[Voluntarism]

Given the history of humanity is littered with slavery you may as well argue slavery is deeply embedded in democracy, autocracy, plutocracy, etc.

Although natural rights can be viewed as property rights, that certainly doesn't mean that they are alienable. It's the whole reason why the phrase "inalienable rights" was coined. Further, saying there's no intrinsic difference as "it's just a matter degree" is meaningless in most circumstances. It is especially meaningless in the context of either voluntarily engaging within a community under voluntary trade thereby accepting the pay and conditions offered or voluntarily disengaging from the community and living by foraging and self-subsistence. They are chalk and cheese.

[quetzalcoatl]

Given the history of humanity is littered with slavery you may as well argue slavery is deeply embedded in democracy, autocracy, plutocracy, etc.

Although natural rights can be viewed as property rights, that certainly doesn't mean that they are alienable. It's the whole reason why the phrase "inalienable rights" was coined. Further, saying there's no intrinsic difference as "it's just a matter degree" is meaningless in most circumstances. It is especially meaningless in the context of either voluntarily engaging within a community under voluntary trade thereby accepting the pay and conditions offered or voluntarily disengaging from the community and living by foraging and self-subsistence. They are chalk and cheese.

What is being argued is that slavery is structurally embedded within liberalism's theoretical underpinnings...in a similar fashion to the way that Euclidean space is embedded in Newtonian physics. The one can't be removed from the other without leaving the dominoes suspended in mid-air. I'm not arguing that liberalism invented slavery, I'm arguing that liberalism was invented to preserve slavery. Coining a term such as 'inalienable rights' does not bring them into existence; one must forge a definition of rights that is not dependent on property.

What voluntarism is not capable of addressing is the meaninglessness of voluntarism itself. Modern societies are designed so that you cannot disengage. You cannot forage without imposing on someone's property or purchasing property oneself - thus you are presented with the option of either jail or wage slavery. There is no voluntary engagement with society, because it is all founded on force.

[Voluntarism]

Modern societies are designed so that you cannot disengage. You cannot forage without imposing on someone's property or purchasing property oneself - thus you are presented with the option of either jail or wage slavery. There is no voluntary engagement with society, because it is all founded on force.

Well that's simply not true. People do it in Australia, America and Canada already (not sure about the UK but I presume so). Most don't choose to (cause it sucks in comparison) and by accident of birth you may have to devote time and energy to be able to physically remove yourself to somewhere that better suits you but that's still not slavery. The extent that our current society obviates you to participate and makes immoral claims over unearned property is not a problem with voluntarism.

[Nunt]

And I am saying that carefully constructing a set of parameters that allows actual harm while punishing hypothetical harm is an exercise in creating inconsistent parameters.

I don't see why someone driving a car for 1 mile should be thought of as a greater risk than someone owning a WMD. The individual contribution to polution is small and the harmful effects are probabilistic. I don't believe it is impossible to create consistent parameters.

What is being argued is that slavery is structurally embedded within liberalism's theoretical underpinnings...in a similar fashion to the way that Euclidean space is embedded in Newtonian physics. The one can't be removed from the other without leaving the dominoes suspended in mid-air. I'm not arguing that liberalism invented slavery, I'm arguing that liberalism was invented to preserve slavery. Coining a term such as 'inalienable rights' does not bring them into existence; one must forge a definition of rights that is not dependent on property.

The basis of libertarianism (as I see it) is self-ownership. This is in direct contradiction with objective slavery.

What voluntarism is not capable of addressing is the meaninglessness of voluntarism itself. Modern societies are designed so that you cannot disengage. You cannot forage without imposing on someone's property or purchasing property oneself - thus you are presented with the option of either jail or wage slavery. There is no voluntary engagement with society, because it is all founded on force.

What you explain here is not force or slavery is a social sense. It is simply scarcity. You are not describing the slavery to man, but the slavery to nature. And no way of organizing society has found a way to conquer this scarcity. In any society, if someone wants to eat, someone will have to work.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well that's simply not true. People do it in Australia, America and Canada already (not sure about the UK but I presume so).

People do what? Say goodbye to society and go live off the land that no one owns?

No. They don't do this because the land is already owned. The land has already been owned for about twelve thousand years.

Most don't choose to (cause it sucks in comparison) and by accident of birth you may have to devote time and energy to be able to physically remove yourself to somewhere that better suits you but that's still not slavery. The extent that our current society obviates you to participate and makes immoral claims over unearned property is not a problem with voluntarism.

This myth of a a new and wild frontier that you can simply settle is not true.

------------------

I don't see why someone driving a car for 1 mile should be thought of as a greater risk than someone owning a WMD. The individual contribution to polution is small and the harmful effects are probabilistic. I don't believe it is impossible to create consistent parameters.

Most people don't simply drive car 1 mile during the lifetime of a car. People tend to drive cars several miles almost every day for several years. The accumulated pollution definitely causes significant harm to people in the neighbourhood of the driving.

The fact that it definitely does damage, while the WMD does none (since it is not being used), is why I think that cars pose a greater risk.

The basis of libertarianism (as I see it) is self-ownership. This is in direct contradiction with objective slavery.

And quetz seems to be saying that there is no logical reason why this self-ownership cannot be traded just like any other possession. Thus, while libertarianism may seem to be in direct contradiction with slavery, libertarianism and slavery are actually logically consistent.

[Eran]

There is, indeed, a tiny minority within the libertarian/anarchist community who support voluntary slavery. Walter Block is the only person I know who holds this position.

I know of no historic examples of permanent voluntary slavery (as opposed to limited-duration indebted servitude). Certainly, all our justified anti-slavery intuition is inapplicable to voluntary slavery.

[SolarCross]

There is, indeed, a tiny minority within the libertarian/anarchist community who support voluntary slavery. Walter Block is the only person I know who holds this position.

I know of no historic examples of permanent voluntary slavery (as opposed to limited-duration indebted servitude). Certainly, all our justified anti-slavery intuition is inapplicable to voluntary slavery.

Actually I don't think, properly speaking, voluntary "slavery" is really slavery, because the concept of slavery has coercion / involuntaryness as a key component, thus voluntary slavery is an oxymoron. What Walter Block is referring to by voluntary slavery is really just voluntary servitude or service with somewhat unusual contractual terms. A semantic point perhaps.

[Eran]

Perhaps. Block's point is that people can voluntarily and irrevocably give up any of their rights.

Entry into slavery would be voluntary. Exit would not be.


Btw, another scenario for slavery in a libertarian society is in the context of restitution debts. A convicted criminals may (according to a larger fraction of the libertarian community) be forced to work off their debt to their victims, potentially for the rest of their lives.

[Drlee]

A convicted criminals may (according to a larger fraction of the libertarian community) be forced to work off their debt to their victims, potentially for the rest of their lives.

Forced by whom? Where would they work? In competition with whom would these slave laborers be employed? How many of them would it take to present unnatural downward pressure on wages and prices?

[Rich]

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

Great Quote Drlee, although I'd go further and say that we are all selfishly promoting our pet causes at the expense of other causes. For some its save the Whales. For others: the right to hunt Foxes, Save the Russian, Save the Ukrainian, save the Jew. Save the Palestinian. A woman's right to choose. A Foetuses right not to be aborted. etc etc.

Prison or certainly prison labour is a form of slavery. Common sense tells us that things are simple. We just need simple rules like: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc. Common sense is wrong.

To Oscar Wilde: "Give me the truth pure and simple"
Oscar Wilde: "The truth is rarely pure and never simple"

Under Libertarianism any individual can be policeman, judge jury and prison warden. We currently have a problem with the prison industrial complex. But of course if we just get rid of evil government and let rich people and the big corporations own the prisons directly for profit I'm sure it will be fine. Police forces run for profit won't be corrupt at all. They will administer justice without imperfection.

[SolarCross]

Btw, another scenario for slavery in a libertarian society is in the context of restitution debts. A convicted criminals may (according to a larger fraction of the libertarian community) be forced to work off their debt to their victims, potentially for the rest of their lives.

Yes I can see that form of slavery being justifiable.

[Eran]

Forced by whom?

In a minarchy, forced by government, just as prisoners today are forced to obey government orders. Except they would actually be encouraged to be economically productive, in part to pay for their incarceration cost, in part to pay restitution to their victims.

Where would they work?

In prisons or work camps. Those who do not present high flight risk may even work in ordinary offices or stores, but their wages would still be garnished.

In competition with whom would these slave laborers be employed?

That really depends. In general, with all other workers.

How many of them would it take to present unnatural downward pressure on wages and prices?

I'm not sure why you think they would command lower cost to their employers than ordinary workers. They will probably be paid a little less, but would cost much more to house and guard (setting aside minimum security arrangements).

Under Libertarianism any individual can be policeman, judge jury and prison warden. We currently have a problem with the prison industrial complex. But of course if we just get rid of evil government and let rich people and the big corporations own the prisons directly for profit I'm sure it will be fine. Police forces run for profit won't be corrupt at all. They will administer justice without imperfection.

Indeed, libertarianism is a political theory advocating equality of rights, including the right to use force against wrongdoers. Judge and jury require an agreement from both sides, and so only individuals who can obtain the trust of both sides to a dispute can act as judges. Prison warden as a specialised occupation.

Where you are wrong is in assuming that a libertarian (actually, anarchic) society would allow these functionaries to abuse other members of society in the way government functionaries routinely do today.

Sure, you can be a policeman. But if you arrest the wrong person, you can be charged with false imprisonment.

Finally, it won't be police forces who will administer justice - it will be arbitrators chosen by and trusted by both sides to the dispute. I think it is much more likely that justice will emerge out of such a system, than out of a system in which the (government) judge decides, based on (government) legislation whether to find for you, or for the (government) prosecutor after looking at evidence collected by the (government) police and before sentencing you to serve time in the (government) prison.

[quetzalcoatl]

...another scenario for slavery in a libertarian society is in the context of restitution debts. A convicted criminals may (according to a larger fraction of the libertarian community) be forced to work off their debt to their victims, potentially for the rest of their lives.

I predict with total confidence that, under a restitution of debts scenario, non-repayment of ordinary debts would be criminalized. We have in fact already been heading in that direction for some time (under the rubric of bankruptcy reform). Forced labor to repay debts will be an absolute necessity, as rentier income dominates the new feudalism.

The justification for this is implicit in liberalism itself. As long as rights are seen as property, these new developments are inevitable.

[Drlee]

Its hard to deny that.

[Eran]

I imagine that the terms of repayment will be part of the lending agreement, with competition between lenders ensuring that terms are reasonable.

[Nunt]

Most people don't simply drive car 1 mile during the lifetime of a car. People tend to drive cars several miles almost every day for several years. The accumulated pollution definitely causes significant harm to people in the neighbourhood of the driving.

Even if I drive my car every day, and I am the only one driving, then it is unlikely that anyone is going to get sick from the exhaust of my car.

Anyway, this issue is not important. Maybe libertarian courts will place limits on the use of cars?

[Pants-of-dog]

Even if I drive my car every day, and I am the only one driving, then it is unlikely that anyone is going to get sick from the exhaust of my car.

Anyway, this issue is not important. Maybe libertarian courts will place limits on the use of cars?

I assume that if limitations are placed on WMDs and the courts are logically consistent, there would have to be limits on cars as well.

[Eran]

Logical consistency is not a replacement for common sense.

Just as judges considering the articles of the US Constitution, while trying to be consistent, apply common sense in its interpretation, so judges in a libertarian world, while relying on the NAP as a constitutional principle, will still apply common sense when making their decisions.

There are Common Law precedents on the issue of nuisance, for example. For a border crossing to count as nuisance, it has to cause "substantial and unreasonable interference with" the land of property of the claimant. Terms such as "substantial" and "unreasonable" denote application of common sense rather than mere "logic".

[Nunt]

I assume that if limitations are placed on WMDs and the courts are logically consistent, there would have to be limits on cars as well.

You are wrong in your definition of logical consistancy. You assume that the only criteria for logial consistency is "minimal physical harm". Thus, if practice A causes more harm than practice B, then practice A should not be allowed while practice B is forbidden. In such a one dimensional view, this is the only logically consistent course would be never to allow A while B is forbidden.

But courts do not have to hold such a one dimensional view. They may believe that several parameters are important besides the minimization of physical harm. Factors like the individuals participation in the harm: the total amount of cars may cause more harm than a WMD, an individual driving one car is probably causing less harm than an individual owning one WMD. Criminal intent may also be important,

[Pants-of-dog]

You are wrong in your definition of logical consistancy. You assume that the only criteria for logial consistency is "minimal physical harm". Thus, if practice A causes more harm than practice B, then practice A should not be allowed while practice B is forbidden. In such a one dimensional view, this is the only logically consistent course would be never to allow A while B is forbidden.

I don't think so.

In the discussion, several factors were considered, including the magnitude of damage, the risk of damage, and whether the intent was to do damage.

When looking at all these factors, it would make sense to limit internal combustion engines if you were going to limit WMDs.

But courts do not have to hold such a one dimensional view. They may believe that several parameters are important besides the minimization of physical harm. Factors like the individuals participation in the harm: the total amount of cars may cause more harm than a WMD, an individual driving one car is probably causing less harm than an individual owning one WMD. Criminal intent may also be important,

I completely agree.