In an ideal libertarian society, can a person sell himself into slavery?

In an ideal libertarian society, can a person sell himself into slavery?

Yes, I suppose on a contractual sort of basis

And suppose the person was compelled to sell himself into slavery by a combination of social pressure, lack of viable alternatives and sheer desperation, is that still permissible under libertarian principles?

If he, in sound mind and good conscious, decided to do so, then I believe so yes. As long as he was not physically coerced or drugged, he should be able to.

And I assume his children were born free, since neither their slave parents nor their parents' slavemaster have the right to decide their fate, correct?
But having been born into a slave family, these children probably found themselves as destitute and penniless as their parents have been, if not more so. Again, through the combination of social pressure and no opportunities elsewhere, these children were forced to sign on a similar slavery contract at the age of 13 just to remain alive. In effect, this creates a self-perpetuating slave society.
Is that still within the permissible libertarian ideal?

Listen kike we know you Jews like slavery because you are too weak to work. Gotta hand it to the Egyptians to make you lazy kikes do some physical labor for once.

What are you getting at rabbi?

I genuinely don't understand how libertarians ideology rationalizes these naturally arising contradictions.
For me, even the first question ("can a person sell himself into slavery?") should be answered with a resounding "No!".
The way I understand it, libertarianism starts at a very definite set of ironclad rights (Life, Freedom & Property) and then deduces everything else from there. But how does it make any sort of sense for it to be permissible to weaver one of those base-of-all-bases rights? Doesn't it make them pointless?

R O A D S

>For me, even the first question ("can a person sell himself into slavery?") should be answered with a resounding "No!".
But then who will provide the slaves?

>i should get to decide what someone can or can't do!
Kill yourself fag, if someone wants to sell themselves into slavery who gives a shit, we aren't responsible for their decisions

>selling yourself into slavery

That's called having a job, OP. Stop smoking marijuana.

Putrid little hook nosed Jew bastard. Go suckle on a new borns prepubescent foreskin shlomo.

But if someone sells himself into slavery, he loses the ability to choose for himself. It may not be ME (good job instantly turning this personal), but SOMEONE will get to decide what the slave can or can't do.

>what are externalities

Aside from name calling, why is it that some of the worlds most despicable men belong to the Jewish race? Is it merely the nature of the Jew to commit atrocious atrocities and degrade societies?

yeah its called working mininum wage m8

Educated but impoverished Hellenic Greeks would often sell themselves into slavery in hopes of becoming a mentor/tutor to some rich family

Yes, but he's able to leave at any time he wishes due to the NAP.

It's called indentured servitude

So?

>but he's able to leave at any time
Then it is not slavery then.

Slavery is always wrong consensual or not. No rational human would sell their personhood and all their rights for a contractual life of labour that favours the other party grossly disproportionately. It'd be like selling a car for a grain of sand. Irrational and non-human

The person selling himself into slavery obviously agreed to some sort of contract that defines what power the slaver would have over him. I honestly don't understand what's so hard to follow about this.

Edgy

He didn't lose his ability to choose, he renounced to it in exchange for what he perceived to be a good deal.

Would you renounce your ability to vote for 10million dollars? If your answer is yet, how is that better?

Perhaps a selective pressure from some time ago , compelled Jews to become what they are today. A selective pressure based off of lies and thievery.

Arguing semantics is for the NatSoc fags. If being able to leave makes it not slavery, then no, slavery isn't permitted.

Every voluntary trade is fair, because both parties agreed to the trade at the time. We shouldn't need the government to hold our hands and tell us what not to do because most people are too retarded to make decisions they won't regret

My answer wouldn't be "Yes" because that's repulsive.

There is no such thing as a voluntary trade.

Libertarianism and Democracy are incompatible.
Liberatrianism can only happen under Monarchy

The perversions of the Jew knows no bound. A form of eugenics must be instituted to counter act this problem. Perhaps in the form of a world wide holocaust.

Libertarianism and any form of government are incompatible since it's based on non-aggression which conflicts with the concept of government.

More precisely, my question ITT is:
Under libertarian principles, can a person exercise his freedom of choice to waive their right to the non-aggression principle?
Can you have someone pay you a large sum of money for the privilege of committing violence on your or your property (or to force your actions under the threat of violence) at some undetermined point(s) in the future?

You can already do that you retards. It's called marriage.

You've posted the same thing 4 times and nobody finds your dialogue interesting. Suicide is the only option for you, edgelord.

>ill give you this pair of shoes for that backpack
>ill buy these apples for $3
How is this not voluntary?

Legally no. You can't give up your own rights for monetary compensation.

>Can a person exercise his freedom of choice to waive their right
No, because that's impossible. He also can't truthfully say "this sentence is false."

>sign on a similar slavery contract at the age of 13
Implying people magically gain the ability to consent at 13. Why not 12, 11, 9, 7?

>Under libertarian principles, can a person exercise his freedom of choice to waive their right to the non-aggression principle?
Never heard of a boxing match?
>Can you have someone pay you a large sum of money for the privilege of committing violence on your or your property
Never been to a dominatrix?

How fucking braindead are you.

Well, this is precisely what people like and are saying.

Why are you doing this Rabbi?

Either the person paying the money is paying too high a price and you're making a profit, or you're making a loss and the person paying the money is getting something you were tricked into buying.

The NAP isn't a right, it's a basic mechanism of human nature. It can't be waived or taken or given, it's just an understanding that people may lash out of you do things they don't like

So you're saying that, in an ideal libertarian society, that a person does NOT have the right to decide what he can and cannot do with his body?

Let's say someone has so much power and control in this libertarian society that they can mold the perception of reality for those with less power. For these poor people, everything in their existence is controlled and moderated for them. The places they live, the media they consume, the goods they use are all manufactured by and bought from the same entity. That entity then offers extremely one-sided deals to these people, who know literally nothing else - are they retarded for accepting that deal, when they both have no alternative and do not know any better, because their reality has been constructed in such a way that the deals they are given actually seem like gifts?

Is this arrangement acceptable in a libertarian society?

99% of this board is retarded. Did you expect to ask a question and get more than two educated repliers and not just a bunch of idiots flipping out at your flag?

>Israel flag wants to argue semantics

Are you serious? You're not tricked at all, that's basic supply and demand. If you didn't think the product was worth that price you wouldn't buy it, simple as that. You're not forced to buy anything. I want two digit iq posters to leave.

You think this is funny (((OP)))?

Yes

Were talking about full libertarian here, not just "America but with less taxes"

A boxing match is a sport, not a violation of NAP. There are rules in place to avoid permanent harm to the competitors.
Having someone spank you consensually is not the same as using violent force to prevent someone from doing things you don't want them to.

Ah yes, the sudo intellectual rambling in his unintelligible babble.

Do I get a sheckle if I bring you a foreskin (((OP)))

Liberty is having the freedom to cede your own liberties. This is really not that complicated.

In a Libertarian society, the state would not intervene in the conduct between two consenting individuals.

Even if their agreement were to result in one individual consentually becoming a slave, because that was an agreement between theirbparty, it has no affect on the overall levels of liberties endowed by the State as-a-whole.

>If you didn't think the product was worth that price you wouldn't buy it, simple as that.
And if you still thought it was worth the price, you would not sell it at a lower price. You do that when you've come to realize that the product is not in fact as good as you thought it was.
Your IQ isn't as high as you think it is.

>sudo intellectual
Lel, the irony.

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: What are the incentives required for such a situation to happen in a libertarian order?

First you need to live within the boundaries of a private city that allows such behavior, since libertarians don't advocate for a lack of law, but a polycentric law.

Second, you need a highly impoverished population with no economic choices. For anyone privileged enough to be born into wealth the answer to "would you sell your right to freedom" would be no, but as desperation grows and choices dwindle, selling your rights and dignity becomes more and more appealing. So, would a libertarian order have higher incentives, lack of social mobility, lack of charity than statist orders? So far current world experience tends to point that the freer the market, the more opportunities open up for their population. It is precisely in less free countries where you see people renouncing their freedom.

Third, don't we currently renounce to many of our freedoms in order to gain security? How is it different giving away your rights in exchange for a compensation any better than giving away your right to the fruit of your labor in exchange of public services? At least the first one is consensual and needs to respect contractual obligations, the second one, exposed to democracy, is way more tyrannic.

The irony is indeed strong dumbass.

It's time to go to bed, Donald.

>genuinely does not understand free trade
Maybe this is bait but holy shit

>Yes

Well in that case, we're already living in an advanced libertarian society, so I'm not sure what the bellyaching is about.

A comma goes before "dumbass", dumbass.

You're missing the point. To make a completely one sided contract is ludicrous and no person acting as a rational human being would do it. Ergo, it's unjustifiable.

That's not a counter-argument.

t. virgin

I am trying to make myself clear here but it's obviously not coming through.
You all (e.g. ), seem to be putting a lot of value on a person rights and liberty. My question is: Can a
person contractually give up his rights & liberty?
You say "a person has the right to decide what he can and cannot do with his body", but what if he chooses to exercise that right in order to give it up?

And, if (if!) the answer is "Yes", how does it align with the libertarian principles that begotten the "right to decide what to do with their body" thing in the first place? That more or else proves that the ironclad rules which supposedly make up the unquestionable moral underpinnings of libertarian ideology can actually be limited, fudged and outright revoked under certain circumstances.

On the other hand, if (if!) the answer is "No", that means a person doesn't have the freedom to sell his own freedom. Therefore, that TOO demonstrates that there are externally-imposed artificial limits to a person's freedoms and choices, even when they don't affect other persons.

The obvious follow-up question to both scenarios is, of course, why THESE limitations and not others?

Also, all this even before we get to the real-world consequences (, ) of these choices.

I honestly don't know where else to go with this sort of question

We are, ancap is human nature. It doesn't seem that way today because the land is already claimed and the organizations already established. I'm just explaining to the retards itt like this guy -

In what way is free trade flawed? Assume I make shoes. It costs me $5 to make a pair of shoes. I need to make a profit so I sell you the pair for $10. You decide you'd rather spend the extra $5 as opposed to spending the time making the shoes yourself. What is the problem with this? Do you grow all of your own food and harvest all your cotton to make all of your clothes?

>I honestly don't know where else to go with this sort of question
Don't go anywhere with it because you already know the answer and the only kind of people who are going to think anything other than "No" are retards.
>ancap is human nature
Google "power vacuum."

>sudo intellectual
enter root password:

...

Since actions come from experiences, if you control everything about a person then you're also controlling everything they do. You can't expect a person under so much control to make decisions that aren't based on your control. Thus, you've already taken away their ability to make rational decisons, so any decision they make is meaningless.
For example, if you lie to someone and they make their decision based on your lie then did that person have complete freedom to make a rational decision in that situation? No. Cause you robbed them of that ability. This is also why lying is seen as morally wrong

>can a person sell himself into slavery?
You just contradicted yourself OP
Slavery = a person who is the legal property of another and is FORCED to obey them.

Your argument is invalid since the wording "selling to slavery" is itself an oxymoron. You are literally arguing for a person to "voluntarily" to become slave and at the same time being "forced" to become a slave which doesn't make sense

>Would you renounce your ability to vote for 10million dollars?
>implying voting ever accomplishes anything
>implying they wouldn't do away with it if it did

In what way is the existence of power vacuums incompatible with anarchocapitalism?

>Your argument is invalid since the wording "selling to slavery" is itself an oxymoron. You are literally arguing for a person to "voluntarily" to become slave and at the same time being "forced" to become a slave which doesn't make sense
The code of Hamurabi would disagree.

If you believe this then they've violated the NAP and you're free to do whatever you can to rescue those people. You'll in turn have violated the NAP and they are free to defend themselves. Your best bet realistically if this was happening would be to care for your family first and make sure they don't sign into something you don't want them to.

You claimed ancap was human nature. If it was, there would be no government, since the default state of the universe is anarcho capitalism. Humans seek order and fairness. Anarcho capitalism lacks order initially and slowly begins to lack fairness over time as it creates order, until eventually it's no longer ancap.

HighIQ*Gentoo!342
bash: unknown command 'intellectual'

I think you're getting me confused with the memeflags, let me explain. Anarchocapitalism is not mutually exclusive with other forms of government. The ancap flags do not push for anarchocapitalism - this is inherent. Rather they wish for the current government to be torn down so a clean slate will be made available for new private organizations to rise. Any given government is essentially a private organization. Sure we vote and elect representatives, but this is because these are the terms both sides agree to to keep peace and make the exchange profitable for both ends (we pay taxes and don't revolt as a membership fee, they allow us to live on their land). At any point of you decide the government has violated the NAP you are free to retaliate with full force, but they will likely out gun you.

Despite how it may seem to alien onlookers we are in a constant state of free trade and balance. Not just with our money, but with the terms we agree to and what we fear losing if we don't agree to said terms.

>sell himself into slavery
That's an oxymoron user. He can sell his body and mind based on consensual contract. That's not slavery.

this
also checked

>ancap is human nature
You dense motherfucking waste of a perfectly good monkey.
"ancap" is not human nature. It's against human nature. It's against all nature. Human nature has helped humans survive for hundreds of thousands of years. We've survived vulcanism, droughts, famines, ice ages, heat waves, wars, genetic bottlenecking, you name it, man's survived it. Yet it's Capitalism, the Next Global Cataclism™ that just might do us in.
THAT'S how retarded your "socio-economic system"/"ideology" is.

>they wish for the current government to be torn down
If it were human nature, the government wouldn't have to be torn down because it'd never existed in the first place.
The land isn't theirs. Americans existed before the government did. The people allow the government to rule because they believe the government will act as an extension of themselves and follow their orders.

Or imagine North Korea for a more extreme example. The people may not seem "free", but they are as all people are. Its impossible not to be. They can choose to revolt or flee, but they know the likelyhood of failure is high, so they continue about their daily lives. Anarchocapitalism isn't a goal, it's just a basic understanding of how humans work.

What you're describing is still ancap retard.

>What you're describing is still ancap retard.
Isn't that his point? He's describing ancap, something he doesn't like.

No, Rothbard goes through this in his book "The Ethics of Liberty". To summarise, to sell yourself into slavery, as well as to act as a parisite is against the natural order of man.

Define slavery

Frankly I don't see anything wrong with indentured servitude capped at 7 years max

If enough people opposed the private organization and its terms it wouldn't exist. That's not the case, since most people support the government. Even if they say hur I don't like it.

Humans helping each other is not mutually exclusive with ancap. Ancap doesn't mean everything is done for profit, it means people can do anything and trade and fear of NAP are the only regulating factors

>If enough people opposed the private organization and its terms it wouldn't exist. That's not the case, since most people support the government. Even if they say hur I don't like it.
Therefore anarcho-capitalism conflicts with human nature. If it didn't, we'd have anarcho-capitalism.
>Humans helping each other is not mutually exclusive with ancap. Ancap doesn't mean everything is done for profit, it means people can do anything and trade and fear of NAP are the only regulating factors
You are aware that 'capitalism' inherently means profit-centric, right? That's what the 'capital' in 'capitalism' means.

Do you even have a brain in that fat head of yours? What in the name of fuck did I describe in my post? Where did you find a description in it. Jesusfuck but you're stupid.

>Define slavery
Indentured servitude not capped at 7 years max.

You two must be brothers from the same mother (whose father was her brother).

Human nature and popular support are not the same thing. Anarchocapitalism is the natural way of man, it always will be. You're talking about the publics support of the government, which may be temporary. If you disagree please explain what you think anarchocapitalism is so I can clear this up

I was defending your point, you braindead romanian fuck.

>human nature helped us survive x y z
Human nature is anarchocapitalism

>That's what the 'capital' in 'capitalism' means
The "capital" in capitalism stands for the capitalist class, i.e. the people who own the means of production that is used to create profit.

I wasn't describing anything in my post. That was my point. I mentioned, but never described "human nature" (which is collective, mutualist, tribalist and federative, by the way).

>there would be no government
There isn't a world government.

Everything slowly breaks down over time.

Popular opinion doesn't equal human nature, you're right, but popular opinion is the best way to determine human nature, and it's not on the side of your point.

Anarchocapitalism is for-profit activity (capitalism) without government oversight (anarchy).

There is no "natural way of man". Natural means "not made or caused by humankind."