Quote# 89869

Suppose that you and I make a contract that, in exchange for you giving me a badly-needed $20 today, I will mow your lawn tomorrow. Then suppose that after I spend the money, I change my mind about the wisdom of this deal. Can I repudiate the contract on the grounds that my labor for you is no longer voluntary? If so, then people will have no incentive to provide payment for services in advance, and it will hinder the economy in many cases.

Why do we need a rule against people selling themselves into slavery? When has that ever been a common practice? If someone is dumb enough to do so, don't they deserve the consequences? Those people will, like many other losers, weed themselves (and their foolish tendencies) out of society in a Darwinian manner, and it will cease to be a problem. But in order for that to happen, you have to let the market be free.

LibertyNow, LibertyNow Wiki 46 Comments [10/2/2012 3:38:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 47
Submitted By: TheReasonator

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom


Liberty for myself, slavery for others.

People who are in favor of contractual slavery should admit to being willing to sell themselves into slavery should the need arise.

10/2/2012 10:23:49 AM


I support Liberty! Now sell yourself into slavery!

10/2/2012 10:26:18 AM


free market means money for the few is more important than freedom for the many

10/2/2012 10:30:06 AM


And this is why people get payed after they finish doing their work.

10/2/2012 10:43:33 AM


When has that ever been a common practice?

Never read about the indentured servants of the Colonial era, did you.

10/2/2012 11:05:02 AM


In some cultures, parents used to sell their children into slavery when they couldn't support them. I'm thinking of the Aztecs, but I'm sure there were others.

If you want to be a slave so badly, LibertyNow, advertise for a Dom on the Internet.

10/2/2012 11:08:34 AM

Old Viking

My reaction to slavery depends on whether I'm the slaver or the slavee.

10/2/2012 12:44:06 PM


Because it's not labor that's being contracted, it's labor-power. Gah. Marx dealt with this over 100 years ago, but then these folks don't read him.

10/2/2012 1:28:32 PM


I knew it was coming... I knew this was the endgame of the so-called "libertarians" (ie, social darwinists).
What would happen is that people would use their already-existing power and wealth to enslave people. What it takes to not be able to realise this obvious fact is to have killed half your brain by internalising a completely unrealistic market-led model of human behaviour.

10/2/2012 2:03:28 PM


Who ever pays for services in advance?

10/2/2012 4:11:21 PM


This has to be a troll. Not even Libertarians are stupid enough to advocate slavery.

10/2/2012 4:15:44 PM


If this is some argument regarding some currently divisive political issue (healthcare maybe?), it eludes me.

There is a difference between mandated labor and slavery. Someone obligated to work still has certain rights, which slaves do not. Therefore this is a false equivalence.

10/2/2012 4:36:34 PM

Sounds like my lazy brother.

10/2/2012 5:02:17 PM


Admittedly, the 13th Amendment to the U.S. constitution only forbids involuntary servitude.

So, theoretically, you should be able to contract to sell all your services to a single individual or organization for the rest of your life.

But, as other experts on contract law here have attested, if you refuse to work for somebody after having accepted payment to do so, you are in "default" and your creditor has legal remedies available to him. Those legal remedies do not include strapping you to a post and whipping you.

10/2/2012 5:32:20 PM


Not really how contracts work..

10/3/2012 2:39:22 AM


"giving me a badly-needed $20"

Are you Slenderman?

10/3/2012 2:45:23 AM


Having read a bit about evolution, I would say that it is a terrible model to base a civilisation on. We can create one where a lot more people will be happy, and not just the meanest monkey on the mountain.

10/3/2012 4:03:35 AM


Argument one: contracts are small violations of individual freedom made for the sake of commercial stability. Their scope should be limited as much as it is practical.

Argument two: present contract limit the freedom to enter future contracts

Argument three: contracts between parts of unequal power typically limit severly the freedom of the weakest, but they are very sketchy as to the obligations of the strongest. A typical 19th century contract would force the worker to do a job decided by the owner, in the way decided by the owner, at the speed decided by the owner, for arbitrary hours, forbade speaking and other disruptions, often interfered heavily with private life (i.e.:fired pregnant women), and allowed the owner to change the terms more or less at will, as well as charge fines to the worker, always according to the owner's judgement. The pay was also subject to arbitrary variations and often given late, as a way to force workers to remain at the factory or lose what was owed to them.
In modern Chinese factories, wages are also given late and fines often account for 1/4 to 1/3 of the nominal wage.

These conditions resurface whenever work regulations are eliminated, and even a libertarian could see that they are not desirable and not conducive to freedom, even in the strictest economic sense.

10/3/2012 5:13:56 AM


It started out normal, then went straight to whack job sect social Darwinism with an old testament twist.

10/3/2012 1:48:45 PM


And this is why I hate libertarians.

10/3/2012 5:23:02 PM

You suck at analogies. Try harder.

1/6/2015 12:28:14 PM

1 2 | top: comments page