-
I'm thinking that B shot at A 6 times and missed, and then gave up and surrendered. Then A puts the Gun flat to B's head and pulls the trigger. Is A guilty of murder? So, we are dealing with a seven shooter huh? See why the particulars are important? I know, with certainty that in that lacquered purse of yours nestled against powder case and
-
However, assuming they've come to me for judgement Good! We are in agreement now. If the only way a man could acquire the large amount of money to save his son who suffers from some rare disease was for him to sell himself to the hypothetical "deranged millionaire", I would act to save the boy's life. To each his own though I guess
-
I disagree, I don't think any sort of "legitimacy" has been proven, it has just simply been asserted. As the 3rd party, C, the burden of proof lies on you to justify your interdiction in the mutually beneficial trade that occurs between A and B.
-
Yes, but enforcing slavery is a different matter. Only if you strawman me and start talking about chattel slavery. Your points above were fallacious and not worth addressing.
-
Is it possible to: exert physical force on another's body, to restrict their movement or to inflict pain in order to direct their actions. ??? "Control" in this sense is control by the person holding title to an external thing. The term for this is "indirect control" versus the "direct control" of an individual to blink
-
Because one cannot actually transfer their control of themselves. Its blatant fraud. Surely, there can be no one at all with this right. Further, I'm not protesting one "selling" themselves, if the two parties want play make-believe thats all well and proper, its when party A leaves that party C shall step in. ....... It being possible
-
Those are really poor and completely invalid arguments WillBlake.
-
I know, but the former is more valuable IMO because we can see Rothbard's ideas holding their own long after he is dead. Anyhow, I have no clue what type of debater Rothbard was. Maybe there is something in his biography.
-
It seems like it's a slippery slope from thinking of rights as property - which can be waived by contract - to medieval serfdom. More nonsense. Parents have no right to sell children into slavery and such juridical statuses can't be passed from generation to generation. As opposed to the leftist deification of the central planner, libertarianism
-
I doubt it, Rothbard was never a fourth as famous as Friedman nor as good a debater How can you know that without any videos of him in debate, or even any accounts of one? If anyone has such info, please share. Anyhow, I'll take the soundness of ideas over ability to smash people in debates any day.