Self-ownership

[Geilinor]

How would you leave slavery after you enter into it? You signed away all your rights and now you want them back, but you don't have the right to.

You shouldn't have entered it if you didn't want to be a slave. And we should allow them to buy their rights back.

This is sounding more and more like, "I hate the poor, they should be slaves!"

[Great Kleomentia]

I guess you would rather have homeless people freeze and starve to death while you wait for your little "development" to start and progress, instead of having them under a roof. You gotta break some eggs for a omelet, right?

For starters I would pursue that development in any way I can instead of proposing a "solution" that would be a slur to humanity, as you do.
Tell me, would you allow the owners of the slaves to rape their slaves as well, since, you know, they're their rightfull property.

No, i wouldn't. I wasn't suggesting old school slavery. There would still be a set of rules. You wouldn't be allowed to abuse them. They would exist as free labour and could buy their freedom back in case they manage to get the money for it. And again, if this is done voluntary, i don't see your problem.

In any case, this would only be temporary. Until we develop society to the point when everyone has enough.

[Geilinor]

Slavery is civil death. It means you have no rights, and your owner can dispose of you as they will. Because you are property, and under a libertarian regime there are no laws telling a man how he can and cannot use his property.

It is only justifiable if it is 100% voluntary. If you have doubts about selling yourself into slavery, then it is not 100% voluntary.

If your alternative to slavery is dying of cold and hunger, is slavery really voluntary?

[Arkolon]

And again, if someone goes into that ride willingly then it is their own choice. Who are you to tell them what to do with their body? If they want to sell their rights, then it's their thing. You can't stop them simply because you don't want to do it.

So rights are property to be bought and sold? Does buying rights give you double rights?

No, natural rights come from self-ownership. You cannot have "double-rights" as they are an inquantifiable.

[Camelza]

How would you leave slavery after you enter into it? You signed away all your rights and now you want them back, but you don't have the right to.

You shouldn't have entered it if you didn't want to be a slave. And we should allow them to buy their rights back.

Good thing that the majority doesn't believe in such reactionary nonsense.
"buy their rights back"? just disgusting.

[Geilinor]

For starters I would pursue that development in any way I can instead of proposing a "solution" that would be a slur to humanity, as you do.
Tell me, would you allow the owners of the slaves to rape their slaves as well, since, you know, they're their rightfull property.

No, i wouldn't. I wasn't suggesting old school slavery. There would still be a set of rules. You wouldn't be allowed to abuse them.

A slave has no right to report abuse or sue in courts.

[Great Kleomentia]

You shouldn't have entered it if you didn't want to be a slave. And we should allow them to buy their rights back.

This is sounding more and more like, "I hate the poor, they should be slaves!"

Seeing how i have lived most of my life in such a state that would be classified as poor, if not even worse, i would beg to disagree.

[Trotskylvania]

"Voluntary" slavery can be compelled. Allow it, and you're going to be seeing poor people forced to sell themselves into slavery by chancery courts to settle their debts.

And as I pointed out previously, the very concept is destructive to liberty. Voluntary slavery regimes inevitably turn into perpetual chattel slavery regimes if allowed to exist.

It would have to be explicitly outlined, and the legal process would be very, very different from repo men coming over and taking your flatscreen TV. You would not be allowed to implicitly sell yourself into slavery, and it would only be legitimate if you were totally aware of all the risks and consequences of selling yourself into slavery. Notice how I said 100% voluntary, and not 75% voluntary or >50%+1 voluntary.

Such protections existed in Ancient Rome. They didn't work, and in fact made the problem worse by providing an air of legitimacy to the process of enslaving citizens that it did not deserve.

Here's what will happen, because it has happened every time in the past. Someone will be given a debt relief offer. In exchange for their debt being written off, they will sell themselves into slavery under what seems like generous terms. But the new owner will contrive ways to extend his title and add to the man's debt. The industry will grow and multiply, and no matter how strongly you tried to make the laws to protect those selling themselves as slaves, they will erode in practice.

[Arkolon]

You shouldn't have entered it if you didn't want to be a slave. And we should allow them to buy their rights back.

This is sounding more and more like, "I hate the poor, they should be slaves!"

Yeah, Great Kleo, you shouldn't have cornered yourself into this one. Remember that if a potential slave is not totally sure about selling themselves into slavery, then it is not 100% voluntary, and is therefore not justifiable.

[Great Kleomentia]

No, i wouldn't. I wasn't suggesting old school slavery. There would still be a set of rules. You wouldn't be allowed to abuse them.

A slave has no right to report abuse or sue in courts.

Did i not just say that it would not be old school slavery? The slave would have the right to report abuse, would have to be properly fed and have a roof over their head.

[Trotskylvania]

So rights are property to be bought and sold? Does buying rights give you double rights?

No, natural rights come from self-ownership. You cannot have "double-rights" as they are an inquantifiable.

And if you transfer ownership of yourself to someone else, then by implication your rghts with go with the property title.

[Camelza]

For starters I would pursue that development in any way I can instead of proposing a "solution" that would be a slur to humanity, as you do.
Tell me, would you allow the owners of the slaves to rape their slaves as well, since, you know, they're their rightfull property.

No, i wouldn't. I wasn't suggesting old school slavery. There would still be a set of rules. You wouldn't be allowed to abuse them. They would exist as free labour and could buy their freedom back in case they manage to get the money for it. And again, if this is done voluntary, i don't see your problem.
In any case, this would only be temporary. Until we develop society to the point when everyone has enough.

A slave has no right to report abuse or sue in courts.

Temporary, until the slaves' revolt and their owners' beheadings. Sure.

[Geilinor]

A slave has no right to report abuse or sue in courts.

The slave would have the right to report abuse, would have to be properly fed and have a roof over their head.

Then it is no longer slavery. If they are required to be properly fed and housed, it's employment where you are paid in benefits instead of cash.

[Great Kleomentia]

This is sounding more and more like, "I hate the poor, they should be slaves!"

Yeah, Great Kleo, you shouldn't have cornered yourself into this one. Remember that if a potential slave is not totally sure about selling themselves into slavery, then it is not 100% voluntary, and is therefore not justifiable.

Any action that a person does on their free will is voluntary.

[Great Kleomentia]

The slave would have the right to report abuse, would have to be properly fed and have a roof over their head.

Then it is no longer slavery. If they are required to be properly fed and housed, it's employment where you are paid in benefits only.

Many people would call that slavery as well.

[The Serbian Empire]

If anyone sees how governments claim ownership of my body even when overseas, I believe the state owns you, me, and everyone else. No person except the head of state truly owns themselves.

[Trotskylvania]

A slave has no right to report abuse or sue in courts.

Did i not just say that it would not be old school slavery? The slave would have the right to report abuse, would have to be properly fed and have a roof over their head.

Laws to protect the wellbeing of slaves did not work in the past. Why do you think it would be any different?

[Camelza]

Then it is no longer slavery. If they are required to be properly fed and housed, it's employment where you are paid in benefits only.

Many people would call that slavery as well.

Who would uphold and in which way the rights of those "slaves" though?

[Arkolon]

It would have to be explicitly outlined, and the legal process would be very, very different from repo men coming over and taking your flatscreen TV. You would not be allowed to implicitly sell yourself into slavery, and it would only be legitimate if you were totally aware of all the risks and consequences of selling yourself into slavery. Notice how I said 100% voluntary, and not 75% voluntary or >50%+1 voluntary.

Such protections existed in Ancient Rome. They didn't work, and in fact made the problem worse by providing an air of legitimacy to the process of enslaving citizens that it did not deserve.

Unrelated. Voluntary slavery and nonvoluntary coercive slavery are fundamentally different.

Here's what will happen, because it has happened every time in the past. Someone will be given a debt relief offer. In exchange for their debt being written off, they will sell themselves into slavery under what seems like generous terms. But the new owner will contrive ways to extend his title and add to the man's debt. The industry will grow and multiply, and no matter how strongly you tried to make the laws to protect those selling themselves as slaves, they will erode in practice.

Slavery is never generous. I do not support slavery, but I would not deny someone who is 100% sure they want to commit a 100% voluntary action to sell themselves into slavery. Really, it wouldn't change the world much, because no one would ever do it. My point is that no one is ever 100% sure they 100% voluntarily desire to sell 100% of their self-ownership to someone else.

[Mavorpen]

It would have to be explicitly outlined, and the legal process would be very, very different from repo men coming over and taking your flatscreen TV. You would not be allowed to implicitly sell yourself into slavery, and it would only be legitimate if you were totally aware of all the risks and consequences of selling yourself into slavery. Notice how I said 100% voluntary, and not 75% voluntary or >50%+1 voluntary.

Such protections existed in Ancient Rome. They didn't work, and in fact made the problem worse by providing an air of legitimacy to the process of enslaving citizens that it did not deserve.

Here's what will happen, because it has happened every time in the past. Someone will be given a debt relief offer. In exchange for their debt being written off, they will sell themselves into slavery under what seems like generous terms. But the new owner will contrive ways to extend his title and add to the man's debt. The industry will grow and multiply, and no matter how strongly you tried to make the laws to protect those selling themselves as slaves, they will erode in practice.

All he needs to do is read some basic American history to know this. It wasn't unheard for immigrants to essentially sell themselves just to obtain passage into the country. Their "employers" would have a way to essentially keep their debt alive and force them into indentured servitude.

[Arkolon]

Yeah, Great Kleo, you shouldn't have cornered yourself into this one. Remember that if a potential slave is not totally sure about selling themselves into slavery, then it is not 100% voluntary, and is therefore not justifiable.

Any action that a person does on their free will is voluntary.

But is it 100% voluntary?

[Great Kleomentia]

Many people would call that slavery as well.

Who would uphold and in which way the rights of those "slaves" though?

The same people that uphold the rights of any other individual.

Did i not just say that it would not be old school slavery? The slave would have the right to report abuse, would have to be properly fed and have a roof over their head.

Laws to protect the wellbeing of slaves did not work in the past. Why do you think it would be any different?

Society is far different than it was in the past.

[Arkolon]

Such protections existed in Ancient Rome. They didn't work, and in fact made the problem worse by providing an air of legitimacy to the process of enslaving citizens that it did not deserve.

Here's what will happen, because it has happened every time in the past. Someone will be given a debt relief offer. In exchange for their debt being written off, they will sell themselves into slavery under what seems like generous terms. But the new owner will contrive ways to extend his title and add to the man's debt. The industry will grow and multiply, and no matter how strongly you tried to make the laws to protect those selling themselves as slaves, they will erode in practice.

All he needs to do is read some basic American history to know this. It wasn't unheard for immigrants to essentially sell themselves just to obtain passage into the country. Their "employers" would have a way to essentially keep their debt alive and force them into indentured servitude.

You people really have a problem with what 100% means.

[Trotskylvania]

Yeah, Great Kleo, you shouldn't have cornered yourself into this one. Remember that if a potential slave is not totally sure about selling themselves into slavery, then it is not 100% voluntary, and is therefore not justifiable.

Any action that a person does on their free will is voluntary.

Humans don't have free will in the sense that you suggest.

[Camelza]

If anyone sees how governments claim ownership of my body even when overseas, I believe the state owns you, me, and everyone else. No person except the head of state truly owns themselves.

That is only correct(de-jure at least), for monarchies.
But, in the case of every state; Social Contract.