Voluntary slavery and indentured servitude in Voluntaryism

[smarterthanone]

Voluntary slavery and indentured servitude will exist in voluntary society. The majority of the population does not value freedom. They will readily give up everything for some morsel of value. Now I have heard arguments both for and against but never very in depth. What do you all think?

[Erwin]

Adding the word voluntary in front of slavery doesn't make sense. That's like saying voluntary rape. 

Well which is it?

Slavery? or Voluntary?

[smarterthanone]

Well its voluntary in the fact they accept the agreement. But the agreement is for slavery. Think of the typical indentured servitude agreement.

SOON TO BE SLAVE: I need (a trip to America) (medicine for my daughter) (money for a lawyer to face legal charges) (etc).

EMPLOYER: Here is $10,000 value, you will work it off at the rate of $5 per day. The work has no specific limits or outlines other than complete obedience 24/7 and can include traditional work, sex work, beatings for your employers amusement, anything. Any property or money you come into (outside of the $10,000) will be your employers. At any time if you disobey you will face punishment (lashings?) for the disobedience. Do you accept these terms?

SOON TO BE SLAVE: Yes.

[Erwin]

Ok, so you're redefining the word slavery to mean employment. No problem, let's go with that definition.

On to your question:

On 5/24/2017 at 0:56 PM, smarterthanone said:

I have heard arguments both for and against but never very in depth. What do you all think?

for and against what? voluntary "slavery" ?

[Gavitor]

If its a bad deal why would you take it? Slavery is when you are forced into it, so your agreement was never requested in the first place.

If an employer tells you to do something you don't want to do just tell them no, whats the worse they can do? Worst they can do is fire you. They can't actually force you to do anything.

Unlike slavery you can choose to stop working for an employer.

[smarterthanone]

17 hours ago, Erwin said:

Ok, so you're redefining the word slavery to mean employment. No problem, let's go with that definition.

I understand why you do not consider it slavery, but you surely would consider it indentured servitude? I have heard many people say things like Gavitor regarding its existence in voluntary society.

7 hours ago, Gavitor said:

If its a bad deal why would you take it? Slavery is when you are forced into it, so your agreement was never requested in the first place.

If an employer tells you to do something you don't want to do just tell them no, whats the worse they can do? Worst they can do is fire you. They can't actually force you to do anything.

Unlike slavery you can choose to stop working for an employer.

You cannot (or not without serious repercussions) in an indentured servant agreement. See my example. And why do you mean you can't take it if its a bad deal? Well obviously it would be a deal both sides deemed valuable however looking in on it from most perspectives it would be a very very bad deal, such as my example.

[Tyler H]

The amount of wealth produced in a voluntary society without the massive overhead of violent enforcement of arbitrary, capricious edicts would limit the need for someone to take this kind of terrible deal to almost zero. If they are at all capable of providing enough value to cover the expense of food and shelter then they are capable enough to provide those services without signing a lifelong contract. Also there's no violent enforcement of contracts so if they decide that being a slave sucks balls, perhaps literally, then they can renege on their agreement and take a hit to their free society/credit/contract/DRO score, which I imagine is shit anyways since they are in this position in the first place. 

Also, you could sign up with a DRO that says "we don't honor contracts of slavery or indentured servitude." Then those interested in that sort of business would have no recourse for restitution if their slaves took off and all the consequences of trying to enforce the contract themselves. 

Here's an article by Robert P. Murphy on the subject.

 

 

[Gavitor]

11 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

I understand why you do not consider it slavery, but you surely would consider it indentured servitude? I have heard many people say things like Gavitor regarding its existence in voluntary society.

You cannot (or not without serious repercussions) in an indentured servant agreement. See my example. And why do you mean you can't take it if its a bad deal? Well obviously it would be a deal both sides deemed valuable however looking in on it from most perspectives it would be a very very bad deal, such as my example.

I didn't say you can't take the deal I asked why would you.

[Erwin]

On 5/27/2017 at 11:49 AM, smarterthanone said:

I understand why you do not consider it slavery, but you surely would consider it indentured servitude?

According to Wikipedia: "An indentured servant or indentured labor is an employee (indenturee) within a system of unfree labor who is bound by a contract (indenture) to work for a particular employer for a fixed period". Unfree labor = Slavery, which you can't agree to. Again, you have redefined employment to mean slavery, regardless of the term you use.

In any case, I don't understand what the problem is with low-wage employment.

[ofd]

The problem that the Irish had as indentured servants was that they were treated worse as slaves because they were slaves for only a limited time. To get the most out of the investment they had to work much harder and lived under worse conditions.

[smarterthanone]

On 5/27/2017 at 2:36 PM, Tyler H said:

The amount of wealth produced in a voluntary society without the massive overhead of violent enforcement of arbitrary, capricious edicts would limit the need for someone to take this kind of terrible deal to almost zero. If they are at all capable of providing enough value to cover the expense of food and shelter then they are capable enough to provide those services without signing a lifelong contract. Also there's no violent enforcement of contracts so if they decide that being a slave sucks balls, perhaps literally, then they can renege on their agreement and take a hit to their free society/credit/contract/DRO score, which I imagine is shit anyways since they are in this position in the first place. 

Also, you could sign up with a DRO that says "we don't honor contracts of slavery or indentured servitude." Then those interested in that sort of business would have no recourse for restitution if their slaves took off and all the consequences of trying to enforce the contract themselves. 

Here's an article by Robert P. Murphy on the subject.

 

 

Why would there not be violent enforcement of contracts if it was agreed upon? If you want to be punched in the face and I want to punch you in the face, could we not have a contract outlining that mutual agreement in a voluntary society?

If you are affiliated with some law enforcement or community group that does not allow these kinds of agreements, then you would not be capable to make the agreement. BUT if you want to make the agreement you would then just remove yourself from whatever group so that you could then sign up as an indentured servant.

Now the article you posted, from a business perspective I agree, there is no normal incentive to use this kind of labor. This is kind of where I was expecting the conversation to go with an argument like this. But just because it is logical that there would not be this kind of arrangement, doesn't mean it won't exist. In fact, outside of FDR, most people do not engage or endeavor to engage in logical behaviors. That is the flaw in the argument... and precisely why I am sure most people would gladly be an indentured servant if the opportunity presented itself. Most people WANT to have their freedom taken away from them... see all the socialist/commies running around.

[Gavitor]

6 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Why would there not be violent enforcement of contracts if it was agreed upon? If you want to be punched in the face and I want to punch you in the face, could we not have a contract outlining that mutual agreement in a voluntary society?

If you are affiliated with some law enforcement or community group that does not allow these kinds of agreements, then you would not be capable to make the agreement. BUT if you want to make the agreement you would then just remove yourself from whatever group so that you could then sign up as an indentured servant.

Now the article you posted, from a business perspective I agree, there is no normal incentive to use this kind of labor. This is kind of where I was expecting the conversation to go with an argument like this. But just because it is logical that there would not be this kind of arrangement, doesn't mean it won't exist. In fact, outside of FDR, most people do not engage or endeavor to engage in logical behaviors. That is the flaw in the argument... and precisely why I am sure most people would gladly be an indentured servant if the opportunity presented itself. Most people WANT to have their freedom taken away from them... see all the socialist/commies running around.

So your concern is that in a voluntary society people would choose to remove the voluntary part of their life?

[Tyler H]

7 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Most people WANT to have their freedom taken away from them... see all the socialist/commies running around.

But this would not be the case in a free society by definition, right? A voluntary society can only come about after the balance has shifted to where most people want to be free. We mustn't conflate a voluntary society in the future with our current society. We recognize many things must change in order for a truly free society to materialize, that is the job set out for us. 

7 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Why would there not be violent enforcement of contracts if it was agreed upon? If you want to be punched in the face and I want to punch you in the face, could we not have a contract outlining that mutual agreement in a voluntary society?

Are you talking about violent enforcement of contracts or violent content in contracts?Two people agreeing to a boxing match is one thing. Forcing a fickle contestant to compete is quite another. 

The reason I say contracts will not be enforced through violence is that violence is risky and expensive. It is far too costly to put security personnel in harms way to go get a debtor. Since a voluntary society will likely enforce(for lack of a better term) values through a system of ostracism, it will be far more economical to use that system to encourage compliance. You could also include in the contract access to financial accounts in the event of a breach.  That way compensation to the aggrieved party is peacefully acquired. Companies with a business model of violent enforcement will not be able to remain competitive, even if they weren't rejected at the start by an ethical customer base.

As far as people agreeing before hand that the enforcement of the contract be a violent imposition of the terms; I can't imagine why people would agree to a contract they could never get out of without the threat of bodily harm. This, I think, would be incredibly rare, and like I mentioned earlier I don't think the mainstream DROs will help the plaintiff party attain restitution. 

7 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

If you are affiliated with some law enforcement or community group that does not allow these kinds of agreements, then you would not be capable to make the agreement. BUT if you want to make the agreement you would then just remove yourself from whatever group so that you could then sign up as an indentured servant.

How would they not allow it? I argue they simply won't recognize the validity of that contract. This would make orchestrating such a contract tenuous at best since either party would be able to breach without repercussions.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Gavitor said:

So your concern is that in a voluntary society people would choose to remove the voluntary part of their life?

Ah brevity, thoust are an elusive mare.

Well put dude. 

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Tyler H said:

But this would not be the case in a free society by definition, right?

Actually this is the foundation of his theory:

On 5/24/2017 at 0:56 PM, smarterthanone said:

Voluntary slavery and indentured servitude will exist in voluntary society.

_____________________________________________________

2 hours ago, Tyler H said:

The reason I say contracts will not be enforced through violence is that violence is risky and expensive. It is far too costly to put security personnel in harms way to go get a debtor. Since a voluntary society will likely enforce(for lack of a better term) values through a system of ostracism, it will be far more economical to use that system to encourage compliance.

To reinforce your point, this is the case even today. I can't think of a single contractor I deal with where we rely on litigation (which is a just-as-expensive violence proxy), to enforce our contracts. Our contracts are enforced through the Principle of Constant Dealings. We always split up contracts so as to avoid any kind of lump sum payment (or product / service delivery), so both parties have a lot of future income to lose should either party fail to deliver.

Another example is insurance companies, the pre-agree on when to cover what so as to avoid litigation.

[smarterthanone]

On 5/30/2017 at 4:55 PM, Gavitor said:

So your concern is that in a voluntary society people would choose to remove the voluntary part of their life?

I am not concerned, I think its naive to assume it would not happen. Which I think most people think it won't.

 

Regarding cost of violence, yes, its not cost effective in many cases, but you overestimate the cost of violence. Assume someone is behind in paying you $50,000. It would help payments to send 3 armed men to their house once a week for a whipping every week they don't pay and charge them $500 fee to cover the service as part of the contract. I guarantee you would collect faster and I guarantee people would sign it (in order to borrow $50,000 to maybe start a business or help buy a house).

Also, why is pimping make financial sense to both the pimp and the chattel? Has little to do with the legality of the industry. Make it legal, there will be pimps too (see all of history).

I never thought this way until I met more types of people in the world. Most people live in a bubble, I used to. People will sell their own life if you give them the opportunity. If you really don't think so, you need to get out more.

[smarterthanone]

I believe socialist mindset comes from weak realizing they need a master to protect them from strong people. In the past, servitude to a strong protector King or something would offer them protection and care. In today's world, socialist governments offer this protection. I think its a logical, biologically driven need. So it would not simply disappear if there were more opportunities.

[Gavitor]

21 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

I am not concerned, I think its naive to assume it would not happen. Which I think most people think it won't.

 

Regarding cost of violence, yes, its not cost effective in many cases, but you overestimate the cost of violence. Assume someone is behind in paying you $50,000. It would help payments to send 3 armed men to their house once a week for a whipping every week they don't pay and charge them $500 fee to cover the service as part of the contract. I guarantee you would collect faster and I guarantee people would sign it (in order to borrow $50,000 to maybe start a business or help buy a house).

Also, why is pimping make financial sense to both the pimp and the chattel? Has little to do with the legality of the industry. Make it legal, there will be pimps too (see all of history).

I never thought this way until I met more types of people in the world. Most people live in a bubble, I used to. People will sell their own life if you give them the opportunity. If you really don't think so, you need to get out more.

Not an argument. I still don't get why these people would be in a voluntary society in the first place if they just want to be a slave.

Your anecdotal evidence isn't particularly convincing, especially since I doubt you've met people who live in a voluntary society.

21 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

I believe socialist mindset comes from weak realizing they need a master to protect them from strong people. In the past, servitude to a strong protector King or something would offer them protection and care. In today's world, socialist governments offer this protection. I think its a logical, biologically driven need. So it would not simply disappear if there were more opportunities.

Why would someone need a master to protect them from strong people when its the strong people who tend to be the master?

It's like saying "to protect my self from rapists I'm going to get someone to rape me".

[smarterthanone]

3 hours ago, Gavitor said:

Not an argument. I still don't get why these people would be in a voluntary society in the first place if they just want to be a slave.

Your anecdotal evidence isn't particularly convincing, especially since I doubt you've met people who live in a voluntary society.

Why would someone need a master to protect them from strong people when its the strong people who tend to be the master?

It's like saying "to protect my self from rapists I'm going to get someone to rape me".

You don't choose to live in a voluntary society. Say one day the government is overthrown and now there is no government. It's not something to simply choose. The same people who exist today would exist in a voluntary society. Dumb lazy people will always exist.

How does living in a voluntary society vs modern society make any difference? The only difference is that there are legal protections to help curb this behavior. In a voluntary society, there would be no government interventions in preventing this kind of behavior.

Well if you have the option for a clean nice guy to rape you once a month and he gives you a nice place to live OR 30 smelly std infested people to rape you non stop while you are chained to a tree and barely fed scraps to live... hmmm. In order to protect yourself from the gang rape, obviously some people would choose the one man to protect them.

[_LiveFree_]

On 6/7/2017 at 0:20 PM, smarterthanone said:

You don't choose to live in a voluntary society. Say one day the government is overthrown and now there is no government. It's not something to simply choose. The same people who exist today would exist in a voluntary society. Dumb lazy people will always exist.

How does living in a voluntary society vs modern society make any difference? The only difference is that there are legal protections to help curb this behavior. In a voluntary society, there would be no government interventions in preventing this kind of behavior.

Well if you have the option for a clean nice guy to rape you once a month and he gives you a nice place to live OR 30 smelly std infested people to rape you non stop while you are chained to a tree and barely fed scraps to live... hmmm. In order to protect yourself from the gang rape, obviously some people would choose the one man to protect them.

what the ever-living f^#$ is this bull$@%^?

[Erwin]

Um... for no other reason than my amusement, I'll just deconstruct what's been said @_LiveFree_ 

On 6/7/2017 at 1:20 PM, smarterthanone said:

You don't choose to live in a voluntary society.

But then it's not voluntary... Your statement is self-contradictory. That's like saying "you can't choose to have sex", cuz then it's rape...

On 6/7/2017 at 1:20 PM, smarterthanone said:

Say one day the government is overthrown and now there is no government. It's not something to simply choose.

Why does one not choose? Was your hypothetical government overthrown by robots? Or slaves?

On 6/7/2017 at 1:20 PM, smarterthanone said:

The same people who exist today would exist in a voluntary society

How do you know?

On 6/7/2017 at 1:20 PM, smarterthanone said:

Dumb lazy people will always exist.

How do you know?

On 6/7/2017 at 1:20 PM, smarterthanone said:

In a voluntary society, there would be no government interventions in preventing this kind of behavior.

if muh-guvment don't do it, golly gee who will?! It's not like there's people arou--- oh... right

On 6/7/2017 at 1:20 PM, smarterthanone said:

Well if you have the option for a clean nice guy to rape you once a month and he gives you a nice place to live OR 30 smelly std infested people to rape you non stop while you are chained to a tree and barely fed scraps to live... hmmm.

False dichotomy.

On 6/7/2017 at 1:20 PM, smarterthanone said:

In order to protect yourself from the gang rape, obviously some people would choose the one man to protect them.

How do you know?

----

@smarterthanone what a giant non-argument. Do you ever challenge your own assumptions? You keep saying "obviously" next to your claims, as if it validates them...

[smarterthanone]

18 hours ago, Erwin said:

But then it's not voluntary... Your statement is self-contradictory. That's like saying "you can't choose to have sex", cuz then it's rape...

If the government was overthrown by robots, slaves, aliens, everyone involved in government spontaneously combusts... it doesn't matter. Instantly, wouldnt everyone be living in a voluntary society? Yes. The answer is Yes. Now what if you were just sitting home watching tv one night and the next morning you woke up to this... did you decide to be part of a voluntary society...? No the answer is No. I mean I suppose you could instantly kill yourself but short of that you are now in a voluntary society.

18 hours ago, Erwin said:

How do you know?

The same people that exist today would exist in a voluntary society. Reason is because a voluntary society could exist tomorrow, its independent of biology. Biology cannot change tomorrow. SO the government could cease functions tomorrow in some place in the world yet it would not make any biological changes to the people living there. The kinds of people that live today are essentially the same as all human history. So that is the absolutely least likely thing to change in any way and can be assumed to be constant.

18 hours ago, Erwin said:

if muh-guvment don't do it, golly gee who will?! It's not like there's people arou--- oh... right

Its a definition issue. If it is a voluntary society, nobody will have a system of coercive force. If its a voluntary society, nobody can stop you from making your own voluntary contracts. If someone does stop you then it is not a voluntary society. 

18 hours ago, Erwin said:

False dichotomy. // How do you know?

Safe bet. See history. Think about it for a moment. And its not necessarily the 30 men will get you... its more the fear that 30 men will get you and do you like that.

 

 

[Erwin]

9 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

If the government was overthrown by robots, slaves, aliens, everyone involved in government spontaneously combusts... it doesn't matter. Instantly, wouldnt everyone be living in a voluntary society? Yes. The answer is Yes.

No. The answer is No. If the government was overthrown by robots or slaves, it would still not be voluntary as robots and slaves cannot partake in any voluntary associations (by definition), and thus, could never live in a voluntary society.

You can have slaves or a voluntary society, but not both.

9 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Now what if you were just sitting home watching tv one night and the next morning you woke up to this... did you decide to be part of a voluntary society...? No the answer is No.

If I woke up to this, I would be presented with the option of partaking, in which case I would then make a decision.

9 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

The same people that exist today would exist in a voluntary society. Reason is because a voluntary society could exist tomorrow, its independent of biology. Biology cannot change tomorrow. SO the government could cease functions tomorrow in some place in the world yet it would not make any biological changes to the people living there.

What about all the low-IQ R-Selected people who's survival depends on government funds? I don't see how cleansing our gene pool has no biological effect.

9 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

The kinds of people that live today are essentially the same as all human history. So that is the absolutely least likely thing to change in any way and can be assumed to be constant.

What about changes in the characteristics of populations? The emergence or extinction of ethnicities and races? These are huge changes, and they have happened (and continue to happen) since forever. How could it be the least likely thing to change if it happens so often?

9 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Safe bet. See history. Think about it for a moment. And its not necessarily the 30 men will get you... its more the fear that 30 men will get you and do you like that.

I have seen history, and I can tell you that we have always lived under governments, and thus, we have never made such a choice. Given the lack of precedent, I don't get how you can just claim to know what people would choose.

[smarterthanone]

9 hours ago, Erwin said:

No. The answer is No. If the government was overthrown by robots or slaves, it would still not be voluntary as robots and slaves cannot partake in any voluntary associations (by definition), and thus, could never live in a voluntary society.

You can have slaves or a voluntary society, but not both.

Robots I don't think actually ever live in a society whether its voluntary or not. Try again. We are talking about the people of the world, not robots.

Take slavery to be indentured servitude. Indentured servitude is considered a form of slavery by many people. It is voluntary. You may not consider it slavery, that's fine but adjust your arguments accordingly.

9 hours ago, Erwin said:

If I woke up to this, I would be presented with the option of partaking, in which case I would then make a decision.

You either exist in the world as it is when you wake up or you kill yourself. What does this even mean? What are you partaking in?

9 hours ago, Erwin said:

What about changes in the characteristics of populations? The emergence or extinction of ethnicities and races? These are huge changes, and they have happened (and continue to happen) since forever. How could it be the least likely thing to change if it happens so often?

When were there ever not low IQ people? ...waiting...

9 hours ago, Erwin said:

I have seen history, and I can tell you that we have always lived under governments, and thus, we have never made such a choice. Given the lack of precedent, I don't get how you can just claim to know what people would choose.

Offer any option, no matter how terrible, to a large enough amount of people, someone will choose it eventually. (2 for 1 - This also doubles as dating advice for you lol i kid i kid i joke)

[Erwin]

12 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

Robots I don't think actually ever live in a society whether its voluntary or not. Try again. We are talking about the people of the world, not robots.

1 ) Irrelevant: Regardless of whether a robot lives, robots cannot choose

2) You are talking about people that do not chose. That's called slavery. Slaves cannot choose

3) My argument was that unless people are robots or slaves, they choose. I'll try again when you make an argument.

19 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

Take slavery to be indentured servitude. Indentured servitude is considered a form of slavery by many people. It is voluntary. You may not consider it slavery, that's fine but adjust your arguments accordingly.

Indentured servitude is either voluntary or slavery, but not both (by definition).

No, you adjust your arguments. You're the one changing the definition, and immediately contradicting yourself.

26 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

You either exist in the world as it is when you wake up or you kill yourself.

Or you join some other society.

29 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

What are you partaking in?

Voluntary society. (Hence, the word voluntary.)

29 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

When were there ever not low IQ people? ...waiting...

Irrelevant. You just admitted to the emergence of high IQ. So how can you claim that people have always been the same? ...waiting...

42 minutes ago, smarterthanone said:

Offer any option, no matter how terrible, to a large enough amount of people, someone will choose it eventually.

Your claim is founded on a false dichotomy, that you have to necessarily choose between 1 rape and 30 rapes. How many times have you been raped?

[Mister Mister]

Sorry to be a Negative Nancy, but has it occurred to you that this subject is completely pointless and irrelevant?  As far as problems in the world, and in my life, the potential of voluntary slavery in a stateless society is so insignificant, I can hardly muster the energy to think about it for more than a few minutes.  Let's say it's true, that in a stateless society, some people would engage in voluntary indentured servitude -- what could that possibly mean to me or to any of us?  How would that knowledge change our behavior?  Should we stop fighting statism and irrationality because of some unknown potential for people to enter into self-destructive contracts, hundreds of years in the future?

[smarterthanone]

On 6/12/2017 at 5:15 PM, RoseCodex said:

Sorry to be a Negative Nancy, but has it occurred to you that this subject is completely pointless and irrelevant?  As far as problems in the world, and in my life, the potential of voluntary slavery in a stateless society is so insignificant, I can hardly muster the energy to think about it for more than a few minutes.  Let's say it's true, that in a stateless society, some people would engage in voluntary indentured servitude -- what could that possibly mean to me or to any of us?  How would that knowledge change our behavior?  Should we stop fighting statism and irrationality because of some unknown potential for people to enter into self-destructive contracts, hundreds of years in the future?

I ultimately agree with this point. If its voluntary, who really should care? The problem is I see people spouting this all over as an argument that there would be no slaves in a voluntary society when it seems apparently wrong to me. Instead of capturing someone by force, just find someone homeless or in a tricky situation and offer them stable food and a mud hut. The result is the same, slave.

[Erwin]

On 6/15/2017 at 3:51 PM, smarterthanone said:

If its voluntary, who really should care?

Because you are repeating the same thing as if I didn't make this point:

On 6/10/2017 at 9:54 PM, Erwin said:

You can have slaves or a voluntary society, but not both.

______________________________________________

On 6/15/2017 at 3:51 PM, smarterthanone said:

Instead of capturing someone by force, just find someone homeless or in a tricky situation and offer them stable food and a mud hut. The result is the same, slave.

By your logic:

"Instead of raping someone, just find an ugly girl and have sex with her. The result is the same, an orgasm."

You are equating a noble / charitable act like offering food and shelter to a needy person, with the act of capturing someone by force and terrorizing them into doing things you like done. 

You are a horrible person. You should be ashamed of yourself, you psychopath.

CONVERSATION OVER

[smarterthanone]

40 minutes ago, Erwin said:

You can have slaves or a voluntary society, but not both.

You have the word slave on the brain. I already said this but I will say it again... If you don't consider indentured servitude slavery then just substitute the words. So now look at the argument again. There would be indentured servitude in a voluntary society. By definition indentured servitude is voluntary. Try again.

You are a horrible person. You should be ashamed of yourself, you psychopath.

There is no topic that in seeking the truth makes you a horrible person. Ad hom attacks make you look weak.

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

On 5/27/2017 at 2:36 PM, Tyler H said:

The amount of wealth produced in a voluntary society without the massive overhead of violent enforcement of arbitrary, capricious edicts would limit the need for someone to take this kind of terrible deal to almost zero. If they are at all capable of providing enough value to cover the expense of food and shelter then they are capable enough to provide those services without signing a lifelong contract. Also there's no violent enforcement of contracts so if they decide that being a slave sucks balls, perhaps literally, then they can renege on their agreement and take a hit to their free society/credit/contract/DRO score, which I imagine is shit anyways since they are in this position in the first place. 

Also, you could sign up with a DRO that says "we don't honor contracts of slavery or indentured servitude." Then those interested in that sort of business would have no recourse for restitution if their slaves took off and all the consequences of trying to enforce the contract themselves. 

Here's an article by Robert P. Murphy on the subject.

 

 

Or employer could move to somalia