[mikema63]

Because everyone is Walter block and he hasn't been criticized on this point from nearly all corners of libertariandom.

I can find a handful of dumbasses from any ideology and then paint the ideology with them, but then I'd be an idiot.

[The Immortal Goon]

TIG, would you care to post the rest of that article by Murray Rothbard for others to read, so that we can see Rothbard's utter disgust of slavery?

It's linked. And yes, he does later say it's "statist," though it clearly isn't, but for the most part libertarians glorify the early American republic, while ignoring genocide and slavery. Those who are explicitly against historical slavery offer utopian platitudes and nothing more.

Libertarianism is the bankrupt cry of the powerless pretending to have found power. It's like any other religion based on ideas instead of material fact.

[Soixante-Retard]

Quite a lot like Marxism then.

[SolarCross]

An-cap law and order

Somali system is loosely like the an-cap idea so not too bad as real world example of how a government-less law market might work.

[SueDeNîmes]

To my knowledge only Walter Block and Robert Nozick consider voluntary slavery compatible with a free society. However, what is voluntary slavery contrasted to slavery as we usually think of it.

Whereas slavery as it is usually thought is not predicated on freely entered contract but a "contract" (it isn't a contract) with force or threat thereof.

Therefore voluntary slavery and slavery may share a word but they are two very different concepts, a point Murray Rothbard recognized:

The concept of 'voluntary slavery' is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master's will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary.

Because everyone is Walter block and he hasn't been criticized on this point from nearly all corners of libertariandom.


I can find a handful of dumbasses from any ideology and then paint the ideology with them, but then I'd be an idiot.

Oh dear, there goes another Scotsman.

Yer problem is that Block and others are actually right. I mean they're horribly wrong, but so is the idea that a contract certifies voluntarism. 'Voluntary slavery' may be a contradictory concept, but contract slavery isn't. A contract is no guarantee of voluntarism where there's widely discrepant bargaining power. If one party's desperate enough, the same contract could be drawn up without even mentioning slavery. Perfectly Libertarian freedom of contract between private individuals. If third parties can intervene or not enforce it on unconscionability grounds, then Libertarianism concedes a cornerstone to critics.

[SueDeNîmes]

Or howzabout..

STATELESS IN SOMALIA, AND LOVING IT

You'd think, with the hilarious title, it must be a satire piece. Nope.

Somalia's cool, having read it that article I can see why state media are always misrepresenting it.

Well there ya go, Libertarians.

Next time people suggest you move to Somalia, remember they're not ridiculing you but giving you a heads up - it's actually a cool place misrepresented by statist media.

Bon voyage!

[mikema63]

Hes an anarcho-communist.

next time I find a communist who believes in something most other communists think is evil, say oh slavery or something, ill be sure to point it out and if you complain I can just claim its a no true Scotsman thing and be done with it.

Or we can be rational and sincere and admit that just because some small minority of some group thinks something that everyone else in the group thinks is wrong and which clearly goes against the groups beliefs about freedom doesn't mean the majority is being "no true Scotsman" about it.

[Soixante-Retard]

SueDeNîmes, I'm not engaged in a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Did you not observe what I said?

To my knowledge only Walter Block and Robert Nozick consider voluntary slavery compatible with a free society.

[SolarCross]

Sorry Sue, Mike's right I'm a commie. Anarchist first and foremost but still commie. An-cap ideas about law and order without the state are excellent and I would prefer to live in such a society than in any looney-tune state with its elected dictators and its out-of-control 'public' police forces. It wouldn't be my first choice, did I mention I'm a commie?, but still better than any quasi-fascist pseudo-liberal monopolist state.

[SueDeNîmes]

And since they're both acknowledged Libertarians - indeed probably among the 10 most prominent and influential Libertarians - summarily dismissing their opinions as un-Libertarian when they're embarrassing is classic No True Scotsman.

Besides which you need to show the that actual arguments, not the indviduals, are un-Libertarian. Yer problem is that they're not.

[mikema63]

[Soixante-Retard]

And since they're both acknowledged Libertarians - indeed probably among the 10 most prominent and influential Libertarians - summarily dismissing their opinions as un-Libertarian when they're embarrassing is classic No True Scotsman.

Besides which you need to show the that actual arguments, not the indviduals, are un-Libertarian. Yer problem is that they're not.

SueDeNîmes, would you like to quote where I said Walter Block's and Robert Nozick's views, qua voluntary slavery, are un-Libertarian? You seem to think that I think they are.

[mikema63]

The foundation of libertarianism, the non-agression principle, would make it impossible for someone to sell their ability to break the contract thus freeing themselves.

The idea of selling your free will is incredibly unlibertarian.

[Soixante-Retard]

Mike, I think you are conflating, and thus getting confused between, metaphysical libertarianism and political libertarianism.

[SueDeNîmes]

The foundation of libertarianism, the non-agression principle, would make it impossible for someone to sell their ability to break the contract thus freeing themselves.

The idea of selling your free will is incredibly unlibertarian.

Nah, as Block says :

"A voluntary slave contract has nothing to do with the sale of the “will.” Just as in the case of being unable to not think about a pink elephant when one is mentioned, it would be all but impossible for me to quell my desires for freedom, once enslaved. Slaves can still want to be free. Very much to the contrary, voluntary slavery pertains only to the law of physical invasion: if a policeman sees you whipping me, he might with alacrity rush to my defense. The operational definition of a slave contract is that upon being told that I have sold myself into slavery to you, the policemen will cease in his efforts to stop you from beating me. If anything, he will hold me down, as he would a horse you were attempting to harness, so as to aid in your right to treat your property (e.g., me) in any way you see fit. "

* * *

Soixante-Retard - I beg your pardon, my mistake.

[mikema63]

The point being that since you can't sell your will, you cannot sell your right to break a contract, thus you cannot be a slave, ever.

Also what's your obsession with libertarians?

[SolarCross]

Re: slavery. Look at it in a slightly different way; does a free human being have the right to kill himself? Plainly yes. It might be a bad idea, you might be morally obligated to talk him out of it but if he is his own master and not the property of another then he has that right to destroy his own 'property'. If you say he doesn't have the right to kill himself then you are claiming he doesn't really own himself and therefore must be owned by someone else maybe the government. Killing himself would be destroying someone else's property which is willful vandalism. A statist can make this kind of assertion because they always think the government is the true owner of the people but I don't think a libertarian can. What goes for destroying property must surely go for selling it. Either you can sell your property or you can't. If you can't then surely it is because someone else owns it which itself amounts to slavery. In short only a free man can sell himself into slavery, if you can't then you already are a slave.

[Soixante-Retard]

In short only a free man can sell himself into slavery, if you can't then you already a slave.

[SueDeNîmes]

The point being that since you can't sell your will, you cannot sell your right to break a contract, thus you cannot be a slave, ever.

The one that Block addresses, yes. And?

Also what's your obsession with libertarians?

I was looking for on-line gaming and found this.

[Kman]

Voluntary slavery and forced slavery are 2 entirely different concepts, a real slave does not sign a contract where he agrees to give over his freedom, a voluntary slave does, blows my mind that some people cannot grasp this GIGANTIC DIFFERENCE.