Libertarians have debated and discussed whether voluntary slavery would be allowed in a libertarian society for some time now. It comes down to a simple question:
Can a person sell their body to another person?
Despite its seeming simplicity, the question has caused quite a bit ofdisagreement among libertarians. The best way to find the answer to this is to start with answering another simple question:
How do we come to have property rights in scarce resources?
How We Can Have Property Rights in Scarce Resources
We come to own goods in three different ways: original appropriation, voluntary exchange, and by having our rights violated — we will concern ourselves only with the first two methods. The necessary connection for ownership of a scarce resource is an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link[1] between a specific actor and a specific good.
Furthermore, the objective links that connect a person to an external scarce resource and a person to their body are different. The objective link between a person and their body is the “direct and immediate control over his body,” while the objective link between a person and an external good is first appropriation.
Is One of the Claims Stronger than the Other?
The claim by a person to their body is stronger than the claim by a person to an external good because somebody can decide to abandon ownership of an external good and give it to another person but they cannot abandon ownership of their body because of their intimate, immediate control over it.
In other words, ownership does not necessarily imply the right of selling a good. A person may not sell the right to their body. Simply promising, i.e. making a contract, to the person who wishes to make you their slave “voluntarily” that they have the right to control your body against your will is not valid. No person can have a better objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link to your body than you (or a person whose rights you violated).
What Slavery Is
While it is now clear that an individual may not sell themselves into slavery, does that mean there cannot be voluntary slavery? What now needs a definition is slavery.
Slavery is an arrangement where Person X can use physical force to compel Person Y to act in a way Person X sees fit. The key to defining slavery in regards to voluntary slavery is that Person X can redirect Person Y’s means without Person Y’s consent at the time of compulsion.
It is the key part of the definition because the only consent that matters is the most recent expression of consent. This is why MMA fighters can punch each other’s faces in, but one person may not own another person, i.e. may not own a slave (without a past aggression having occurred). The MMA fighters each consented to being punched, kicked, etc. and did not change their minds before the match, but a fleeing “voluntary” slave has obviously expressed non-consent to being a slave.
Conclusion
After considering how one gains rights and what slavery is, we see that slavery necessarily excludes any form of “voluntary” slavery; in fact, voluntary slavery is a contradictory term. One may not consent that their consent over their body in the future be disregarded.
Be First to Comment