person over another, and if self-ownership is axiomatic, then how can there be “voluntary” slavery?

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.

Rights are not bought and sold, they are inalienable by natural rights theory. I’ve already explained this pages back.

People even today will sign a contract for work, saying that they will work for xyz period of time, for abc compensation. The scenario I portrayed would be in which one were to extend xyz period of time to that persons lifetime and that abc compensation would be zero.

What would you call this scenario?

[pairunoyd]

@RogueMerc

People even today will sign a contract for work, saying that they will work for xyz period of time, for abc compensation. The scenario I portrayed would be in which one were to extend xyz period of time to that persons lifetime and that abc compensation would be zero.

What would you call this scenario?

BP says you can break the contract i.e., you retain your ability to consent (or not consent).

Right?

[RogueMerc]

Wouldn’t that be breach of contract?

[nirgrahamUK]

certainly anything that the contract itself states about its own dissolutionment would be very relevant. i.e. breaking penalties consented to at the initiation of the contract

[pairunoyd]

@RogueMerc

Wouldn’t that be breach of contract?

Yes, he would be a breach baby and would receive a demerit. His ostracization would depend upon the import society places on said breach.

[Juan]

I’m late to the party, but, isn’t “self-ownership” a metaphor of sorts, not to be taken literally ? Self-ownership is another way to say that such a thing as natural rights exists ?

[nirgrahamUK]

@Juan

I’m late to the party, but, isn’t “self-ownership” a metaphor of sorts, not to be taken literally ? Self-ownership is another way to say that such a thing as natural rights exists ?

i imagine different people have their own pet definitions to suit their purposes. I would probably say my personal interpretation is just that its short hand for saying that, you assume that if there is a rational body, it is a sovereign moral agent so long as there is no evidence that it has freely enterred into contractual obligations towards other moral agents that would impinge that sovereignty.

[Maxliberty]

@pairunoyd

@RogueMerc

Wouldn’t that be breach of contract?

Yes, he would be a breach baby and would receive a demerit. His ostracization would depend upon the import society places on said breach.

Yes, the critical issue is if you believe penalties in contracts can be enforced. If you don’t like your quote above indicates then there is no possibility of a slave contract because there is no enforcement of contracts and you are relying only on ostracization. By BP’s definition almost any contract related to labor becomes a slave contract. For example if a contract says that if you don’t perform the work you will go to jail becomes impossible.

[pairunoyd]

@Maxliberty

By BP’s definition almost any contract related to labor becomes a slave contract. For example if a contract says that if you don’t perform the work you will go to jail becomes impossible.

Unless of course you’re being contracted for entertainment purposes, i.e., pretending to labor and pretending to be in a cage against your will. Then we know you’re just funning and you’re allowed to continue honing your higher art.

[pairunoyd]

Wouldn’t a person that could be thrown into jail for breaching a contract have an economic advantage? Wouldn’t the demand for such contractors be greater than the demand for unincarcerable contractors (parties)?

[banned]

@Maxliberty

By BP’s definition almost any contract related to labor becomes a slave contract.

Not this garbage again.

@Maxliberty

For example if a contract says that if you don’t perform the work you will go to jail becomes impossible.

Because not abbiding by that contract is not an act of aggression. A contract itself is meaningless outside the concept of property ownership. Unless ownership has been breached, you have no enforceable claim against someone.

[pairunoyd]

Can’t the ability to hold one’s self more accountable add value to one’s property, property being one’s self? If I agree to be enslaved for X time and agree to beatings if I breach the contract, wouldn’t this give me more value than the guy that only has to walk away from his obligations? If one man’s skills are more employable than mine, this inducement might allow me to compete against him.

[RogueMerc]

@pairunoyd

@RogueMerc

Wouldn’t that be breach of contract?

Yes, he would be a breach baby and would receive a demerit. His ostracization would depend upon the import society places on said breach.

How about an anarcho-capitalist society?