Are lolbertarians fine with slavery?

You cannot enter a contract which you cannot reasonably get out of. It wouldn't be true slavery if you could terminate the arrangement at any time and you couldn't enter a contract that prohibited canceling said contract or had unreasonable penalties for canceling.

>Assuming the contract to be a slave was signed voluntarily (ie. in exchange for having financial debts to a lender/bank cleared), is that a agreement valid and in line with libertarian principles?

Let me ask you what happens when the contract is breached?
The second the slave decides to assumes self-ownership again the contract is breached and no penalty can involve the violation of the NAP.
Actually the contract to be a slave is not an even a violation if it, it's only agression if consent isnt present.

If you look at it like that, the slaves consent is always present, until he decides to withdraw it and face the potential penalties of breach if contract, those penalties can however not violate the NAP.

A contract like OP proposes would never be signed.

>If you look at it like that, the slaves consent is always present, until he decides to withdraw it and face the potential penalties of breach if contract, those penalties can however not violate the NAP.
By breaching the contract hasn't the slave violated the NAP? The slave has agreed voluntarily to be someone else's property. If he ceases to be that, that (by lolbertarian logic) is a violation of the other person's property rights. Defending one's property rights is kind of a big deal to lolberterinos.

Therefore the other person (by convoluted lolbertarian logic) can enforce a penalty in self-defense of his private property, which oddly enough in this case is the other person/slave.

Attached: trudeau-n-the-devil-web-612x437.jpg (612x437, 61.25K)

A labor contract where you get paid up front honestly doesn’t sound so bad. Do they get to whip you or something?

>then walking it back to include any time a person is forced to labor without consent/compensation
Ok that's kinda the definition of slavery
>have to work rest of your life without consent or compensation

Define slavery. It is already the case in every nation that people are able to take on debt, and that wages can be garnished if they are unable to pay that debt. Why would someone demand that they have to house, and feed the person? This sounds like a bizarre system OP.

Attached: gw5607mqm9qx.jpg (715x720, 45.14K)

The contract itself is a violation of NAP and thus couldn't/wouldn't be enforced. Slavery contracts are fundamentally a form of fraud. No reasonable person would sign a contract to be a slave nor do they have the ability to transfer their agency to another person, any such claims is fraud. With standard contract law contracts are void out the gate if signing the contract is a crime itself.

People have done so quite often throughout history. Guy is a farmer, bad weather means his crops fail, how he owes lots of people money (no bankruptcy laws back then), so agrees to be indentured servant to clear his debt to the bank.

I you own something you can sell it. Slavery is a part of Libertarianism.

abuse.wikia.org/wiki/Walter_Block

Attached: slaverywalter.png (1360x768, 101.37K)

In Ancapistan while indentured servitude would be an option (and perhaps preferable for a speedier debt repayment since you're theoretically clocked in 24/7) it would still be able to be canceled at any time. But some people would likely choose other ways to pay back their debt. And some will choose to be blacklisted for never paying back their debt.

Historical indentured servitude would not exist.

You CAN NOT sell something that can't be transferred. You have a brain and you have thoughts and you cannot transfer control of those to someone else. You also cannot transfer your ability to not disobey so any contract that required total obedience is fraudulent on your part to sign. Fraud makes the contract void. Fucking retard.

>You also cannot transfer your ability to not disobey so any contract that required total obedience is fraudulent on your part to sign. Fraud makes the contract void. Fucking retard.
What if the contract stipulates if you don't obey the bank/lender has the right to behave in ways that maximizes your probability of obeying during the length of your contract? This could include sending you to a re-education camp.

>Historical indentured servitude would not exist.
I guarantee if ancapistan is implemented "Historical indentured servitude" will be one of the most common forms of labour.

>Assuming the contract to be a slave was signed voluntarily
That's not slavery, that's LARPing.

Non-whites aren't people. Animals can certainly be property.

/GBG/ - Greek Borders General

>What if the contract stipulates if you don't obey the bank/lender has the right to behave in ways that maximizes your probability of obeying during the length of your contract? This could include sending you to a re-education camp.

Fuck off moron, the contract never happened because the one of the parties made a fraudulent claim. Next you couldn't have a contract that designed to be broken so that you could collect penalties, that would be fraud as such a contract would involve you deceiving the other party. Finally even if such a penalty existed, there would be no mechanism to enforce it. You could say "if you want to continue this contract you must go this reeducation camp" but no one would force that person to go. And at that point they would take you to arbitration for an alternative debt repayment plan.

Historical indentured servitude included violence and abuse, so nope. It was also guaranteed by government violence. So nope.

yes
why would you not be ok with this?
i see nothing wrong

>t. armchair lawyer
you think you can just include any random bullshit in a contract and have it be legally enforceable?

Satan thread

Attached: Screenshot_20200322-232340.png (1280x720, 799.66K)

>you think you can just include any random bullshit in a contract and have it be legally enforceable?
We're not discussing whether this is legal, it's not and hopefully this does not change.

The question is would most Loberterinos want this to be legal? They probably do cuz they're jackasses who think they're logical thinkers. Their only metric for something being good is if two parties mutually agreed upon the contract. Lolberterinos inhabit very shallow world philosophically.

Why did you repost this?
Again, Walter block has publicly argued in favor of voluntary slavery. Libertarianism is inherently opposed to traditional forceful slavery.

>The question is would most Loberterinos want this to be legal
YOU FUCKING MORON NO ONE SAID IT IS. You're the one coming up with contrived contracts that wouldn't be enforced in Ancapistan. You first need to demonstrate you even understand how contract law in Ancapistan would even work.

>very shallow world philosophically
Anyone who follows any political philosophy inhabits a very shallow world. Shit changes.

Obviously they stay home and bow down to their goverments

Attached: 33B30052-D73A-4545-AA78-50A1309AE59A.png (375x409, 187.43K)

>lolbertarians
Try again in English, Chang.

>You first need to demonstrate you even understand how contract law in Ancapistan would even work.
Brb understanding how contract law works in imaginationland, a land without any government, mutually agreed upon contracts, and no red tape/regulations for businesses.

First you need to demonstrate if your brain works.

Attached: imaginationland.png (640x397, 383.55K)

Libertarianism is the most idealistic, inherently flawed political philosophy of all the current ones out there. In fact, its proponents are so naive about human nature and how the world operates that their mindset is dangerous. It's an anti-moral, anti-empirical ideology.

I'm not a Libertarian, but slavery is obviously fine. It's just in some people's nature to be slaves, so let's get all the formalities over with and just do it.

Attached: smiling sunglasses guy.jpg (1080x955, 127.26K)

As a philosophy it's no more or less idealistic than this global neolib/neocon shit we've been subjected to for the last 50 years. And it's much less dangerous because no one in charge of anything is libertarian.

So what you mean is you're a troll and you have no intention of understanding something that you feel compelled to criticize. Talk about low IQ behavior -- "throw rocks at thing I don't understand"

>And it's much less dangerous because no one in charge of anything is libertarian.
>As a philosophy it's no more or less idealistic than this global neolib/neocon shit we've been subjected to for the last 50 years.

libertarianism and neoliberalism are more related than most people realise.

Attached: quote-it-did-not-go-without-notice-that-ayn-rand-stood-beside-me-as-i-took-the-oath-of-office-in-the-alan-greenspan-233751.jpg (850x400, 60.94K)

Statism is arguable the most idealistic. Please tell me you ideal government and I'll demonstrate how hypocritical you are. Libertarians at least try to minimalize the impact of human behavior where statists seem more than happy to elect sociopaths with unlimited power to control their lives.

>nobody will enforce the contract
>people won't break it though
>it's the honor system

lolbergs accusing anyone of not thinking things through is hilarious.

a man chooses a slave obeys yet still a slave will and shall rebel agains't you is not a matter of why if not when

Owning subhumans isn't slavery.

Humans have tamed the wild beasts for a millennia.

Even if you could convince me that all men are like that, there's still the other sex.

The most endearing application of that quote is trolling goldbugs.

Not even in this thread, just had to pop in here cuz this post destroyed by sides

Attached: 57F7DB84-2E14-48B0-B5DA-76B4A46D7BFF.png (455x561, 462.29K)

>a person is forced to labor without consent/compensation
I think that's what slavery means user

just checking

Alan "put" Greenspan is a goldbug, oddly enough.

youtube.com/watch?v=4Q0Fd73my-Q

Come on, let's use your brain.

>nobody will enforce the contract
That's not correct. Bad actors will get punished by being denied new contracts and be restricted with who they can deal with. If you owe your bank money and refuse to pay back, you're going to be blacklisted by other banks. There's also violence for cases that need it -- say someone who fails to pay rent (violated contract) who then gets removed by force from the property. There's absolutely both implicit and explicit enforcement of contracts.

>people won't break it though
They won't break it if they don't want consequences.

>it's the honor system
Unironically, yes. And tracked. And enforced.

The nuance you're missing is that he thinks it's useful some times and a drag other times. As with everything, shit changes. But in general all bankers want gold to be special. They want to ride the full credit cycle.

The NAP only applies if there is no contract. You absolute brainlet.

Cringe.

One is about freedumb, the other is about kike taking your taxes to fund tranny story hour in the local lieberry.

slavery violates the NAP
semantics

>voluntarily
>slavery

dictionary.com

No slavery does not violate the NAP. Slavery is a result of failing to fulfill their contract,(s) and thus they are the person violating the NAP. Forcing someone to fulfill their contract isn't the first action, thus it is not aggression.

People sold themselves into slaver voluntarily for hundreds of thousands of years.

According Rothbard's theory of contracts, you cannot force people to abide by contracts and furthermore the human will is inalienable and cannot be signed away, so the idea of voluntary slavery makes no sense

People chimped around throwing rocks at each other for hundreds of thousands of years, too. Some traditions are worth keeping, some aren't.

if they sold themselves into it
that was voluntary
that is not what slavery means
check out the site i linked

You cannot enter a contract that violates the NAP, such as a contract where fraud is occurring or violence is used to force someone to sign.

All contracts would require the following:
- all parties must have the ability to consent with complete understanding of the conditions (and context thereof) of the contract
- the stipulations of the contract are such that a neutral party of peers would find them reasonable (including the penalties within)
- the contract can be challenged and arbitrated by a neutral 3rd party

And NAP is everything you dumbass, you cannot sign it away.

Nope, slavery for failing to fulfill the contract is unreasonable escalation of violence which is a violation of the NAP. There is no contract where the reasonable reaction to it is slavery.