I disagree with this. What makes someone a slave or not a slave isn’t choice but the adaquency of the force they apply in self-defense.
I agree. I’m trying to avoid semantics, and I think you did avoid semantics in what you say here.[:)]
I think we have reach an era of linguistic debates here on the forums and its rather tiresome. People yelling at each other over words.
Optimist.
Haha! Trust me, I’m a delightful guy in person.
people you shouldnt trust: people that say “trust me”
And the Dutch! [:P]
As long as the slave has agreed to it. And perhaps we are going to get in a semantic debate here. I think an agreement to sell your labor in exchange for giving up some freedom, e.g., the freedom to leave and seek employment elsewhere, is perfectly legitimate. In fact, that is what every employment relationship is to some degree. Trophy wives routinely agree to forego all the rights they’d otherwise have in exchange for providing sex and companionship to wealthy men. My current employer won’t let me earn any income from my skill set from anybody else; that is a restriction on my right to seek employment.
For people with marginal skills, a secure source of room and board may be far more valuable to them than their personal liberty.
footnote: misuse of “slave” and “right” in this paragraph…
lol, no important words then !
One cannot sell his or her self into slavery, slavery implies without consent.
Yeah, I ought to put in my sig “WORDS ARE TRICKY.” They are. One cannot sell oneself into slavery as so defined, but one can sell oneself into 100% servitude if one wishes (cancelable at any time). In fact, a job is 100% servitude for 40 hours a week. If someone worked 4.2 full-time jobs (24 hours a day, 7 days a week - may include a job where you sleep and sleep scientists study you), they would be a full-time servant.
Of course, they would get paid handsomely for that. Maybe more germane is that if 1/3 of your income goes to taxes, you’re 1/3 a slave (even slaves get to sleep and have rec time), at least during your work hours.
I agree.
Typical consequentialist. A decent human being among people who might benefit or cost him professionally or socially, but an obnoxious lout once the Ring of Gyges of internet anonymity is slipped on.
Not getting into the Giles debate, but can’t a consequentialist consider “feeling bad about oneself because one has behaved in a troll-like manner” (or whatever the accusation is) as a bad consequence?
Are you sure? That really is to say "We are free, so I can opt out of government TODAY?
The advisor/mentor to govern that you mentioned, if he has the ability to use force against you for not following arbitrary rules, it is slavery
The fact that he has a master is not his choice, that is decided by who claims legitimate authority over the land he resides in,
hence why having a government is slavery, and not a choice
Good point. I suppose egoist would be the word to use…
But when stripped of the ability to DO, thinking is pointless, do you understand that I can say I do not like blank, but without actually doing something about it, I am not invoking the power of liberty?
I am more to the agreement of what AC is saying in regard to S-D…
There are ways to rid liberty, manipulation works very well…
I’m saying the choice is potential as long as the person is alive. Liberty under the circumstances you are discussing is limited to two choices: accept or brute force (self-defense). Do I want my liberty to come down to these two choices only? Heck no. Liberty can’t be removed from the person that’s why it’s a natural right. It is “of” the person. Aggressors (anti-liberty) can bury ones liberty into only these two choices which is why I see what I’m saying is in line with AC as well. So the futility of choosing self-defense might be so great that it could be like one person against a million, but futile or not, the choice remains.
Liberty isn’t rid. Restricted, yes. But if it is rid, then how can a person ever in their life get it back? They couldn’t, cause it’s not in their possession anymore according to what you are saying. I disagree with that notion.
No we are not…
“I think an agreement to sell your labor”
Fine
Fine
You give up the freedom to do as you please for the time that you are being compensated for, but if you are part of an intern program, where you recieve free training for a time of employment (Disney does 5 years) there is nothing to say you cannot terminate the contract early and pay for the training (as exorbinant as it may be)…
No, it is not, every employment relationship is a market exchange of labor for X
I missed the trophy wife booth on career day, oh wait, that is because it is not employment…
This is like saying that a housewife is forgoing rights to cook, clean and raise children…
And how does this happen?
Are you outing yourself as marginally skilled labor?