Question for libertarians

[A18]

It's a trivial and in some respects outlandish question, but it's interesting to consider nonetheless. Similar issues are at stake with respect to numerous contracts, though in much more moderate form. (For example, can a person who voluntarily joins an organization bind himself to a term of years, as in the military?)

[© tweed]

Once again, option 3 is the only responsible choice.

[Bono]

Yes, but that cannot affect the status of their offspring.

[afleitch]

Yes, but that cannot affect the status of their offspring.

I agree, and he should, fairly be able to 'free' himself again either through service or payment (ie the family could buy him back and free them) Which is why it's not practical to be sold into slavery anyway

[MaC]

sure, but they'd be a moron for doing so.

[John Dibble]

I'm gonna get philisophical here - slavery is more of a state of mind than anything else. Sure, one can legally be a slave, but if one refuses to serve as one they're just a free person who's being held against their will. To be a slave in the truest sense of the word is to not wish to serve as a slave but to capitulate anyways. So, if one willingly enters into a contract of service then they aren't truely a slave. So, you can sell yourself into total servitude of another but not freely sell yourself as a slave. So, we might as well allow it since it's technically impossible. Or maybe I'm just rambling about nonsense.

[David S]

No. The 13th amendment abolished slavery so it would be unconstitutional. (Rightfully so)

With regard to military service the government has used conscription as far back as the civil war and probably before that. You could certainly say thats a form of slavery. So in  order to free black slaves Lincoln made slaves of white guys. Seems Ironic to me.  But then government tends to not worry about such things.

[adam]

If he was to sell himself into slavery, it would there for be consensual, thus trumping the entire idea of slavery. It's a completely illogical question (as I would imagine was the point).

Isn't consensually doing work for money nothing short of simply having a job?

[Ebowed]

No.  Think of all of the abuse this could allow; a criminal could threaten someone in a lower position of being given no choice but being sold into slavery, or else they'll be killed.  Slavery should never be given as a viable legal alternative to anything.

[Dr. Cynic]

It's prohibited in the Constitution... So, no.

[John Dibble]

No.  Think of all of the abuse this could allow; a criminal could threaten someone in a lower position of being given no choice but being sold into slavery, or else they'll be killed.  Slavery should never be given as a viable legal alternative to anything.

Well, that's regular slavery. I'm thinking the question presumes no coercion.

[Bono]

No.  Think of all of the abuse this could allow; a criminal could threaten someone in a lower position of being given no choice but being sold into slavery, or else they'll be killed.  Slavery should never be given as a viable legal alternative to anything.

Contracts signed under cohercion aren't valid.

[The Constitarian]

I don't understand how one would go about selling himself into slavery, if he is allowed to have money and stuff isn't it just a job you're stuck in.

[DWPerry]

This sounds like indentured servitude, which was actually quite popular at one time. It was a way for many English/Irish-men to come to the British Colonies and be able to bring their wife & children as well.