Are lolbertarians fine with slavery?

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?

Attached: za-kakvo-bihte-prodali-dushata-si-na-dyavola-spored-zodiata.jpg (522x392, 28.34K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Bonded_labour
abuse.wikia.org/wiki/Walter_Block
youtube.com/watch?v=4Q0Fd73my-Q
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

lolbert are cool with Somalia so yeah

Attached: yuhtgrf5edrf5tgybhu.png (575x612, 601.45K)

The phrase you are looking for is Indentured Servitude. Slavery implies no choice on the part of the slave.

Yes, why wouldn't it be? As long as that parties involved aren't being coerced. What's the problem?

Slavery is always a choice.

As a staist you are a proud slave. I'm ok with this. It's just not for me.

Attached: starwarsgovtovoter.jpg (429x800, 43.78K)

Bonded labour/debt bondage is a subset of slavery

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Bonded_labour

If you burn down my house can I force you to rebuild it? Prison is just slavery as a punishment for a crime(s).

Attached: ancapsnakesummon.jpg (770x430, 153.6K)

So you are splitting hairs and using an expanded definition for slavery beyond what the average person thinks of when they hear the term? Your own article explicitly starts by introducing the term with chattel slavery and then walking it back to include any time a person is forced to labor without consent/compensation.

aren't americans already slaves basically?