Self-ownership

[Great Kleomentia]

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

But is it 100% voluntary?

You cannot messure the voluntarity of a act. If you have done something out of your own free will then it is voluntary.

[Camelza]

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

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

And who are these people?

[Mavorpen]

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.

No, we just have a problem with nonsensical gibberish.

[Arkolon]

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.

Wow. Just wow. Where do you think you are?

[Great Kleomentia]

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

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

Please, enlighten me.

[Geilinor]

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.

Why are we debating this if you don't think anyone would do it?

[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.

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

The contract that was involuntarily signed at birth. I believe it's just as much a scam as self-ownership is given governments.

[Arkolon]

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

No, we just have a problem with nonsensical gibberish.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it gibberish.

[Great Kleomentia]

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.

Let me guess. Murica FREEDOM?

[Great Kleomentia]

No, we just have a problem with nonsensical gibberish.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it gibberish.

Welcome to NSG.

[Mavorpen]

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


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.

Why are we debating this if you don't think anyone would do it?

Well, he has to distract us SOMEHOW.

[Great Kleomentia]

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

And who are these people?

The police and the court system.

[Trotskylvania]

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

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

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.

Let me put it to you this way: the first and only thing that US law states on the subject of slavery is its absolute prohibition.

There are still thousands of people being held as slaves illegally in the United States. Slavery as an institution is injurious to liberty, and it is designed to make self-emancipation impossible. Legalizing it will put the law on the side of the slave owner instead of the slave. This cannot be permitted in any society.

[Arkolon]

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


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.

Why are we debating this if you don't think anyone would do it?

It's out of principle. Trotskylvania made a strawman assuming I support slavery because I support self-ownership, and I answered it, and now we're here.

[Camelza]

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

Wow. Just wow. Where do you think you are?

In governmental land? Allowed to be habited by me since I accept the constitution and laws of my state?

[Mavorpen]

No, we just have a problem with nonsensical gibberish.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it gibberish.

No, we clearly understand it. And that's the problem. You don't, which it why it comes out as gibberish.

[The Serbian Empire]

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

Let me guess. Murica FREEDOM?

More like invisible shackles of slavery. The government's slogan should be "Make Every Man, Woman, and Child a Slave!"

[Arkolon]

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it gibberish.

No, we clearly understand it. And that's the problem. You don't, which it why it comes out as gibberish.

"We".

You've literally hidden behind everyone else in every thread I've been in.

[Great Kleomentia]

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

Society is far different than it was in the past.

Let me put it to you this way: the first and only thing that US law states on the subject of slavery is its absolute prohibition.

There are still thousands of people being held as slaves illegally in the United States. Slavery as an institution is injurious to liberty, and it is designed to make self-emancipation impossible. Legalizing it will put the law on the side of the slave owner instead of the slave. This cannot be permitted in any society.

It wouldn't be total slavery. The slave couldn't be abused nor could his basic needs for clothing, food and water be denied. Not to mention that it is not against liberty if the said slavery is voluntary. See that word? It means the person did it out of their own free will.

[Trotskylvania]

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

Please, enlighten me.

Humans do not make choices. They make calculations, based on the imperatives of their basic drives, some of which are genetically inherited, and the others are acculturated.

[Geilinor]

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.

Do you believe 100% free will exists?

[Arkolon]

Wow. Just wow. Where do you think you are?

In governmental land? Allowed to be habited by me since I accept the constitution and laws of my state?

You're in a thread about self-ownership. If you own yourself and you did not give explicit consent to be governed, then the government is trying to "own" you, which is illegitimate. What did you answer in the poll?

[Camelza]

And who are these people?

The police and the court system.

The police and the court system are controlled by the trias politica of the state.
So, let me rephrase that into: Who will write the laws?

[Mavorpen]

No, we clearly understand it. And that's the problem. You don't, which it why it comes out as gibberish.

"We".

You've literally hidden behind everyone else in every thread I've been in.

What does this even mean? You do know what a forum is, right? You can't "hide behind" anyone.

[Great Kleomentia]

Let me guess. Murica FREEDOM?

More like invisible shackles of slavery. The government's slogan should be "Make Every Man, Woman, and Child a Slave!"

Pretty much.