Christian Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 19,707
If people just sold themselves into slavery, that would simply be a voluntary transaction. Why would any libertarian or liberty-minded person be opposed to that?
Hmmm... This is a good question, and it relates back to contract theory.
Now, there's certainly nothing wrong (according to libertarian principles) with someone choosing to live as a slave in exchange for whatever. The real issue for libertarians relates to the duration of the contract. What if the slave later wants to leave? Is it possible to permanently sell yourself into slavery?
Most libertarian theorists, including Rothbard and Kinsella, say no. They would say that only property can be transferred via contract, not life. Thus, while it may be possible for the "Master" to make a contract where he is paid some sum of money at whatever point the slave chooses to terminate the contract, nobody can ever be forced to remain in a position of slavery even if he made a contract. In other words, a contract in which you sell yourself for the rest of your life isn't legally binding (I think this is the Rothbardian position, somebody who knows better correct me if I'm wrong.)
By contrast, Walter Block takes the position that you actually can sell yourself just the same as if you owned yourself, and thus that it is completely possible to sell yourself permanently into slavery, at which point you would be owned by your master and he could force you to remain a slave against your will (since you signed a contract.)
So basically, everyone (I think) would agree that if two people wanted to enter into an arrangement where one would live as the slave of the other that that would be fine. The questions start arising when the "slave" wants to leave? Does he have an inalienable right to do so (even if he may have to pay financially for doing so), or did he sign that right away when he made that contract?
I prefer Rothbard's approach personally, but am broadly "fine" with either approach.
