The Slave Trade?

Nathyn:

The difference hasn't really been noticeable, in practice, because historically people have still just referred to both as "slavery."  When you see a half-naked person who has no control over their life, you don't see whether or not that action was entered into through contract or coercion. All you see is just a hale-naked person who has no control over their life.

Nice how you dodged the questions I posed by saying 'the difference hasn't been noticeable'.

Nathyn:

In some cases, like in Africa, slavery was compulsive. In a lot of others cases, such as modern slavery, people became slaves-by-debt. It's the basis for laws banning slavery and allowing for bankruptcy.

If you owe me a lot of money and don't pay up, according to Anarchism, I have the right to seize your assets, if not simply use violence... If the only thing you have is you, then what do I do?

Well, if you have no assets to seize, due to *your* defaulting on the terms of the contract that *you* engaged in then I suppose there is nothing to be done about it except to try to seize your future earnings in order to pay back the debt *you* personally guaranteed against your future earnings. Where exactly is the part where someone held a gun to your head and said 'sign here'?

Or I suppose the debt holder could just write it off because requiring someone to fulful their voluntary contractual obligations is too much like slavery for their tastes.

I haven't read the rest of the comments to this drivel but owing someone money doesn't give them the right to use violence against you -- unless of course it's to recover *their* property in your possession that you refuse to hand over to service your now defaulted debt. Same as if you try to stop the repo man from taking 'your' car with a baseball bat...that probably isn't going to work out too well for legally or personal safety wise.

What's wrong with accepting a little personal responsibility for one's own actions anyway?

"Oh, oh because 'slavery' is bad and forcing me to pay my debts is just as bad as slavery because someone gets to enjoy the fruits of my labor even though I had no problem enjoying the fruits of theirs while I spent the money I borrowed from them. "

Grow a frickin' backbone, kid... 

kdnc:

gethky:

kdnc:

That free trade is amoral is not a contention it is a truism.

If free trade per se is amoral, then is free trade in slaves immoral?

No. Slavery is immoral. Free trade is an entirely seperate issue. As Grant has nicely illustrated.

 

Grant:

That is a good question. Obviously the appropriation of slaves is immoral. But what about the trader who simply buys and sells them?

 

If trading slaves involves coercion, then it is an immoral act. 

kdnc:

gethky:

kdnc:

That free trade is amoral is not a contention it is a truism.

If free trade per se is amoral, then is free trade in slaves immoral?

No. Slavery is immoral. Free trade is an entirely seperate issue. As Grant has nicely illustrated.

"But what about the trader who simply buys and sells them?" - Grant

If trading in slavery involves coercion, then isn't the slave trade immoral?

Anonymous Coward:

Nathyn:

The difference hasn't really been noticeable, in practice, because historically people have still just referred to both as "slavery."  When you see a half-naked person who has no control over their life, you don't see whether or not that action was entered into through contract or coercion. All you see is just a hale-naked person who has no control over their life.

Nice how you dodged the questions I posed by saying 'the difference hasn't been noticeable'.

Given the fact that I'm like chum in a sea of sharks here, you should cut me some slack for not responding to every point, just the most relevant ones.

To respond: I disagree. I could dig up some photos of child slaves in India or elsewhere, today. You have absolutely no idea of telling whether they're slaves-by-contract or not.

I agree that a lot of people that are just plain poor may look like slaves, but that's not really the point: The key point is that the conditions of slavery are the same, regardless of the means by which slavery is entered into. That's what makes slavery so barbaric, not because it violates some silly, abstract theory of "self-ownership."

 

Anonymous Coward:

Nathyn:

In some cases, like in Africa, slavery was compulsive. In a lot of others cases, such as modern slavery, people became slaves-by-debt. It's the basis for laws banning slavery and allowing for bankruptcy.

If you owe me a lot of money and don't pay up, according to Anarchism, I have the right to seize your assets, if not simply use violence... If the only thing you have is you, then what do I do?

Well, if you have no assets to seize, due to *your* defaulting on the terms of the contract that *you* engaged in then I suppose there is nothing to be done about it except to try to seize your future earnings in order to pay back the debt *you* personally guaranteed against your future earnings. Where exactly is the part where someone held a gun to your head and said 'sign here'?

Or I suppose the debt holder could just write it off because requiring someone to fulful their voluntary contractual obligations is too much like slavery for their tastes.

I haven't read the rest of the comments to this drivel but owing someone money doesn't give them the right to use violence against you -- unless of course it's to recover *their* property in your possession that you refuse to hand over to service your now defaulted debt. Same as if you try to stop the repo man from taking 'your' car with a baseball bat...that probably isn't going to work out too well for legally or personal safety wise.

What's wrong with accepting a little personal responsibility for one's own actions anyway?

"Oh, oh because 'slavery' is bad and forcing me to pay my debts is just as bad as slavery because someone gets to enjoy the fruits of my labor even though I had no problem enjoying the fruits of theirs while I spent the money I borrowed from them. "

Grow a frickin' backbone, kid... 

 

Here's the problem, though: Since you agree that there's subjective utility, how could seizing a person's assets for defaulting on a contract even be valid? What I mean is, if somebody defaults, how much stuff do you seize and what do you seize, if it's not in-kind the same thing promised in the contract?

I.E., if I promise to have sex with you, signing a contract, and I don't deliver, what are you going to take? It's totally arbitrary, if you believe in subjective value.

Even if I owe you $10, if I don't pay up, you can't just seize $10. You should have some right to seize more than that, because your time-preference dictated that when you lent me money, you wanted it back at a certain time for a certain interest rate. If you have to wait even longer, who's to say your time-preference, at that point, doesn't dictate a gazillion rate of interest increase?

gethky:

If free trade per se is amoral, then is free trade in slaves immoral?

This is actually an easy question to answer.  The only moral trade here is to purchase a slave's freedom. 

The other possibilities; to purchase a slave and keep him in slavery, or purchase a slave and sell him to a third party are not only immoral, but clearly criminal.   In the former case, even if the conditions of his slavery are better than before, it's still a criminal act because a human being is still being denied his natural rights. In the latter case, even if the trader never actually takes posession of the slave, selling the slave presupposes that the slave is in fact owned.  And anyone who claims ownership of another human being is committing a criminal act.

 So do tell, how does one argue against slavery without some 'abstract' theory of rights? On account of its barbarism? Then demonstrate why this alone suffices, on grounds of an 'abstract' theory of rights that this is sufficient to render slavery undesirable. The problem of course, is, self-ownership isn't the only 'abstract' theory of rights. They all are, the Rawlsian no less than the Objectivist views. So much for 'abstract' theories of rights, then.

I am sorry, but don't we have here a positive/normative mixup?

Positive statement: Free market seeks maximum efficiency and slavery is inefficient ergo slavery shall not last in totaly free market

Normative: Slavery is immoral and there is nothing in a free market that prevent slavery ex ante ergo free market is immoral

Anonymous Coward:

leonidia:

Have you actually read anything by Rothbard?

That's a rhetorical question right?

I was thinking about starting a thread "Help Save Nathyn" where we could compile a reading list and generally help him out. Stuff like review his future class schedules and interview his professors to see what kind of future attacks he is likely to come up with so we could preempt his trollish activities by giving him the information he needs to understand the counter-point that we will invairably have to provide.

All this is of course is based on the assumption his trolling is a cry for help and that he's not just an attention whore... 

Yes, it was a rhetorical question. It seems that either:

1) He's done the reading and doesn't understand it, or

2) He hasn't done the reading, and is tossing around wild statements about what he thinks it contains, or

3) He's here to troll. 

Or possibly a combination of any of these.  You can try to help him if you want, but unless he shows a genuine desire to learn the basics, and refrain from trollish activities, it seems like a waste of time. 

Inquisitor:

 So do tell, how does one argue against slavery without some 'abstract' theory of rights? On account of its barbarism? Then demonstrate why this alone suffices, on grounds of an 'abstract' theory of rights that this is sufficient to render slavery undesirable. The problem of course, is, self-ownership isn't the only 'abstract' theory of rights. They all are, the Rawlsian no less than the Objectivist views. So much for 'abstract' theories of rights, then.

Yes, on account of its barbarism. That's also what utterly rips apart the "Taxation is theft!!!" argument, or should say war-cry.

By simply looking at it, and seeing how it shows total disregard for human life and offends the conscience of every rational, civilized person.

Ethics can't really be firmly established on philosophy, only justified and discussed, assuming we make the same basic assumptions. Abstract theories of rights are important, but only in as much as they improve the individual human condition.

A regard for human life is taken as axiom because it's only through a mutual regard for eachothers' well-being that we actually further eachothers' well-being. This is what it means to say that freedom and justice are reciprocal. All ethics, including the ethics of liberty by classical liberals, are founded upon it. You see this most clearly in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.

If Rothbard, through his sophistry, happens to come to the conclusion that a holocaust is justified for his own liberty's sake, his entire argument falls apart because his basic assumptions about the value of humanity contradict that of just about everyone.

If "human life" isn't important to you, if you're not a Humanist but look at other human beings as insects to be limitlessly bought, sold, and used for our own freedom's sake, then we have no grounds to discuss ethics at all.

Rothbard seems to not make any assumption of humanity's value at all, but takes simply his own life to be valuable and tries to convince the world to capitulate to his idea of freedom, for his own sake. Had you been born a sickly child in Sparta and tossed away or a neglected child in an American ghetto, Rothbard sees nothing wrong with this.

If you see nothing wrong with it either, simply because you and Rothbard, by chance alone, were not born in Sparta or an American ghetto, then we have no way of discussing what's "right" at all. But you certainly have no claim to be an individualist, unless by "individualist," you mean psychotically narcissistic, which Rothbard seems to be.

This psychological evaluation seems to fit, based upon Justin Raimondo's description of the man:

http://www.againstpolitics.com/austrian_economics/steele_rothbard.htm

Murray fancifully saw himself as something of a libertarian Lenin. While his dogmatic invective and propensity to conspire may sometimes have seemed reminiscent of the founder of Bolshevism, Rothbard was too playful, too volatile, and too much smitten by the allure of pure ideas to build or to lead a vanguard party.

His political life became an erratic succession of alliances, each one enthusiastically pursued for a few years, then angrily abandoned, with his erstwhile confederates anathematized, though unlike Rand he would sometimes team up with them again later, old differences forgiven if not forgotten.

leonidia:

gethky:

If free trade per se is amoral, then is free trade in slaves immoral?

This is actually an easy question to answer.  The only moral trade here is to purchase a slave's freedom. 

The other possibilities; to purchase a slave and keep him in slavery, or purchase a slave and sell him to a third party are not only immoral, but clearly criminal.   In the former case, even if the conditions of his slavery are better than before, it's still a criminal act because a human being is still being denied his natural rights. In the latter case, even if the trader never actually takes posession of the slave, selling the slave presupposes that the slave is in fact owned.  And anyone who claims ownership of another human being is committing a criminal act.

I think you may have opened the proverbial can of worms:

1. I don't believe freedom can be purchased, although one could purchase a slave and then go through one's local society's recognized procedure to chamge the slave's status to a freeperson.

2. Keepng or selling slaves does indeed involve coercion and is therefore immoral, but not necessarily criminal sans government.

3. Improving the slave's conditions still involes coercion, but I can't agree that such a concept as "natural rights" is meaningful.

4. I'd venture a guess that most parents would claim ownership of their young children.

Yes, on account of its barbarism. That's also what utterly rips apart the "Taxation is theft!!!" argument, or should say war-cry.

Non sequitur, my dear troll. You have not proven why barbarism == immoral. Your other claim leaves even more to be desired.

By simply looking at it, and seeing how it shows total disregard for human life and offends the conscience of every rational, civilized person.

Gay sex offends a lot of 'right-minded' individuals. Who gives a ***? I don't actually disagree that looking at our moral intuitions is a good starting place for ethical theory; but it is hardly what will be the ultimate determinant of what actually is moral/ethical or not.

Ethics can't really be firmly established on philosophy, only justified and discussed, assuming we make the same basic assumptions. Abstract theories of rights are important, but only in as much as they improve the individual human condition.

 Are you an emotivist/subjectivist then? Seems not, since you adhere to consequentialism, again itself an 'abstract' theory.

A regard for human life is taken as axiom because it's only through a mutual regard for eachothers' well-being that we actually further eachothers' well-being. This is what it means to say that freedom and justice are reciprocal. All ethics, including the ethics of liberty by classical liberals, are founded upon it. You see this most clearly in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.

Abstract theory, yet again. J. S. Mill did a lot to elaborate upon the idea in Utilitarianism, FYI. Worth a read.

If Rothbard, through his sophistry, happens to come to the conclusion that a holocaust is justified for his own liberty's sake, his entire argument falls apart because his basic assumptions about the value of humanity contradict that of just about everyone.

I see. So now popular vote determines what is moral or isn't? Of course, though, Rothbard's theory comes strongly against slavery. So much of your argument is whining about its being phrased in the language of property, and missing the forest for the trees.

If "human life" isn't important to you, if you're not a Humanist but look at other human beings as insects to be limitlessly bought, sold, and used for our own freedom's sake, then we have no grounds to discuss ethics at all.

Indeed. This still isn't sufficient as a justification for an ethical system, it is merely a reason why one might speak in terms of it. 

Rothbard seems to not make any assumption of humanity's value at all, but takes simply his own life to be valuable and tries to convince the world to capitulate to his idea of freedom, for his own sake. Had you been born a sickly child in Sparta and tossed away or a neglected child in an American ghetto, Rothbard sees nothing wrong with this.

If you see nothing wrong with it either, simply because you and Rothbard, by chance alone, were not born in Sparta or an American ghetto, then we have no way of discussing what's "right" at all. But you certainly have no claim to be an individualist, unless by "individualist," you mean psychotically narcissistic, which Rothbard seems to be.

This psychological evaluation seems to fit, based upon Justin Raimondo's description of the man:

Spare me the psychologizing. You do not even understand Rothbard. His task was to show that all rights can be re-constructed on the basis of the notion of property, much like JS Mill showed human flourishing is explicative of moral intuitions.  Whether Rothbard was correct in divorcing personal morals from social ethics (and whether he was correct that no positive obligations arise to one's children) is a matter of contention amongst Austrians. But please at least get what he is saying right.

gethky:

1. I don't believe freedom can be purchased, although one could purchase a slave and then go through one's local society's recognized procedure to chamge the slave's status to a freeperson.

By "purchasing a slave's freedom", I mean buying the slave so as to release him immediately. i.e. without claiming ownership.

gethky:

2. Keepng or selling slaves does indeed involve coercion and is therefore immoral, but not necessarily criminal sans government.

Wrong; with or without government, coercion is criminal.  It is a violation of natural law (or private law) and by definition is criminal.  There's a difference between immorality and criminality, but the difference has nothing to do with the presence of government.  

gethky:

3. Improving the slave's conditions still involes coercion, but I can't agree that such a concept as "natural rights" is meaningful.

Are you saying that natural rights doesn't apply in this case, or that you don't accept the concept of natural rights at all?  I think most people here would disagree with you.

gethky:

 

4. I'd venture a guess that most parents would claim ownership of their young children.

  Parents don't own their children.  Children are not property. Parents are not free to do whatever they wish their children precisely because they are not property.  They have the custodial rights to their children.  There's a difference.

Jonatan K:

I am sorry, but don't we have here a positive/normative mixup?

Positive statement: Free market seeks maximum efficiency and slavery is inefficient ergo slavery shall not last in totaly free market

Normative: Slavery is immoral and there is nothing in a free market that prevent slavery ex ante ergo free market is immoral

Slavery, from the present-day perspective, may see grossly inefficient, but it must have been sufficiently efficient for the plantation owners of North America. The markets then were so much freer of government regulations than present-day markets that I, perhaps wrongly theoretically, think of trade then as "free trade." My main point, however, is that the slave trade was immoral.

Nathyn:

Ethics can't really be firmly established on philosophy, only justified and discussed, assuming we make the same basic assumptions. Abstract theories of rights are important, but only in as much as they improve the individual human condition.

I think its important to mention that morals are evolved memes. Most people don't understand why they obey certain ethical codes, they are simply passed down from parents to child. Some things may "feel" right to them, and these feelings are probably based on mellenia of genetic and intellectual evolution. However, its easy to see where this evolution can produce errors: many cultures have absurd and destructive codes of morals.

The "abstract theories" of the philosophy of ethics are very different. They seeks to understand morals and improve upon them by applying intellect. Its easy to see where this process can produce errors: Communism and extreme nationalism were the biggest errors of the 20th century. Others might include pre-industrial Japan's isolationism and their later imperialism.

Democratic morality is based on the morality of the masses, and so is largely the result of evolution without any much in the way of philosophizing (most people just don't have the interest or time to engage in true ethical debates).  While democratic morals probably have merit (as bad moral codes tend to die out on their own, albeit slowly), they cannot really be used to critique philosophical positions beyond the simple: "we've been doing it this way, and it works". Such arguments are inherently conservative.

In other words, you've got to refute logic with logic, Nathyn. Show why your system of ethics is superior, if you can. Think of the results which came from the lack of intellectual challenge to failed idealologies such as communism. Although I think you are in the wrong, bad ideas need to be challenged.

All right, here we go:

1. By merely releasing a slave without due process you run the risk of having the sherriff/bounty hunter return the slave and bill you for the bounty.

2. A criminal act is defined in law. There was such a thing as unwritten common law way back when, but nowadays all laws are written (with the probable exception of the so-called "income tax law"). Coercion is illegitimate in a libertarian markekplace. Coercion is prevalent in the present-day marketplace because government control is ubiquitous. 

3. Rights are high-abstractions not amenable to empirical detection.

4. Ownership is an interesting concept. Whether claims to ownersip are valid or not is beyond my purview.

gethky:

allixpeeke:

gethky:

The slave trade with government protection is immoral, but the slave trade without government protection is amoral?

It's neither moral nor immoral without an existing government.  What it is is impossible.

What about if, without an existing government, some people were tricked into becoming slaves held by force, being incommunicado in a fortified compound. Why would this be impossible?

Crime is going to exist whether government exists or not.  I'm not a utopian, and therefore have no illusion about this fact.

If persons A, B, and C decided to detain person D against her will (assuming person D is not a criminal herself), and call person D "a slave," then A, B, and C would be criminals.  Moreover, A, B, and C would be criminals even if they did not call D "a slave."  Either way, person D would not actually be owned by A, B, or C.  Person D would still be the rightful owner of herself.  A, B, and C are, in effect, theives, assuming for themselves possession of the body of D, but not the ownership of the body of D.  No doubt, therefore, that A, B, and C would be criminals under natural law and should be dealt with as such.  This is true whether government exists or not.

If A, B, and C are holding D in a compound, then anyone and everyone has the innate authority to invade said compound to rescure D, so long as E, F, and G are not injured in the process (assuming E, F, and G are innocent bystanders).  Under our current system, the state assumes for itself the authority to invade, which wouldn't be so bad were it not for the fact that i) government is typically funded through theft (although it doesn't have to be), ii) government typically doesn't take enough interest in the innocent (consider the children that died in Waco), and iii) government does not always believe that private citizens have the right to help those in need, calling such citizens vigilantes.  It seems abundantly clear that the state is not necessary to the prevention of this scario, and that it may indeed make the situation worse, as it typically does when it meddles in any aspect of society of the economy.

Finally, there seems to be a logical impossibility in your question, for if A, B, and C do enslave or kidnap D, then A, B, and C are establishing themselves as "the government" and using this establishment to oppress D.  One could reasonable argue that at the moment your scenario takes place, statelessness ceases to be.

Nathyn:

It's not impossible. It's completely feasible.

I say, "I will work for you for my entire life if you just provide basic food and shelter."

He may simply not see that as slavery.

It's only slavery if I prevent you from leaving my employment.  Rothbard argues that because the will is inalienable, I have no authority to compell you to stay under my employment, and that you have every right to leave at any time.

Nathyn:

I'm perfectly capable of throwing away my volition, in three ways:

#1. Supporting the government and having them make decisions for me.

You still have your volition, you simply choose, of your own volition, not to use it for any other purpose than that one choice.

Nathyn:

#2. Suicide. Can't have volition if I'm dead.

True, unless there is an afterlife, which I cannot know.

Nathyn:

#3. Selling my right to volition to a private entity, like Walter Block.

It's impossible to sell your volition, or to alienate it from yourself in any way, except possibly through suicide.

Nathyn:

Now, you might not consider that slavery since volition is never transferred, merely total control over the person's physical body, and that's fine.

No control over any portion of the person's physical body is transfered--unless you actually cut some portion of your body off and sell that.

Nathyn:

As I said, "perpetual servitude" is a suitable euphemism.

One cannot sell herself into perpetual servitude.

Nathyn:

Yes -- according to praxeology, if I sell a lifetime of servitude in exchange for basic subsistence, I am voluntarily cooperating out of subjective, ordinal self-interest

You cannot sell a life-time of servitude, at least not in advance.  You can trade your labour only in the present.  A "promisory contract" is not valid, the only contracts that are valid are those that transfer alienable property, and both one's own body and one's own will are inalienable.

Let's use an analogy.  My right to free speech is inalienable.  I therefore cannot trade away my right to free speech.  I can make a a deal with you that I will not say XYZ about you if you give me $1,000.  And, as long as I don't say XYZ, that $1,000 is mine.  But I, at all times, innately reserve my right to free speech, including my right to say XYZ.  If 20 years down the line I decide to say XYZ, I am not infringing upon your rights.  I do, however, owe you your $1,000 back.

In the same way I can say what I want at any time, I can cease my employment with my employer at any time.

Nathyn:

In a lot of others cases, such as modern slavery, people became slaves-by-debt.

I fail to see how anyone could become a slave through debt.

If you owe me money, you can get out of it in multiple ways.  1. Give me the money you owe me.  2. Kill yourself.  3. Convince me to waive the debt.

At no point in your debt to me do I own you, for if I did, then only I would have a right to end you life.  You would have no right to end your own life.  The fact that this option is still open to you demonstrates that you are still the owner of your body and your will.

If you do not do one of these three things, then you are in effect enslaving me, and that is unjust.  You are enslaving me because you are denying me of my rightful property, the ownership thereof is a property of my personal nature.  Only through paying me what you owe me (or convincing me to waive your debt) do I truly regain my Liberty from you.

Nathyn:

If you owe me a lot of money and don't pay up, according to Anarchism, I have the right to seize your assets, if not simply use violence... If the only thing you have is you, then what do I do?

The protection agency or insurance agency you've hired will take a portion of your aggressor's income to pay off his debts to you over time, thus bringing him back down to a level of equality with you.

By the way, I recommend reading The Market for Liberty by Linda & Morris Tannehill.  It's not perfect, but it's very good.

Nathyn:

Yan Grenier:

You are probably childishly refering to the fact that people can physically write on a piece of paper that they are selling away their body and volition, thus completely walking around and avoiding the fact that writing words on a sheet of paper does not change the laws of reality.

This is a strictly metaphysical objection!

What you're saying is, "You can't sell your self or your body," but you can sell the permanent, unhindered use of your body.

Nathyn,

No, no, no.  At the risk of sounding angry or aggravated, allow me to say that Yan Grenier is not saying that you can "sell the permanent, unhindered use of your body"; rather, he/she is saying you CANNOT "sell the permanent, unhindered use of your body."

Grant:

gethky:

If free trade per se is amoral, then is free trade in slaves immoral?

That is a good question. Obviously the appropriation of slaves is immoral. But what about the trader who simply buys and sells them?

The trader could free the slaves he buys. But then he would quickly run out of money, and not be able to buy any more. In short, he'd leave the business. The slaves he did not end up buying would stay slaves.

It would be silly for Frank to pay Jim so as to buy from Jim an entity Jim does not own and cannot own, namely, Sue.  Since Sue is the rightful owner of Sue and since Sue cannot sell herself, Jim can never be a rightful owner of Sue.  Assuming Jim enslaved Sue, Jim would be guilty of stealing Sue's body from Sue.  For Frank to buy Sue from Jim for any purpose other than freeing Sue, Frank would be just as culpable in the crime of enslavement.  If Frank purchases Sue from someone who does not own Sue (i.e. Jim), Frank is just giving money away to a criminal.  All that is needed to free Sue from Jim is for Frank and everyone else to acknowledge that Sue and only Sue owns Sue, and to recognise that Jim has no rightful control or ownership over Sue whatsoever.

My apologies if I failed to make this as clear as I could have.

You claim:

Grant:

The trader is not an enabler of slavery.

Alas, the slave-trader absolutely is an enabler of slavery, for its the trader's recognition of the slave as somehow justly owned by the slave-master that enables the slave-master to continue his/her authoritarianism over the slave.

If I say that I own my neighbour, it changes nothing.  I can't actually control my neighbour in any way because everyone around me refuses to recognise my supposed ownership over him.  If everyone, or at least a very powerful organisation calling itself "government," recognises me as the actual and just owner of my neighbour, then and only then can I pose any contol over my neighbour.

Nathyn:

If I'm a slave-by-contract, I'm going to do my job, but I'm still going to think, "This is b******t!"

You can't be a slave by contract.  If you don't like your employer, quit.  Likewise, if you don't like having consensual sex with Sally, stop having sex with Sally.

Nathyn:

To respond: I disagree. I could dig up some photos of child slaves in India or elsewhere, today. You have absolutely no idea of telling whether they're slaves-by-contract or not.

If they're slaves, they're slaves.  There is no such thing as a slave by contract, for contracts are only valid when exchanging a claim to an alienable property.  My will and my body are inalienable.  This is the Rothbardian position I am espousing.

Nathyn:

That's what makes slavery so barbaric, not because it violates some silly, abstract theory of "self-ownership."

It is this "silly theory" that makes slavery innately unjust.  If you didn't have innate self-ownership, then I could come across you at any time and "appropriate your body from the state of nature," thereby making myself the rightful owner of your body.  It is only the axiom of self-ownership that makes such an occurrence a form of theft, a barbaric violation of natural Liberty.

Nathyn:

I.E., if I promise to have sex with you, signing a contract, and I don't deliver, what are you going to take? It's totally arbitrary, if you believe in subjective value.

The Rothbardian position is simply: your "promise" to have sex is meaningless.  "Promisory contracts" are invalid.  The only valid contracts are those that transfer property, and I obviously can't own your sex.  If you fail to have sex with me, then all you have to do is give back to me what I gave you--and if neither of us gave the other anything, then neither of us owe the other anything.

Nathyn:

Even if I owe you $10, if I don't pay up, you can't just seize $10. You should have some right to seize more than that, because your time-preference dictated that when you lent me money, you wanted it back at a certain time for a certain interest rate. If you have to wait even longer, who's to say your time-preference, at that point, doesn't dictate a gazillion rate of interest increase?

Your question here is valid.  Block came up with an idea which Rothbard adopted, the notion of "two teeth for a tooth."  Something similar could be used here.

As for the exact just amount, that could be decided by the market through privately-hired arbitors.  Any arbitor who decreed that you owe me a quadrillion dollars simply since you didn't pay me my $10 for, say, a decade would surely lose credibility and customers.  Further, you would have the right to appeal that decision.  Good question.

Nathyn:

If Rothbard, through his sophistry, happens to come to the conclusion that a holocaust is justified for his own liberty's sake, his entire argument falls apart because his basic assumptions about the value of humanity contradict that of just about everyone.

Wow.

Just wow.

I don't know what to say.  I'm dumbfounded how you could possibly make such a statement.

A) Rothbard would not and could not "come to the conclusion that a holocaust is justified for his own liberty's sake."

B) If Rothbard did come up with such a conclusion, it would be in total and complete contradiction with any and all other conclusions he ever came up with, and in complete defiance of his understanding of human nature.

C) If someone comes up with a "conclusion that a holocaust is justified for his own liberty's sake," the person is wrong because of the innate self-ownership that Spooner, Rothbard, Long, and others have championed.

D) Value?  Value is subjective, and not a basis of ethics which, by its very nature, must be objective, as it regards the treatment of entities external to the self based on the innate nature of those entites.  (Morality, conversely, is subjective, as it deals with the conduct of the self as subject.)

E) Humans have certain inalienable rights, such as self-ownership, because it is in the objective nature of humanity that humans possess this equal right.  Subsequently, any argument "that a holocaust is justified for his own liberty's sake" is obviously invalid.

Nathyn:

If "human life" isn't important to you, if you're not a Humanist but look at other human beings as insects to be limitlessly bought, sold, and used for our own freedom's sake, then we have no grounds to discuss ethics at all.

Anarchism is not the same thing as nihilism.

Nathyn:

Rothbard seems to not make any assumption of humanity's value at all, but takes simply his own life to be valuable and tries to convince the world to capitulate to his idea of freedom, for his own sake.

Had you read The Ethics of Liberty, you would see that the very opposite is true.  He explicitely argues AGAINST egoists who claim that it's okay to sacrifice the lives of others so as to save one's own.  His arguments aren't based upon the assumption that his own life is objectively valuable, but rather on the importance of human Liberty as expressed by our equal natural rights.

Nathyn:

Had you been born a sickly child in Sparta and tossed away or a neglected child in an American ghetto, Rothbard sees nothing wrong with this.

Had you read The Ethics of Liberty, you would see that Rothbard makes the clear distinction between ethics and morals.  "Right" and "wrong" are moral terms, while "just" and "unjust" are ethical terms.  It seems highly probable that he would find this to be "wrong," but not unjust unless coersion were applied.  But, further, had you read The Ethics of Liberty, you would see that Rothbard makes the argument that this sort of act would be extremely rare, even rarer than it is now.

Nathyn:

If you see nothing wrong with it either, simply because you and Rothbard, by chance alone, were not born in Sparta or an American ghetto, then we have no way of discussing what's "right" at all. But you certainly have no claim to be an individualist, unless by "individualist," you mean psychotically narcissistic, which Rothbard seems to be.

Rothbard was not the nihilist you wish to make him out to be.  Read his work, see for yourself.

Nathyn:

Murray fancifully saw himself as something of a libertarian Lenin. While his dogmatic invective and propensity to conspire may sometimes have seemed reminiscent of the founder of Bolshevism, Rothbard was too playful, too volatile, and too much smitten by the allure of pure ideas to build or to lead a vanguard party.

His political life became an erratic succession of alliances, each one enthusiastically pursued for a few years, then angrily abandoned, with his erstwhile confederates anathematized, though unlike Rand he would sometimes team up with them again later, old differences forgiven if not forgotten.

I noticed this while reading about his life.  If you are trying to use this as an example of why Rothbard was not concerned with human ethics, it fails, as this simply describes his silly habit of burning bridges.

gethky:

2. Keepng or selling slaves does indeed involve coercion and is therefore immoral, but not necessarily criminal sans government.

If something is a violation of natural law, then it's naturally criminal, government or sans government.  Slavery is the theft of one's body from the rightful owner of said body (i.e. the self), and is therefore a violation of the natural law of self-ownership.  It is therefore criminal, by its very nature.

gethky:

4. I'd venture a guess that most parents would claim ownership of their young children.

They would be wrong to do so.  Children, by their nature as human beings, are equal to their parents, and are therefore free to secede from their parents' household any time they wish.  Any establishment of rules made by the parent are to be made under the assumption that it's "their way or the highway," not under the assumption that children are not inherently sovereign and free individuals possessing all the same, equal rights as other humans.

https://www.mises.org/story/2291

 This is an instructive article on the matter, and one that bolsters Alex's points.

allixpeeke:

Nathyn:

Yan Grenier:

You are probably childishly refering to the fact that people can physically write on a piece of paper that they are selling away their body and volition, thus completely walking around and avoiding the fact that writing words on a sheet of paper does not change the laws of reality.

This is a strictly metaphysical objection!

What you're saying is, "You can't sell your self or your body," but you can sell the permanent, unhindered use of your body.

Nathyn,

No, no, no.  At the risk of sounding angry or aggravated, allow me to say that Yan Grenier is not saying that you can "sell the permanent, unhindered use of your body"; rather, he/she is saying you CANNOT "sell the permanent, unhindered use of your body."

That is correct, Allixpeeke. That will be a he by the way, although I won't hold you accountable (lol). My name can lead to confusion :) . I'll update my profile.

(I don’t know your philosophy here but I found this a curious place.)

 

Let’s say I am a very wealthy capitalist. And I find a new way to undercut labor cost in our future world market.  I ran the numbers and found that I could create my widget with a new labor methodology.

 

I create a genetic engineering program and grow children in artificial wombs.  I take the child after they are born and I educate and train them for very specific roles.  I give them the most basic needs necessary to complete the labor I need done.  They are never taken outside, know nothing of the outside world and are educated to respect my staff, my rules and myself.  Those that cause trouble are allowed to leave.  Those that remain continue to receive the benefits of my system.

 

Overtime I weed out those that desire to leave.  I continue to use this genetic program to adapt and make this work force more efficient.  They receive a fairly boring existence but they make widgets that benefit the entire free market cutting prices dramatically. 

 

They can leave anytime they want if they really want to.  But they can never return if they choose to leave.  Neither my staff nor I ever tell them that they can leave.

 

---

 

I have a question. Do children even have the capacity for free will to make a rational choice of value in a free market?  If a child is willing to sign a contract at the age of 12 who can stop them and should that contract be upheld?  Or does the contract end as soon as someone says, “Stop” even if the obligations in the contract have not been met?

 

Obviously the greatest fault I see here is that there is a belief that a free market will operate without coercion.  And if serious coercion does occur who will step in?  Or is it up to the party that was coerced to deal with the problem?  And who will step in if the local people get together who are sick of my slave shop and remove me from the community?  That is a government of people who made a choice, why should they be allowed to interfere in the free market?  Would you stand up and fight those people from interfering in my free trade or simply see it as proper justice? 

 

To assume that current humans would operate a market without any coercion is dangerously foolish.  Like most philosophy, especially regarding that of liberty, it only works when both parties agree and uphold the philosophical social contract. And when it comes to profits and power many people will use coercion to achieve their goals.  In fact if there is profit to be made while trampling a contract, the contract will not be upheld but dumped for more lucrative profits.  At the same time the other party will want to uphold the contract but the other party won't. 

 

It seems guaranteed there will be a lot of people out there using coercion to achieve their goals in a free for all market.  If the coercive business is predominately successful they will undermine the non-coercive business and in time eliminate them from existence.  Then the free market would likely be changed into a regulated market and then back into some form of oligarchy.  That seems to be the way of those who attain power from wealth through out our history.

 

---

 

allixpeeke:

gethky:

2. Keepng or selling slaves does indeed involve coercion and is therefore immoral, but not necessarily criminal sans government.

If something is a violation of natural law, then it's naturally criminal, government or sans government.  Slavery is the theft of one's body from the rightful owner of said body (i.e. the self), and is therefore a violation of the natural law of self-ownership.  It is therefore criminal, by its very nature.

gethky:

4. I'd venture a guess that most parents would claim ownership of their young children.

They would be wrong to do so.  Children, by their nature as human beings, are equal to their parents, and are therefore free to secede from their parents' household any time they wish.  Any establishment of rules made by the parent are to be made under the assumption that it's "their way or the highway," not under the assumption that children are not inherently sovereign and free individuals possessing all the same, equal rights as other humans.

 

2. A criminal act is defined in law. There was such a thing as unwritten common law way-back-when, but nowadays all laws are written (with the probable exception of the so-called "income tax law"). Coercion is understood to be theoretically illegitimate in a theoretical libertarian markekplace. Actual coercion is prevalent in the present-day marketplace because government control is ubiquitous. Your discussion of "a natural law" in such abstract terms as "slavery is the theft of one's body from the rightful owner (i.e., the self)" & "self-ownership" & "criminal by its very nature"  may be interesting albeit not very enlightening.

4. Ownership is an interesting concept. Whether or not claims to ownership are valid is beyond my purview. I can only guess as to who claims owership to what. 

gethky:

A criminal act is defined in law.

Yes.

gethky:

There was such a thing as unwritten common law way-back-when, but nowadays all laws are written

So what? Laws don't have to be written to be laws. The UK doesn't even have a written constitution, for example.

gethky:

Coercion is understood to be theoretically illegitimate in a theoretical libertarian markekplace. 

Coercian is illegitimate.  It's not theorectical whether in a "theoretical libertarian marketplace" or otherwise.

gethky:

Actual coercion is prevalent in the present-day marketplace because government control is ubiquitous.

Yes.

gethky:

Your discussion of "a natural law" in such abstract terms as "slavery is the theft of one's body from the rightful owner (i.e., the self)" & "self-ownership" & "criminal by its very nature"  may be interesting albeit not very enlightening.

It's not abstract to talk about slavery as being a violation of Natural Law.  Everyone has a property right in their own body.  Indeed this is the most fundamental right there is, which is why slavery violates Natural Law.  

Brutus:

Obviously the greatest fault I see here is that there is a belief that a free market will operate without coercion.  And if serious coercion does occur who will step in?  Or is it up to the party that was coerced to deal with the problem?  And who will step in if the local people get together who are sick of my slave shop and remove me from the community?  That is a government of people who made a choice, why should they be allowed to interfere in the free market?  Would you stand up and fight those people from interfering in my free trade or simply see it as proper justice?

I would say the simplest way to stop you from exploiting the children in this manner would be to just not buy your products and made it be known far and wide what sort of business practices you resort to to undercut the competition. I really can't really see even a tiny fraction of the people finding this practice acceptable under any form of market so most likely you would go bankrupt soon after the information leaked out to the public.

Any of the children would also have a pretty much ironclad lawsuit against you which any halfway decent lawyer could easily turn into a class action suit that would eat up any remaining capital you would have accumulated from engaging in such a practice.

You would end up poor, hated and utterly broken, shunned from any decent community and have no hope for a livable future all without any force or coercion being used against you.

That's the politically correct version. Personally, I'd just take you out to the desert and bury you...but then again, I'd make a really bad anarchist.

Brutus:

It seems guaranteed there will be a lot of people out there using coercion to achieve their goals in a free for all market.

No, no, no. Free Market not 'free for all market'. In a Free Market there are means to protect against coercion, theft and fraud. A Free Market can't exist without these protections for precisely the reasons you state.

Brutus:

What about coercive elements of the market itself such that economic situations thrust people into situations that they would not agree to normally.  They can choose to starve or submit to a slave contract for life?

I believe the proper term for that is a 'social contract'. Under this 'contract' you are forced to give the rewards of nearly 50% of your labor to 'society' because you consented to this contract by the very act of being born. Kind of like a shrink wrap EULA when you buy software at a store I suppose.

Brutus:

Let’s even say it was written into the contract that life was forfeit upon leaving without permission.

That one's called 'Selective Service' if I'm not mistaken. 

Oh... I kid, I kid... 

allixpeeke:

You claim:

Grant:

The trader is not an enabler of slavery.

Alas, the slave-trader absolutely is an enabler of slavery, for its the trader's recognition of the slave as somehow justly owned by the slave-master that enables the slave-master to continue his/her authoritarianism over the slave.

If I say that I own my neighbour, it changes nothing.  I can't actually control my neighbour in any way because everyone around me refuses to recognise my supposed ownership over him.  If everyone, or at least a very powerful organisation calling itself "government," recognises me as the actual and just owner of my neighbour, then and only then can I pose any contol over my neighbour.

Trading in something does not mean to acknowledge that it is just, any more than I acknowledge that government is just by voting or paying a traffic fine. The trader's recognition one way or the other has no effect on the institution of slaver itself, it is only the recognition of the slavers (the people who do the inslaving) and the government (which keeps the slaves from being able to run off) which keeps slavery going. A reduction in the number of slave traders would just make the less market less liquid.

I do agree with you, although not for the reasons you state. A less liquid slave market would decrease the demand for slaves, so slave traders retiring would help to reduce slavery. That would make participating in slave trading immoral. 

Grant:

Trading in something does not mean to acknowledge that it is just, any more than I acknowledge that government is just by voting or paying a traffic fine.

You do those things only because you are backed up against a wall by the state.  Who's forcing you to buy and sell people, especially in a stateless society?  No one, therefore if you do it, you are fully culpable in enabling the hypothetical system of slavery.

The point I'm trying to make is that, without a state, virtually no one would recognise legitimacy in the ownership of one man by another, and therefore slavery could not persist in a free society.  Those few (if there even are any) who engage in enslavement or in the slave trade would be considered criminal elements, and rightly so.

Grant:

The trader's recognition one way or the other has no effect on the institution of slaver itself, it is only the recognition of the slavers (the people who do the inslaving) and the government (which keeps the slaves from being able to run off) which keeps slavery going.

We're here dealing with the hypothetical (and unrealistic) idea of slavery in the state of nature.  Obviously the government was the major protector of slavery, in a way only a Leviathan could.  But the only theoretical way slavery could exist in a state of nature is if the masses recognised legitimacy in the ownership of one man by another.  Slave traders, once again, would be fully culpable in enabling slavery through the promotion of the appearance of legitimacy.  And if we can establish that slave-traders would be fully culpable in a state of nature, then we must logically conclude that engaging in slave trading is a violation of natural law and is thus unethical, whether in a statutory or a free society.

leonidia:

gethky:

A criminal act is defined in law.

Yes.

gethky:

There was such a thing as unwritten common law way-back-when, but nowadays all laws are written

So what? Laws don't have to be written to be laws. The UK doesn't even have a written constitution, for example.

gethky:

Coercion is understood to be theoretically illegitimate in a theoretical libertarian markekplace. 

Coercian is illegitimate.  It's not theorectical whether in a "theoretical libertarian marketplace" or otherwise.

gethky:

Actual coercion is prevalent in the present-day marketplace because government control is ubiquitous.

Yes.

gethky:

Your discussion of "a natural law" in such abstract terms as "slavery is the theft of one's body from the rightful owner (i.e., the self)" & "self-ownership" & "criminal by its very nature"  may be interesting albeit not very enlightening.

It's not abstract to talk about slavery as being a violation of Natural Law.  Everyone has a property right in their own body.  Indeed this is the most fundamental right there is, which is why slavery violates Natural Law.  

2. Laws are written nowadays because there is now a comparatively very low level of illiteracy.

3. The libertarian marketplace, being a theoretical construct, is virtual. The present-day marketplace, on the other hand, is objective in that the elements of it can be empirically detected. One can theorize what effects would result in the libertarian marketplace from a given coercive act, but nothing could be empirically detected, however, those results that are measurable could be empirically detected in the present-day market.

5. I contend that concepts such as "natural law" & "rights" can't be empirically detected as one can empirically detect the concept of say, gravity. Such high abstractions are, however, the stuff of theoretical constructs as in the arts, religion and philosophy. Confusing high abstractions with concepts that are empirically verifiable leads one to be illogical. (I use 'concept' as 'concept/word' because words, afterall, are concepts.)

 

Is it problematic that they are high abstractions? I do not see why. All law is based on them.

To Brutus, AC's response is good, and in addition I would say have a look at this:

http://mutualist.org/id4.html 

Inquisitor:

Is it problematic that they are high abstractions? I do not see why.

The problem lies in the anthropomorphization of abstract concepts.

gethky:

Inquisitor:

Is it problematic that they are high abstractions? I do not see why.

The problem lies in the anthropomorphization of abstract concepts.

I should have written 'reification' but at the time all I could think of was 'anthropomorphization':

"Reification (also known as hypostatization or concretism) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it represented a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not one. When people describe natural events (like a geyser) or social institutions (like government) as alive, they are committing a reification fallacy.

Note that reification is perfectly acceptable in literature, where it is often used as a metaphor. Its use in logical arguments is a mistake (fallacy). In rhetoric it may be sometimes difficult to determine if reification was used correctly or incorrectly.

Pathetic fallacy or anthropomorphic fallacy (in literature known as personification) is a specific subset of reification, where the theoretical concepts are not only considered alive, but human-like and intelligent.

Reification often takes place when natural or social processes are misunderstood and/or simplified; for example when human creations are described as 'facts of nature, results of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will'. Reification can also occur when a word with a normal usage is given an invalid usage. Such 'mental shortcuts' lead to ascribing substance or real existence to mental constructs or concepts, particularly treating them as a live beings. When human-like qualities are attributed as well, it is a special case of reification, known as pathetic fallacy (or anthropomorphic fallacy).

A reification circle refers to the event when a norm, first seen as artificial and forced, in time becomes so accepted that even its creators start to think of it as a natural law." - http://www.answers.com/topic/reification-fallacy

 

gethky:

I contend that concepts such as "natural law" & "rights" can't be empirically detected as one can empirically detect the concept of say, gravity.

But does that really matter? Don't all laws that govern the actions of human beings have to be based on some kind of ethical system? And if you're going to create an ethical system, what better place to start than by recoginzing that all human beings have a property right in their own body? What more fundamental right can there be? In fact you can't envisage an ethical system without recognizining this. And once you do, you have to recognize other property rights as well.  The Natural Law, which is derived from these rights is obviously not law that can be empirically proven in the same way that gravity can be proven. It is derived from basic axioms that are deduced a priori and is apodictic and self-evident. Nevertheless, in some sense we do use our knowledge and experience of what it means to be human to know that it's true, and it is useful in its application in the real world as it applies to human beings. And far from being illogical, I would say that such concepts are very logical because they conform to human nature and the logical structure of our minds. Would you not agree?

leonidia:

gethky:

I contend that concepts such as "natural law" & "rights" can't be empirically detected as one can empirically detect the concept of say, gravity.

But does that really matter? Don't all laws that govern the actions of human beings have to be based on some kind of ethical system? And if you're going to create an ethical system, what better place to start than by recoginzing that all human beings have a property right in their own body? What more fundamental right can there be? In fact you can't envisage an ethical system without recognizining this. And once you do, you have to recognize other property rights as well.  The Natural Law, which is derived from these rights is obviously not law that can be empirically proven in the same way that gravity can be proven. It is derived from basic axioms that are deduced a priori and is apodictic and self-evident. Nevertheless, in some sense we do use our knowledge and experience of what it means to be human to know that it's true, and it is useful in its application in the real world as it applies to human beings. And far from being illogical, I would say that such concepts are very logical because they conform to human nature and the logical structure of our minds. Would you not agree?

You imply that "human nature" is known, so let's look at a few facts: during the 20th century at least 100 million people were deliberately killed in 1) WW1, 2) WW2, [during the period of WW2 there were mass slaughters by British Bombers obliterating Dresden, by the Nazi SS "ethnic cleansing," the rape of Nanking China by Japanese occupiers and U.S. Air Force atomic bombing of two civilian cities and firebombing other civilian cities including Tokyo in Japan] 3)  Korean War & 4) Vietnam War. Civilization was on the brink of destruction during the last half of the 20th century during the Cold War. In 2003 the U.S. armed forces invaded and occupied, to this very day, the small defenseless country of Iraq at an estimated total cost of at least 2 trillion dollars. It appears to me that "human nature," if anything, is savage, bloodthirsty & beastial.

 

gethky:

It appears to me that "human nature," if anything, is savage, bloodthirsty & beastial.

Ah, but if you could've seen the faces of those who lived their whole lives under tyranny and oppression who were suddenly Free you could see that there is A Better Way™.

It all went to hell in a hand basket due to incompetence and greed of course but for a very brief moment in time there existed a truly free peoples on this here earth.

And that gives me hope...