Juan: AndrewKemendo:Rothbard argues in MES that a "voluntary" slave contract is something different than slavery entirely because it is made voluntarily - so it ceases to be slavery in any sense. Are you saying that Rothbard endorsed 'voluntary' slavery ? ... ? You know what ? It seems he did not...
AndrewKemendo:Rothbard argues in MES that a "voluntary" slave contract is something different than slavery entirely because it is made voluntarily - so it ceases to be slavery in any sense.
I never said anything about endorsing did I? Rothbard simply stating something is not an endorsement - this is a point so many get confused on.
Of course he doesnt endorse it so your exercise was just a result of you misinterpreting my words.
banned: Then the question becomes not wheter it is practical or possible for someone to alienate their body but if it was possible would they have the freedom to do it. Correct me if i'm wrong, but you're saying that if it's possible to seperate an individual from their body, that individual can no longer legally claim ownership of their body in the future. This is only true to the extent that they can no longer claim anything since they no longer inhabit their body.
Then the question becomes not wheter it is practical or possible for someone to alienate their body but if it was possible would they have the freedom to do it.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but you're saying that if it's possible to seperate an individual from their body, that individual can no longer legally claim ownership of their body in the future.
This is only true to the extent that they can no longer claim anything since they no longer inhabit their body.
Indeed - if that was what they wanted to. That extent is exactly it.
banned: TSince such a concept is not actually being practiced and you haven't proposed a way that this could actually happen (someone not inhabbiting their body but still existing in a natural state), it's silly to even discuss it.
TSince such a concept is not actually being practiced and you haven't proposed a way that this could actually happen (someone not inhabbiting their body but still existing in a natural state), it's silly to even discuss it.
Man, you people can't read can you?
AndrewKemendo: This is a topic in hot debate over in the transhuman world because if it is the case that we can create synthetic and immortal replicas of our brains and thus conciousness, do we have the right to exterminate our former mortal brain and conciousness at the point in which both are operating. (obviously a different and longer debate - but I am just showing that it is an actual real physical discussion)
This is a topic in hot debate over in the transhuman world because if it is the case that we can create synthetic and immortal replicas of our brains and thus conciousness, do we have the right to exterminate our former mortal brain and conciousness at the point in which both are operating. (obviously a different and longer debate - but I am just showing that it is an actual real physical discussion)
http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/index/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism
http://www.overcomingbias.com/
AndrewKemendo:Of course he doesnt endorse it so your exercise was just a result of you misinterpreting my words.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: I don't think I misinterpreted your words. At best, it's not clear what you're saying. So, what's your point ? Can "voluntary slave contracts" be enforced or not ?
AndrewKemendo: Practically I agree it is absurd right now. However philosophically it holds as reasonable as there may be in the future a way in which to practically sell yourself (I am thinking of a "being john malkovich" type of situation - before you call THAT absurd check out the advances in transhumanism and the overcoming bias blogs). In this case, in the future, anarchists would still hold that liberty is inalienable which I would argue it is not and would be a choice that a person should be free to make.
Practically I agree it is absurd right now. However philosophically it holds as reasonable as there may be in the future a way in which to practically sell yourself (I am thinking of a "being john malkovich" type of situation - before you call THAT absurd check out the advances in transhumanism and the overcoming bias blogs).
In this case, in the future, anarchists would still hold that liberty is inalienable which I would argue it is not and would be a choice that a person should be free to make.
As I have said, not currently because it is not practical. The important issue is philosophical though - as there may be a point in which it is practical.
AK:As I have said, not currently because it is not practical.
Juan: AK:As I have said, not currently because it is not practical. Well, I'm talking about the current real world. And I'm not interested in whether it's practical or not, but whether it's morally good or not.
So our philosophies should only be applicable to today and not for the possible future?
AndrewKemendo:So our philosophies should only be applicable to today and not for the possible future?
No they should apply to reality. Which means that you can't sell that which is required to sell.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: AndrewKemendo:So our philosophies should only be applicable to today and not for the possible future? No they should apply to reality. Which means that you can't sell that which is required to sell.
It's impractibility means that currently it is not possible to sell yourself - of course.
But the argument is not wheter it is practical - is it? The argument is IF POSSIBLE would it be acceptable under the non-aggression principal?
Without a rational faculty, a human cannot act. You're not talking about slave contracts anymore, you're talking about selling a cadaver.
AndrewKemendo:But the argument is not wheter it is practical - is it? The argument is IF POSSIBLE would it be acceptable under the non-aggression principal?
No, it wouldn't. Voluntary slavery is impossible, what's so difficult to understand.
banned: Without a rational faculty, a human cannot act. You're not talking about slave contracts anymore, you're talking about selling a cadaver.
Indeed - yet the body in this case would not be involuntarily given up as is the case with death - that would be as if someone signed a contract to be killed in order to become a cadaver. As I said earlier - it is a different beast all together because a "voluntary slave contract" is currently an impossibility of terms.
GilesStratton: AndrewKemendo:But the argument is not wheter it is practical - is it? The argument is IF POSSIBLE would it be acceptable under the non-aggression principal? No, it wouldn't. Voluntary slavery is impossible, what's so difficult to understand.
Don't tell anyone in the BDSM community - several folks there think they practice voluntary, consensual slavery.
Within the confines of contract and law, so does U.S. military personnel - a lawful contract that they can't walk away from, giving remarkable control over their lives.
Danno, afraid that a lengthy definition-battle over 'slavery' is about to take over...
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Danno:Danno, afraid that a lengthy definition-battle over 'slavery' is about to take over...
What? A semantic argument among radical libertarians! That's absurd!
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Ah yes, the eternal debate about what slavery is goes on even among those who claim to be slaves.
I stumbled upon this particular discussion and simply could not keep from commenting...
To say that voluntary slavery is impossible is rather absurd. It is possible to write a contract of slavery in such a way that the signing of the contract is the last act of will that the person shall perform which will carry any weight for a specified amount of time. Many in America have done this, though the contracts would not hold up in a court of law because of various stigmas and the general inability to comprehend such a thing that Americans seem to have (I cannot speak about the rest of the world, as I only know America). So yes, voluntary slavery is possible. But no, it will not hold up in a court of law. However, it is rare that such a question comes up among slaves and Masters because the process of consideration and the tests that must be completed by both parties before an agreement is entered into are individualized and can be quite...intense, to say it lightly. Once a person has chosen to be a slave, both parties are generally able to reasonably say that they will be able to stay in such an agreement for an extended amount of time.
As for owning will, it is as possible as owning ideas. People can sue for the theft of intellectual property, so I consider it reasonable to say that it is possible to own will. What a person chooses to do is still up to them. But there are consequences in a Master/slave arrangement for choosing to do or say something that is against the Master's will.
Also, assuming that one contract will do for a lifetime is ridiculous. Humans are always changing, always growing, and so the contract needs to be rewritten and resigned as often as every three months. Some have reached a place where they are comfortable having contracts that last as long as twenty years, and some feel comfortable not signing a contract at all, merely choosing to submit their minds, bodies, spirits, and wills to the will and whim of the Master.
I hope that I have shed some light on the whole thing.
May you find your fulfillment in whatever path you choose.
~Rana