NationStates Jolt Archive

suppose a pesron decides, for whatever reason, that instead of messing around with wage labor for the next 40 years until they retire, they would rather sell themselves into slavery. is this permissible? more importantly, should it be? why or why not?

keep in mind that this is about a person voluntarily selling themselves into slavery, not being kidnapped or anything.

It's their choice.

It's their choice.

so it is your opinion that people should be able to do anything and everything that they choose to?

suppose a pesron decides, for whatever reason, that instead of messing around with wage labor for the next 40 years until they retire, they would rather sell themselves into slavery. is this permissible? more importantly, should it be? why or why not?

Impermissible.

A person CANNOT void his or her inalienable, natural rights (liberty being one of those). I'm not the best at explaining the full philosophical proof of this, but if you want further information, I suggest consulting the works of Locke (same guy that so inspired the Founding Fathers).

It wouldn't be a legally enforceable contract, at least not in the U.S.A.

It wouldn't be a legally enforceable contract, at least not in the U.S.A.
But is the question "would" or "should"?

I don't think it should. It would be stupid. People change thier minds all the time.

It wouldn't be a legally enforceable contract, at least not in the U.S.A.

but should it be? and why?

Hasn't this already been done in the Middle Ages?

A person CANNOT void his or her inalienable, natural rights (liberty being one of those).

what are some examples of other inalienable natural rights?

:rolleyes: By definition if it's voluntary it's not slavery.

what are some examples of other inalienable natural rights?

The right to physical safety (that is, not to have your life threatened) is another example. Another example, which would fall under "pursuit of happiness" would be the right not to have government interference in the sexual activities of two married adults. (Some may wish to extend this particular one beyond married couples. I don't have a clear position yet on whether or not to, so I'll leave the option open.)

Most of the truly "inalienable" rights are at a very basic, central level to human existence itself, the way I understand it. I would certainly appreciate further help from others interested in this subject.

:rolleyes: By definition if it's voluntary it's not slavery.

Maybe not technically...
But there is/was such a thing as indentured servitude. People were allowed to sell themselves into slavery to pay off debts, etc. Unfortunately, it didn't usually work out quite as neatly as one would think. People tend to take advantage of such things as free labour.

:rolleyes: By definition if it's voluntary it's not slavery.

the definition of a slave that i would use would be something like "a person owned as property by another". i don't think that that is any different from the normal understanding of slavery, nor that there really is anything in the definition which makes voluntary slavery logically impossible.

Its up to the person,really,but it also depends if he is living in a democracy.
I mean if he is a citizen of say,India, and if he is really desperate,it is possible.

I suppose, technically, if you were to set up a contract with another party agreeing to fulfill certain duties or labours for a set compensation - which, in this case, could simply be lodging and food without pay - then I suppose there is no reason to say that it is not a possibility.

If both parties sign the contract, then the "owner" is required to give you housing and food and you are required to do whatever duties they assign you without monetary compensation. Of course, there is still the option to get out of the situation. Having the legal system that we do, if you were able to take the contract to court, the court could see fit to break it and void the agreement. But there are a lot of factors in between making yourself what amounts to someone else's property and getting yourself represented in a court to break the contract that you willingly signed.

It's really not a healthy choice for someone interested in having any sort of liveable future, I would say.

The right to physical safety (that is, not to have your life threatened) is another example.

i don't think that will work as an inalienable right in the sense you want to use. every person who choose to engage in high risk activities and professions alienates part of their 'right to physical safety'.

I don't think it should. It would be stupid. People change thier minds all the time.

yes, but we still think it just to allow people to make contracts about their future activities.

i don't think that will work as an inalienable right in the sense you want to use. every person who choose to engage in high risk activities and professions alienates part of their 'right to physical safety'.

While the risks may be higher in certain professions, I think OSHA would argue with you on that one. Yes, there are higher risks--but in order to protect those people's rights, the employer is obligated to mitigate those risks that CAN be mitigated. While the government cannot legislate personal (off-work) activities to quite that extent, they do, for instance, make requirements that the companies producing implements for those activities make them as safe as possible (even though some risk is obviously left, they must meet certain standards of safety). You still have a right to be protected as much as possible.

yes, but we still think it just to allow people to make contracts about their future activities.
If there is a clause that terminates the contract at the request of the ‘slaved’ (which doesn’t make it slavery, but there has to be some way of protecting the slave), why not? Would just be like having a job that gives room and board with incredibly bad hours.

The Jews had legalised slavery back in biblical times.

The master had to provide the slave with food, lodging and (if it was a female slave) sex. Because sex is a basic human right, and since men basically owned their wives, clearly a slave could not marry. Thus, it was a slave-owners duty to copulate with the help.

Also their slavery only lasted 7 years, at which point the slave could punch a hole in their ear to signify that they wished to remain bound to their master if they chose. Most women did this I beleive since they would no longer be virgins and probably starve to death without a man.

ahh, those were the days ;)

If there is a clause that terminates the contract at the request of the ‘slaved’ (which doesn’t make it slavery, but there has to be some way of protecting the slave), why not? Would just be like having a job that gives room and board with incredibly bad hours.

well, sure, you could probably opt out of voluntary slavery - after either buying yourself back or paying restitution for breach of contract.

on what grounds is selling yourself into slavery an ok thing to do? basically, what's the argument for it?

bump

well my roomate is a dominatrix and people pay her to be her slave. :D

I think it shoudl be permissable and I think it should be legal to. If thats what someone wants to do then let em. But I think that they should at least have the same rights as a pet. feed them and take them to the hospital.

Dominatrices are certainly a strange concept. A part of the market conservatives downplay heavily.

well my roomate is a dominatrix and people pay her to be her slave. :D

I think it shoudl be permissable and I think it should be legal to. If thats what someone wants to do then let em. But I think that they should at least have the same rights as a pet. feed them and take them to the hospital.

though play-acting at slavery and actual slavery are somewhat different concepts. i assume your room-mate uses saftey words and such.

as to voluntary slavery being permissible, on what principle should it be? extrapolating from what you said, i would assume it would be a principle something like 'people should be able to do pretty much anything that they voluntarily choose to', right? but i don't want to put words into anyone's mouth.

well my roomate is a dominatrix and people pay her to be her slave. :D

This is the thing, slavery is no good except for sexual kicks. There's no real point to having someone work for you for a time and then release them, up until which point you give them food and lodging, when you can have them pay you money(with interest) while they provide their own lodging. It makes no sense as a form of debt management, unless you're arguing against usury, in which case it makes a little sense.

That said, I find the idea of having a few men at my beck and call quite appealing ;)

While the risks may be higher in certain professions, I think OSHA would argue with you on that one. Yes, there are higher risks--but in order to protect those people's rights, the employer is obligated to mitigate those risks that CAN be mitigated. While the government cannot legislate personal (off-work) activities to quite that extent, they do, for instance, make requirements that the companies producing implements for those activities make them as safe as possible (even though some risk is obviously left, they must meet certain standards of safety). You still have a right to be protected as much as possible.

but in so far as some risks to personal safety are unavoidable in certain professions and basically non-existent (or at least vastly reduced) outside of those professions, and some of those professions are considered vital, we obviously feel that people can surrender a certain amount of their right to physical safety - in order to become cops and fire fighters and soldiers and such. so i don't think its entriely inalienable. maybe mostly and you still retain it for dangers you didn't sign up for, but it seems to me that you can alienate some of it.

What about the following scenario then:

A person is in life-threatening danger and is saved by, lets say, a total stranger. This person i so greatful for being saved so he/she decides to, under some sort of contract, become the saviours slave for the rest of his or hers life. The saved person, reasoning that "I would be dead anyway", then say that this person, willingly, stands out with physical or sexual abuse. The person "finds pleassure" (not sexually) in being treated badly and also finds pleassure in acting 100% as the saviours slave. This could be out of gratefullness, thankfullness, happiness or whatever. But if this person is bound to his/hers "master" for the rest of his/hers life regardless of the possibility that he changes his mind, would it be right?

If the "master" decides to hit, kick, abuse or even rape his "slave" in his house (doing it on an open street would, of course, be wrong against the one who would be "forced" to see it) then it would be legal, in this scenario that is.

The question is, would it be morally right or wrong to have such a "slave"?
A slave that, whatever happens, stands by his/her master. Bound to the promise they have made. Knowing and accepting all the risks that there are when commiting yourself bond to such a master, would YOU do it?

I guess though that this scenario would work best in a Fantasy-world or in some real odd, yet undiscovered, culture. But what do you think? Right, wrong?

well, sure, you could probably opt out of voluntary slavery - after either buying yourself back or paying restitution for breach of contract.

on what grounds is selling yourself into slavery an ok thing to do? basically, what's the argument for it?
What's the argument against it? Besides, if it is voluntary, it technically isn't slavery slavery (no one is being forced to do anything) and if there are excape clauses it is legal, I believe (IANAL).

Your thinking of something similar to the indentured servent.

Just wondering Raisshan, do you happen to be a law student (or graduated)? I am, so I do know a bit about this stuff.
I think we can all agree that slavery and other things are immoral, and maybe there even is a "natural law" that can be used as an objective standard (like at the Neurenberg tribunal), but the question is: does it have any meaning at all? Suppose that in a democratic state the people vote to enslave an ethnic majority, who is to say that they're doing an immoral thing?

A person is in life-threatening danger and is saved by, lets say, a total stranger. This person i so greatful for being saved so he/she decides to, under some sort of contract, become the saviours slave for the rest of his or hers life. The saved person, reasoning that "I would be dead anyway", then say that this person, willingly, stands out with physical or sexual abuse. The person "finds pleassure" (not sexually) in being treated badly and also finds pleassure in acting 100% as the saviours slave. This could be out of gratefullness, thankfullness, happiness or whatever. But if this person is bound to his/hers "master" for the rest of his/hers life regardless of the possibility that he changes his mind, would it be right?

If the "master" decides to hit, kick, abuse or even rape his "slave" in his house (doing it on an open street would, of course, be wrong against the one who would be "forced" to see it) then it would be legal, in this scenario that is.

The question is, would it be morally right or wrong to have such a "slave"?
A slave that, whatever happens, stands by his/her master. Bound to the promise they have made. Knowing and accepting all the risks that there are when commiting yourself bond to such a master, would YOU do it?

I guess though that this scenario would work best in a Fantasy-world or in some real odd, yet undiscovered, culture. But what do you think? Right, wrong?

It reminds of the Life Debt from some alien cultures in Star Wars, only a much less positive view.

What about the following scenario then:

A person is in life-threatening danger and is saved by, lets say, a total stranger. This person i so greatful for being saved so he/she decides to, under some sort of contract, become the saviours slave for the rest of his or hers life. The saved person, reasoning that "I would be dead anyway", then say that this person, willingly, stands out with physical or sexual abuse. The person "finds pleassure" (not sexually) in being treated badly and also finds pleassure in acting 100% as the saviours slave. This could be out of gratefullness, thankfullness, happiness or whatever. But if this person is bound to his/hers "master" for the rest of his/hers life regardless of the possibility that he changes his mind, would it be right?

If the "master" decides to hit, kick, abuse or even rape his "slave" in his house (doing it on an open street would, of course, be wrong against the one who would be "forced" to see it) then it would be legal, in this scenario that is.

The question is, would it be morally right or wrong to have such a "slave"?
A slave that, whatever happens, stands by his/her master. Bound to the promise they have made. Knowing and accepting all the risks that there are when commiting yourself bond to such a master, would YOU do it?

I guess though that this scenario would work best in a Fantasy-world or in some real odd, yet undiscovered, culture. But what do you think? Right, wrong?

Well, if this person has made a proper contract, and, knowing full well he could quit his/her job at any time, continues to stay in that abusive situation, then I think it would be alright. I mean, if that's how they like to live, then why should anyone tell them they can't? Truth be told, they likely would do it anyway. That said, I can't see such a slavery-master relationship being a highly popular thing, maybe like domantrices these days; one of those things you do outside of normal life.

Just wondering Raisshan, do you happen to be a law student (or graduated)? I am, so I do know a bit about this stuff.
I think we can all agree that slavery and other things are immoral, and maybe there even is a "natural law" that can be used as an objective standard (like at the Neurenberg tribunal), but the question is: does it have any meaning at all? Suppose that in a democratic state the people vote to enslave an ethnic majority, who is to say that they're doing an immoral thing?

Under no situation is the enslavement, subjugation, or opression of a minority by a majority a moral thing. That's about as close to a moral absolute as humans are ever going to get.

Your thinking of something similar to the indentured servent.

well, an indentured servant who is in most repsects the property of its owner until retirement. if you can sell your indentured servant to another, i don't see much difference between it and slavery.

suppose a pesron decides, for whatever reason, that instead of messing around with wage labor for the next 40 years until they retire, they would rather sell themselves into slavery. is this permissible? more importantly, should it be? why or why not?

keep in mind that this is about a person voluntarily selling themselves into slavery, not being kidnapped or anything.


This is called indentured servitude and in the US 13th Amendment outlaws it.....

This is called indentured servitude and in the US 13th Amendment outlaws it.....
No sir, not if it is voluntary

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

but in so far as some risks to personal safety are unavoidable in certain professions and basically non-existent (or at least vastly reduced) outside of those professions, and some of those professions are considered vital, we obviously feel that people can surrender a certain amount of their right to physical safety - in order to become cops and fire fighters and soldiers and such. so i don't think its entriely inalienable. maybe mostly and you still retain it for dangers you didn't sign up for, but it seems to me that you can alienate some of it.

There is a difference between assuming risk, though, and completely giving up ALL right to safety, which is what I was trying to get at, but I'm not sure I'm doing a very good job at it. It's strange...I know what I'm thinking but I don't really know how to SAY it. ;)

Just wondering Raisshan, do you happen to be a law student (or graduated)? I am, so I do know a bit about this stuff.
I think we can all agree that slavery and other things are immoral, and maybe there even is a "natural law" that can be used as an objective standard (like at the Neurenberg tribunal), but the question is: does it have any meaning at all? Suppose that in a democratic state the people vote to enslave an ethnic majority, who is to say that they're doing an immoral thing?

No, I've only had business ethics and some legal material pertaining to human resource management, as well as some outside reading on my own. As much as I try to conjecture at this stuff, I'm not a lawyer and I suspect you know a good bit more than I do.

It seems to me that despite the number of people involved (an entire country), it would still be wrong for them to vote to do such a thing. The kind of natural law I'm considering would pertain to all reasoning beings or groups of them. It goes beyond the individual level. Even if the rest of the world failed to speak up and condemn that, I do believe that they would still be in violation of a natural law.

bump

Isn't slavery by definition, not voluntary?

Voluntary Slavery is much like the syndicate. Once you’re in it’s damn near impossible to get out except through death. But since you decided to join, guess what? You’re stuck with it. Just like cell phones. God damn early termination fee. Involuntary slavery is so much easier to deal with. Fewer choices yes, but no contract to deal with.

Isn't slavery by definition, not voluntary?
Not at all

ok ive thought about this since the thread started, wondering just how voluntary slavery would work.

most slavery involves selling someone else, you pocket the money, the other guy works for free. but voluntary slavery is giving someone a slave for free. ifyou give me $10000 for my servitude, i would have no rights to the money i just earned since i am a slave.

in return i get guaranteed support for life even if it involves extremely hard work and a low standard of living. i would have no say over my duties, no say over where i live, no say over who i work for or am owned by. my owner could sell me off eh? the only guarantee i would have is that i would be a slave for the rest of my life and that my master would have to keep me alive until i died "naturally". he would not be permitted to turn me out in my old age or to kill me when i am no longer productive.

one would have to be in a very desperate situation to take a deal like that. not many scenarios come to mind. excon sex offender who wants to stay out of prison but cant find a job due to his previous crimes. illiterate illegal immigrant with few work skills.

im thinking that while its not WRONG of a desperate person to grab at any possibility that seems to offer survival, it IS wrong for anyone to take him up on the offer. no one needs a slave. it would be wrong to own one even if he begs you to take him.

suppose a pesron decides, for whatever reason, that instead of messing around with wage labor for the next 40 years until they retire, they would rather sell themselves into slavery. is this permissible? more importantly, should it be? why or why not?

keep in mind that this is about a person voluntarily selling themselves into slavery, not being kidnapped or anything.
It violates the 13th amendment, so legally, it is not permissable, unless the person was getting something in return.
BTW, there is actually a precedent to this. During the Roman Empire, there were some wealthy Romans that weren't citizens. They sold themselves into slavery, for when they were released, they'd be granted full Roman citizenship. These Romans, of course, had the means to buy their freedom.

The master had to provide the slave with food, lodging and (if it was a female slave) sex. Because sex is a basic human right, and since men basically owned their wives, clearly a slave could not marry. Thus, it was a slave-owners duty to copulate with the help.
That's inaccurate. Female slaves were only scouraged (as opposed to being stoned to death) if thier master was found to have copulated with them, the premise being that since she (the female slave) is not free (ie did not choose to have sex) she should not be killed. The whole premise of scourging rather killing a female slave who's master has copulated with her, is that she cannot refuse so should not be blamed. I cant see how being allowed to be scourged rather than stoned to death equates to sex being seen as an entitlement of female slaves.
Also slaves could marry. There is a set of instructions regarding what should happen if a slave is to be freed, if that slave has been given a wife by their master.

Also their slavery only lasted 7 years
This is also untrue, the 7 year limitation applied only to Israelite slaves (that is slaves who were Israelites, not slaves owned by Israelites).

Well, if this person has made a proper contract, and, knowing full well he could quit his/her job at any time, continues to stay in that abusive situation, then I think it would be alright. I mean, if that's how they like to live, then why should anyone tell them they can't? Truth be told, they likely would do it anyway. That said, I can't see such a slavery-master relationship being a highly popular thing, maybe like domantrices these days; one of those things you do outside of normal life.
No because the whole of society is effected. In the first instance in many modern societies through taxation most citizens have made an investment in other citizens and have a right to some form of return via their contribution to society, a contribution that could be eliminated via slavery (ie no pay = no taxes to pay). With regards to allowing a person to behave violently towards another, it appears likely that such behaviour is self intensifying, as the person commits greater acts of violence toward their property, they become a more violent person. Most socieities dont want violent citizens.

If the people who created you (your parents) cant and dont own you (as is the current law in 'Westernised' societies), then sure as anything there can be no justification for ownership of humans, otherwise since the law states that what you create from your own resources is your property, we would already have owners - our parents.

hmmm...why not just off a few people and then get sent to jail - where you get three square, a cot, and plenty of time to watch tv and lift weights...just look out for your cornhole...

:rolleyes: By definition if it's voluntary it's not slavery.
Correct … I think it would have been better stated
“voluntary servitude “ … if so that is their choice … as long as it only effects them (not decedents if they don’t fulfill the contract or something

suppose a pesron decides, for whatever reason, that instead of messing around with wage labor for the next 40 years until they retire, they would rather sell themselves into slavery. is this permissible? more importantly, should it be? why or why not?

keep in mind that this is about a person voluntarily selling themselves into slavery, not being kidnapped or anything.

People already do that.

ok ive thought about this since the thread started, wondering just how voluntary slavery would work.

most slavery involves selling someone else, you pocket the money, the other guy works for free. but voluntary slavery is giving someone a slave for free. ifyou give me $10000 for my servitude, i would have no rights to the money i just earned since i am a slave.

in return i get guaranteed support for life even if it involves extremely hard work and a low standard of living. i would have no say over my duties, no say over where i live, no say over who i work for or am owned by. my owner could sell me off eh? the only guarantee i would have is that i would be a slave for the rest of my life and that my master would have to keep me alive until i died "naturally". he would not be permitted to turn me out in my old age or to kill me when i am no longer productive.

one would have to be in a very desperate situation to take a deal like that. not many scenarios come to mind. excon sex offender who wants to stay out of prison but cant find a job due to his previous crimes. illiterate illegal immigrant with few work skills.

im thinking that while its not WRONG of a desperate person to grab at any possibility that seems to offer survival, it IS wrong for anyone to take him up on the offer. no one needs a slave. it would be wrong to own one even if he begs you to take him.

No, not for the rest of your natural life, for an agreed period. A way I would envisage this working is that if someone is heavily in debt and unable to pay, they could become a slave for a time to clear the debt. This doesn't make economic sense in our world of special skills and compound interest, but it could be put to use in less economically developed areas.

No, not for the rest of your natural life, for an agreed period. A way I would envisage this working is that if someone is heavily in debt and unable to pay, they could become a slave for a time to clear the debt. This doesn't make economic sense in our world of special skills and compound interest, but it could be put to use in less economically developed areas.

Wake up, it already is. And in those places, Law and Order hardly ever get involved with enforcing release dates. Seriously are you some old tyme confederate states wannabe or something? Slavery is bad.

Correct … I think it would have been better stated
“voluntary servitude “

slavery is about property rights over human beings. there is no necessary 'involuntary' component.

if so that is their choice … as long as it only effects them (not decedents if they don’t fulfill the contract or something

so what principle(s) would you say allows this to be legitimate?

People already do that.

i know. but the question is, is it right or is it wrong? and why?