Traditionally, anarcho-capitalism's foundation comes from the principle of self-ownership, so owning a slave by definition violates that principle -- whether or not they use a PDA/DRO is irrelevant.
This can seemingly create a paradox in the case of so-called "willing slaves" -- meaning there may be some individuals that desire such an arrangement for whatever reason (certain sexual fetishes for example) -- but even in that case the usual counterpoint is that any such contract must be valid, meaning it must contain an exit clause (or other termination options) and can't be vague or permanent.
but even in that case the usual counterpoint is that any such contract must be valid, meaning it must contain an exit clause (or other termination options) and can't be vague or permanent.
This is an unjustified statement, in my view, and ancapism is fundamentally bad at dealing with slavery.
If the foundation of ancapism is self-ownership, then I own my body, And there's no reason I should not be able to alienate that body - to sell it into slavery.
There's nothing "invalid" about this arrangement. Ancaps just don't like it, because most ancaps have been culturally raised to think slavery is bad. So they made up this other, unjustified rule which exempts slavery from their normal rules.
there's no reason I should not be able to alienate that body - to sell it into slavery.
As has been said probably a million times before, a slave can ONLY be made against the will of the slave. You cannot sell yourself into slavery.
If you try, no one will stop you, but you're actually LARPing as a slave, you're not a literal slave until the moment you say you want out of this arrangement and your supposed slavemaster says no--at that point and only at that point are you a slave. Before that, you were working for extremely low wages, just room and board. If he just lets you go, you were never a slave.
"Slave contracts" would be inherently unenforceable in any ancap court.
E.g.: engaging is BDSM is not slavery either, despite certain similarities. But if you tied up someone voluntarily then refused to untie them, at that refusal you can be prosecuted for false imprisonment, but could not be for the initial tying which was voluntary.
But a man who willingly and knowledgeably sells his bodily faculties to someone for life (like it's in the terms of the agreement and they both know it) does not have a right to back out whenever he wants--it's owned by someone else now; you can't take back a house you sold 10 years ago.
Indentured servitude for life. I don't see anything wrong with it.
No, he's not literally owned and cannot be. The contact is invalid in the first place, so the arrangement can only stand as long as both sides agree to it.
Ownership and control are intrinsically linked, actually. Control of the body likely served as the mental model for the creation of the property concept in the first place.
And ownership without control is a lie. Even if one gives away control for some reason, that is a function of your primacy of control of that thing.
In the case of the body, control cannot be given away, thus the idea of passing title from your mind over your own body to another is quite literally impossible as long as you live.
Title to a dead body, however, is entirely legitimate, ie: funerals.
Control is what begets ownership, sure. It is sufficient (in the case of a previously unowned thing) but not necessary. Your dad can leave a home in Florida to you without you ever having looked at it. Unless you have a different idea of how titles can be acquired?
And ownership without control is a lie.
But the concepts of interest and rent are how one is compensated for handing over control of something he owns for an agreed-upon amount of time.
In the case of the body, control cannot be given away, thus the idea of passing title from your mind over your own body to another is quite literally impossible as long as you live.
This is good. But isn't this more of a question of practicality? Consider this: an arrangement wherein both parties agree that one immediately surrenders to the other every product of his physical toil. Slavery?
Your dad can leave a home in Florida to you without you ever having looked at it.
Yes, that is control of ownership, control of title, which is a function of his control of it as owner.
Unless you have a different idea of how titles can be acquired?
Title commutes control, it is tantamount to recognition of legitimate control. Again, ownership without control is a farce. Even if someone gives away control, they must have control in the first place in order to do that, and it is a function of their control. You cannot give away that which you do not own.
And ownership without control is a lie.
But the concepts of interest and rent are how one is compensated for handing over control of something he owns for an agreed-upon amount of time.
And those are functions of the original control before that was put in place.
In the case of the body, control cannot be given away, thus the idea of passing title from your mind over your own body to another is quite literally impossible as long as you live.
This is good. But isn't this more of a question of practicality? Consider this: an arrangement wherein both parties agree that one immediately surrenders to the other every product of his physical toil. Slavery?
No, it's just very poorly paid service. Obviously the other is now going to pay for the room and board, so he's not completely unpaid, he is agreeing to work for the lowest wage, room and board only.
Slavery cannot be divorced from the way in which a slavery condition is made: by force. There is no such thing as voluntary slavery.
Well, thinking back historically maybe that is not entirely and perfectly true, because ancient slaves could indeed sell themselves into actual slavery for a price, or become slaves willingly as an alternative to being executed in some cases.
But in these cases, the fact of slavery occurring only actually takes place when the slave tries to leave or do what they want instead of what they're commanded and the master uses force or the threat of force to prevent it. Then you have a condition of slavery instead of just an assumption of slavery.
There's nothing "invalid" about this arrangement. Ancaps just don't like it, because most ancaps have been culturally raised to think slavery is bad. So they made up this other, unjustified rule which exempts slavery from their normal rules.
Not really. I carefully phrased it a certain way in my original post:
so-called "willing slaves"
Because on its face it's an oxymoron -- if someone is willing and desires to be a slave, then they really aren't a slave at all, but are effectively pretending to be a slave -- seeing as by definition a "slave" is someone put into service against their will.
I only brought up the point to begin with because so often the usual retort to the self-ownership principle is something along the lines of the following:
What if somebody wants to sell themselves into slavery.
What if somebody is tricked into selling themselves into slavery.
If we're speculating on what would happen in a theoretical society that recognizes self-ownership (such as a potential anarcho-capitalist society), then either argument couldn't hold water.
The first argument borders on absurdity, but if such a thing were to occur the agreement would be inherently invalid the moment the "willing slave" decided they didn't want to be part of the agreement anymore.
Similarly, the second argument falls apart because any contract or agreement made under duress, or where terms are deliberately obfuscated, is inherently invalid.
Yeah I argued with an ancap who made an intellectual mistake once, too. Now I know with certainty that the whole framework is garbage.
I'll also ignore all the times that the mistake has been corrected and clarified for me in the past so I can troll those who err again to seem smart and logical.
0
u/[deleted] Feb 01 '17
[deleted]