The Libertarian Case for Slavery

[Svartalf]

Then, that is definitely the goal rather than a side effect, or big landlords would hire locals rather than import slaves.

[Seth]

Aside for the moral reasons against enslaving someone, importing slaves causes economic harm to domestic workers by increasing the labor pool.

Well, yes, but the whole point here is that the paper in question was not about "slavery" it was about the morality of banning voluntary servitude, which is NOT slavery.

[Mysturji]

A completely internally consistent and Libertarian-belief-consistent case for slavery.

Yes, really. You can justify anything, no matter how vile, using Libertarianism.

http://cog.kent.edu/lib/Philmore1/Philmore1.htm

It seems to be a basic shared prejudice of liberalism that slavery is in­herently involuntary, so the issue of genuinely voluntary slavery has re­ceived little scrutiny. The perfectly valid liberal argument that involuntary slavery is inherently unjust is thus taken to include voluntary slavery (in which case, the argument, by definition, does not apply). This has resulted in an abridgment of the freedom of contract in modern liberal society.

Since slavery was abolished, human earning power is forbidden by law to be capitalized. A man is not even free to sell himself: he must rent himself at a wage.4

People are only allowed the temporary security afforded by capitalizing a portion of their earning power (i.e., by renting or hiring themselves out for a specified time period), but are denied the freedom of obtaining a maxi­mum of security by selling all of their human capital. The owners of non­human capital (e.g., money, machines, buildings, etc.) enjoy the contrac­tual freedom of either hiring out their capital or selling it, but state interfer­ence in the marketplace prevents the owners of human capital from exer­cising the same liberty. And yet the principal difference between selling and only hiring out an entity is that of selling all or only a part of the services provided by the entity (i.e., the tenure of the contract).

Really.

If you knew what "libertarianism" meant, you'd have a point. But it would still be wrong.

[Schneibster]

If you knew what "libertarianism" meant, you'd have a point. But it would still be wrong.

Why don't you tell us all the difference between libertarianism and Libertarianism? Because they're different, no matter how many Libertarians try to confuse them.

I, for example, am a libertarian. But I despise Libertarians.

Bet you can't.

[JimC]

What's the Socialist / Communist case for slavery?
That all citizens are State property?

Fair point. Any reactions I have against perceived excesses by the current capitalist system must not forget the realities of the marxist experiments to date...

[Schneibster]

What's the Socialist / Communist case for slavery?
That all citizens are State property?

Fair point. Any reactions I have against perceived excesses by the current capitalist system must not forget the realities of the marxist experiments to date...

Yeah, watch out for the incorrigible ravening Danish socialist slavers.

[JimC]

What's the Socialist / Communist case for slavery?
That all citizens are State property?

Fair point. Any reactions I have against perceived excesses by the current capitalist system must not forget the realities of the marxist experiments to date...

Yeah, watch out for the incorrigible ravening Danish socialist slavers.

Come on, you know what I mean, the authoritarian bastards of the Comintern and their progeny, not the mildly socialist parties of current Europe (and even OIz)

[Schneibster]

I'm not talking about what you mean, I'm talking about what he means.

[Santa_Claus]

The modern version is called "Debt Bondage". Saves spending money of physcial chains.

Applies to both darkies abroad and in the West - could say it is a multicultural approach to keeping the peasants in there place.

[Seth]

The modern version is called "Debt Bondage". Saves spending money of physcial chains.

Applies to both darkies abroad and in the West - could say it is a multicultural approach to keeping the peasants in there place.

Around here there is no "debt bondage." That's why, specifically and expressly, we have bankruptcy laws and we forbid debtor's prisons. Debts are a civil matter and the enforcement of such debts is civil in nature, and no one can be held in "bondage" to their debts in any physical sense. They may be held responsible for their debts in the economic and social sense, but that's not bondage.

[Svartalf]

Well, you do have wage slavery in abundance... to the point that many have to slave for more than one master.

and you're wrong. Reduction to bondage was most generally a civil penalty, not a criminal one... and a bank garnishing your wages is debt bondage as surely as being transported to Louisiana.

[Tyrannical]

The modern version is called "Debt Bondage". Saves spending money of physcial chains.

Applies to both darkies abroad and in the West - could say it is a multicultural approach to keeping the peasants in there place.

Around here there is no "debt bondage." That's why, specifically and expressly, we have bankruptcy laws and we forbid debtor's prisons. Debts are a civil matter and the enforcement of such debts is civil in nature, and no one can be held in "bondage" to their debts in any physical sense. They may be held responsible for their debts in the economic and social sense, but that's not bondage.

Unless those debts are owed to the IRS, but you make a good point.

[Seth]

Well, you do have wage slavery in abundance... to the point that many have to slave for more than one master.

and you're wrong. Reduction to bondage was most generally a civil penalty, not a criminal one... and a bank garnishing your wages is debt bondage as surely as being transported to Louisiana.

Nonsense. First, you use a Wayback Machine fallacy by referencing debt-bondage and servitude authorized by ancient governments through debtor's prisons and "body judgments" that are not part of contemporary jurisprudence. Civil or criminal, we do not have debtor's prisons or body judgments, either in the US, or I believe in the UK. So that argument is a red herring argument.

Second, one incurs debt voluntarily, knowing beforehand the consequences of defaulting on that debt, which includes repossession, foreclosure, and garnishments. Therefore, it's not "bondage" or "servitude" at all because it's entirely voluntary. No one forces you into debt, you do it all by yourself. It's you borrowing money from someone and promising to repay it on pain of being held legally accountable if you fail to keep your promise. It's no more "bondage" than going out and sticking up a convenience store and getting sent to jail for doing so is "bondage" in the sense you intend it.

And since you can (largely) escape the consequences of defaulting on a debt (and avoid garnishment) by declaring bankruptcy, it's not "bondage" at all because you are free to go to court and be relieved of that debt. And for those aspects of debt that cannot be discharged by bankruptcy, like unpaid child support and student loan debts, you are not compelled to serve anyone. You may choose to become indigent and make the debts uncollectable. Of course, with child support judgments, you may subsequently be found in contempt of court for refusing to be gainfully employed in order to evade your legal liabilities, but that's not "debt bondage," that's contempt of court.

For the record, "involuntary servitude" is NOT completely illegal anywhere in the world, because it's always available as a punishment for criminal violations of the law...including contempt of court.

[Svartalf]

Riiight... Maybe in lalaland.

The fact that our practices have evolved does not mean that creditors hold less of a whip to a debtor's back now than when it was actually made of stout leather or wood.

[Seth]

Riiight... Maybe in lalaland.

The fact that our practices have evolved does not mean that creditors hold less of a whip to a debtor's back now than when it was actually made of stout leather or wood.

Of course it does, and that you disbelieve it demonstrates exactly what's wrong with our entitlement-minded dependency culture. You seem to think that your getting into credit trouble all on your own, and your objections to repaying what you owe are sufficient justification for you to be freed of the consequences of your bad acts.

If you don't want to suffer the consequences of incurring debt and then defaulting on it, then don't incur debt.

You don't get a free pass, or the moral justification to excoriate lenders, just because you don't want to pay your debts.