• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

If you're really free, why can't you sell yourself into slavery?

DDD said:
Well I think the world is somewhere about equal when it comes to being right or left minded. The right part of the brain is associated with creativity while the left is more with speech specialization.

So why should we leave the left minded people out of the equation? We do want communication with speech do not we?

;)
Click to expand...

Exceptionally bright specimen of a small member of the equine family often domesticated as a beast of burden in pre-industrialized agrarian societies and referred to since Biblical times.
 
RGacky3 said:
So you're saying that the ONLY way to have a free society is for society to restrict your own freedoom to sell your own property?

If you OWN yourself then you ARE property ...

But owning yourself is a nonsensicle concept.
Click to expand...

Well I happen to agree that its a nonsensical concept. In fact I was trying to show that.


But yes specific limits on freedom does protect other freedoms. Of course what is the limit is highly debatable. And it would take a lot of typing to lay out and explain all of those limits.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Is slavery the only example that you could think of? Because its a really really bad example, especially considering the history of slavery in the US and world wide.

Heres the problem with your little thought experiment: If you could give up or transfer the ownership of yourself legally, to anther person you are no longer free and have ownership of yourself. This creates a huge problem with the Constitution and natural rights. Slavery is the opposite of freedom and liberty, meaning that once you signed the papers then you would no longer be a person but just physical property. You would no longer have any rights at all.


You cant define freedom or ownership of yourself by submitting yourself to slavery. All what you can prove by becoming a slave is that the society in which you live has no real freedoms or liberties. And a country that tolerates slavery even by the impossible chance that a slave might consider their servitude as being voluntary, such toleration is proof that said country lacks real freedom and liberty. As history shows us even the US lacked real individual freedoms and liberties while slavery was tolerated.


See by allowing any type of slavery no citizen is free. Because if slavery is legal then if someone owes a debt they could be sued and become a slave. Or such things like forced bad economy that forces the poor to sell themselves into slavery.

Again there are so many holes in your theory that its just not intellectually arguable. Its just a big what if. Its no different than saying' what if atoms are really miniature solar systems. Sure it sounded plausible when we were baked but not now. The same goes for assuming that being able to sell yourself into slavery proves that you own yourself. Its like saying the peasants had a choice to starve to death. And since they had that choice they were free.
Click to expand...

Again, your argument is very much like saying that because one is alive, once can never be dead or commit suicide.

Please note that I assert that you can be shown to not own your person nor flesh because you cannot transfer ownership of them. (The case can be made in the case of some men that they ar property of the State because they can be drafted and then commanded to perform certainly lethal acts in war.) But if you do own yourself, and were allowed to transfer that ownership, that would clearly demonstrate that you have owned yourself prior to the transaction, just as one have been alive before one died.
 
Oftencold said:
Exceptionally bright specimen of a small member of the equine family often domesticated as a beast of burden in pre-industrialized agrarian societies and referred to since Biblical times.
Click to expand...

While what we have here is an everyday common specimen of a large member of bovine family that has yet to be domesticated to a norm of herds in a post industrialized geek society that is only referred to recently.
 
Oftencold said:
If you're really free, why can't you sell yourself into slavery?

I have found that to be an interesting question, and one that illustrates some of the quirky limits a generally free Society places upon freedom.

There's an old adage too as I recall, that states that the proof of ownership lies in the right and ability to sell. That is, if you aren't allowed to sell something, then it really isn't yours. This would be expected to extend to one's person as well, I should think.


In passing I'll just mention that I think many, possibly most people would be content as slaves, so long as they were well cared for and weren't called a slave. This would explain a great deal about popular political movements.
Click to expand...

Because people used to sell themselves into indentured servitude for a number of years to pay for being smuggled into the U.S., often from Cuba.
 
Oftencold said:
Again, your argument is very much like saying that because one is alive, once can never be dead or commit suicide.

Please note that I assert that you can be shown to not own your person nor flesh because you cannot transfer ownership of them. (The case can be made in the case of some men that they ar property of the State because they can be drafted and then commanded to perform certainly lethal acts in war.) But if you do own yourself, and were allowed to transfer that ownership, that would clearly demonstrate that you have owned yourself prior to the transaction, just as one have been alive before one died.
Click to expand...

No dude I said this: You cannot be alive and dead at the same time. You cannot be free and a slave at the same time.

You do not own yourself because humans are not ownable. Humans have natural rights that cannot be done away with. ANd to sale yourself into slavery is a act that destroys your own natural rights. And no a draft doesnt equate ownership of a human. The draft is a legal requirement, draft dodgers were punished for not meeting that legal requirement. After the punishment was done the dodgers were not kept they were set free. That doesnt mean that I support the draft (well unless in a dire situation, Vietnam wasnt one imo).

But the question was: If you're really free, why can't you sell yourself into slavery? The simple answer is because you have no right to remove natural rights your own or anyone elses.

The buyer and the seller of a slave would be in direct violation of the Constitution.
 
Oftencold said:
If you're really free, why can't you sell yourself into slavery?
Click to expand...
People have before. It was called indentured servitude, and still exists in some parts of the world. It's illegal in the civilized parts of the world for a great multitude of reasons.

In passing I'll just mention that I think many, possibly most people would be content as slaves, so long as they were well cared for and weren't called a slave. This would explain a great deal about popular political movements.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what slavery actually is.
 
Oftencold said:
If you're really free, why can't you sell yourself into slavery?

I have found that to be an interesting question, and one that illustrates some of the quirky limits a generally free Society places upon freedom.

There's an old adage too as I recall, that states that the proof of ownership lies in the right and ability to sell. That is, if you aren't allowed to sell something, then it really isn't yours. This would be expected to extend to one's person as well, I should think.


In passing I'll just mention that I think many, possibly most people would be content as slaves, so long as they were well cared for and weren't called a slave. This would explain a great deal about popular political movements.
Click to expand...

Good Question!



Personally I think what you're alluding to is indentured servitude as opposed to slavery. Historically, slaves lacked a choice, and were living under harsh conditions as opposed to an indentured servant who willingly chose to volunteer their services for a certain amount of years.


Slaves are/were never free, as you can see in human trafficking often times people who come from impoverished conditions meet traffickers who promise them a comfortable lifestyle end up using them and the ones being trafficked, have no freedom to not be sold. Under this reality both historical and contemporary forms of slavery are immoral by most socities. We should not the difference between volunteering ones services and being held against their will.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The buyer and the seller of a slave would be in direct violation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I agree with the rest of the post ... But this is a philosophy forum.

Saying "such and such is in direct violation of the constitution" holds as much weight as me saying "such and such is in direct violation of the bible."

Who cares, the constitution means nothing when talking about philosophy, only when talking law.
 
Hypersonic said:
Good Question!

Personally I think what you're alluding to is indentured servitude as opposed to slavery. Historically, slaves lacked a choice, and were living under harsh conditions as opposed to an indentured servant who willingly chose to volunteer their services for a certain amount of years.

Slaves are/were never free, as you can see in human trafficking often times people who come from impoverished conditions meet traffickers who promise them a comfortable lifestyle end up using them and the ones being trafficked, have no freedom to not be sold. Under this reality both historical and contemporary forms of slavery are immoral by most socities. We should not the difference between volunteering ones services and being held against their will.
Click to expand...

That isn't actually true, in ancient middle eastern slavery most domestic slavers were debt slaves and could buy their freedom, infact a lot of laws required them to be allowed to run small buisinesses so they could buy their own freedom, or in the case of ancient Israel Jubilee laws, indentured servitude was worse, people were driven into debt and then had to sell themselves, after selling themselves they had almost no chance of buying themselves out.

Many slaves today become so through debt, the ones that are trafficked.

The fact is "freedom" when used in a libertarian sense is meaningless since it ONLY includes state force as an attack of freedom, totally ignoring the economic and capitalist aspects to tyranny, you cannot be free as a debt slave, even though to a libertarian you are. In practice a debt slave is just as much as slave as a state slave.
 
Republic Now! said:
I don't see any reason why you can't voluntarily do whatever someone tells you to do. The problem with institutionalized slavery is that it treats people as commodities, in which case it's not so easy to establish and maintain self-ownership.
Click to expand...

Voluntarily doing whatever someone tells you to do isn't slavery, not even close, it's just absolute trust, it's like saying you are a slave to your doctor just because you always follow his medical advice.

But you can't sell that.
 
You are protected by law from yourself, it's consistent, it's just a loop. Loops are some of the most confounding things in philosophy.
 
RGacky3 said:
I agree with the rest of the post ... But this is a philosophy forum.

Saying "such and such is in direct violation of the constitution" holds as much weight as me saying "such and such is in direct violation of the bible."

Who cares, the constitution means nothing when talking about philosophy, only when talking law.
Click to expand...

Slavery and freedom are directly subject to political constructs. The question is asserting that people are not really free if they cant sell them self into slavery. Why cant they sell them self into slavery? The obvious answer is because the Constitution doesnt allow them to do so. Laws dictate that no one can own another citizen as if they were property. That is because of our natural rights and so on.

So I disagree that the Constitution equals siting the bible in this case. The Bible only offers commands with no explanation of those commands. While the Constitution is built on individual rights and there is plenty of official explanation to be found. By me siting the Constitutional rights that inhibit slavery, I assume that you guys are educated enough to know what that means.

Or if you cant get past the Constitution part.

What I said equals: Humans (at least in the US, not denying anywhere else but I know America better) assume a basic set of natural rights are unalienable. If you can sell your self into slavery you would be claiming that those basic natural rights are alienable. So like I said the question really is just silly and makes no sense unless you question whether natural rights are unalienable. IMO natural rights are not alienable.

So the real topic of this discussion is: Are natural rights unalienable? My answer from the start has been a solid yes. There is no middle ground.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Slavery and freedom are directly subject to political constructs. The question is asserting that people are not really free if they cant sell them self into slavery. Why cant they sell them self into slavery? The obvious answer is because the Constitution doesnt allow them to do so. Laws dictate that no one can own another citizen as if they were property. That is because of our natural rights and so on.
Click to expand...

So if the constitution change could then citizens sell themselves into slavery? I'd say no becasue humans are not property, you can't own yourself because its rediculous.

Also natural rights are apriori, you can appeal to natural rights but not the constitution, the constitution is aposteriori.

So I disagree that the Constitution equals siting the bible in this case. The Bible only offers commands with no explanation of those commands. While the Constitution is built on individual rights and there is plenty of official explanation to be found. By me siting the Constitutional rights that inhibit slavery, I assume that you guys are educated enough to know what that means.

Or if you cant get past the Constitution part.
Click to expand...

That's total nonsense, the constitution is build on individual rights just assuming they are there, it doesn't go into how they are there or what decides them, THAT'S when you have to turn to philosophical discourse.

The bible offers, explinations, it has philosophical discourse and so on.

The Constitution has NO more authority than the bible, other than the fact that the state enforces it, saying "oh it's my right because the constitution says so" implies that a couple of guys 200 or so years ago get to decide what is and is not a right. That's nonsense, rights are either innate, or natural, or they are not.

What I said equals: Humans (at least in the US, not denying anywhere else but I know America better) assume a basic set of natural rights are unalienable. If you can sell your self into slavery you would be claiming that those basic natural rights are alienable. So like I said the question really is just silly and makes no sense unless you question whether natural rights are unalienable. IMO natural rights are not alienable.

So the real topic of this discussion is: Are natural rights unalienable? My answer from the start has been a solid yes. There is no middle ground.
Click to expand...

I agree, some basic natural rights are inaliable, but you can't appeal to the constitution to show that, any more than I can appeal to the bible.
 
Oftencold said:
If you're really free, why can't you sell yourself into slavery?
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure I could. There'd be some traveling involved...
 
RGacky3 said:
So if the constitution change could then citizens sell themselves into slavery? I'd say no becasue humans are not property, you can't own yourself because its rediculous.

Also natural rights are apriori, you can appeal to natural rights but not the constitution, the constitution is aposteriori.



That's total nonsense, the constitution is build on individual rights just assuming they are there, it doesn't go into how they are there or what decides them, THAT'S when you have to turn to philosophical discourse.

The bible offers, explinations, it has philosophical discourse and so on.

The Constitution has NO more authority than the bible, other than the fact that the state enforces it, saying "oh it's my right because the constitution says so" implies that a couple of guys 200 or so years ago get to decide what is and is not a right. That's nonsense, rights are either innate, or natural, or they are not.



I agree, some basic natural rights are inaliable, but you can't appeal to the constitution to show that, any more than I can appeal to the bible.
Click to expand...

I am not and was not appealing to the Constitution. I did not at all say "oh it's my right because the constitution says so". I explained and provided the US Constitution as a frame work not as a ultimate provider.

Really I am not having the conversation that you seem to be defaulting too; The Constitution isnt the moral provider of rights. I am not treating the Constitution like theists treat the bible. Really not everyone treats things like that. I dont even think that way so Its hard for me to prepare things that I say to combat that type of thinking.


Even in the last part where my explanation totally ignore any reference to the Constitution you still came back attacking me for mentioning the Constitution. Dude seriously if you cant get passed generalized complaints that try to assert that it seems like Im treating the Constitution just like religious people treat the bible then really I dont have anything to say to you.

You completely ignored the paraphrase of the OP's question. The actual subject is this question: Are natural rights unalienable?
 
our ignorant women used to complain about not having freedom of being packed up in turbans in universities ,or freedom of slavery as if they are not alllowed to go out with their uniforms!!!

a religion is always harmed by its believers ,not by the others ,atheists etc.
 
I always thought of freedom as a spiritual value which does not rest upon whether or not your are in physical bondage. Connecting to the human spirit reminds you that you are always free. Look at someone like Nelson Mandela who was sent to one of South Africa's worst prisons, and practically emerged enlightened, becoming the President of the State and moving peace forward. Gandhi was jailed by the British several times over, but it did not prevent him from embodying freedom.

Some people look at freedom as a purely social contract, but that contract is just the material embodiment of an inner nature that is always there.

In other words: you are free right now. So what do you want to do?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I think the problem arises in that no right-minded person would ever do that, so anyone that would do it either needs mental treatment or is being coerced. Either scenario should be prevented.
Click to expand...

What do you call those on welfare?

Those on welfare sell their vote to politicians - in turn they get free money and are allowed to live for free.

Union employees sell their vote to politicians - in turn they get jobs.

In short many people (especially those on the left) are dependent on government - hence are slaves to the government.

The only way not to be a slave is to be self sufficient and hold no debt.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I am not and was not appealing to the Constitution. I did not at all say "oh it's my right because the constitution says so". I explained and provided the US Constitution as a frame work not as a ultimate provider.

Really I am not having the conversation that you seem to be defaulting too; The Constitution isnt the moral provider of rights. I am not treating the Constitution like theists treat the bible. Really not everyone treats things like that. I dont even think that way so Its hard for me to prepare things that I say to combat that type of thinking.


Even in the last part where my explanation totally ignore any reference to the Constitution you still came back attacking me for mentioning the Constitution. Dude seriously if you cant get passed generalized complaints that try to assert that it seems like Im treating the Constitution just like religious people treat the bible then really I dont have anything to say to you.

You completely ignored the paraphrase of the OP's question. The actual subject is this question: Are natural rights unalienable?
Click to expand...

THe subject is the nature of self-ownership.

I probably missunderstood your use of the constitution, it seamed to me you were saying "it's my right because the constitution says so," so I apologise for that.
 
Oftencold said:
If you're really free, why can't you sell yourself into slavery?

I have found that to be an interesting question, and one that illustrates some of the quirky limits a generally free Society places upon freedom.

There's an old adage too as I recall, that states that the proof of ownership lies in the right and ability to sell. That is, if you aren't allowed to sell something, then it really isn't yours. This would be expected to extend to one's person as well, I should think.


In passing I'll just mention that I think many, possibly most people would be content as slaves, so long as they were well cared for and weren't called a slave. This would explain a great deal about popular political movements.
Click to expand...

Simply because owning slaves is illegal. There's no one to sell yourself too.
 
Mr.Nick said:
What do you call those on welfare?

Those on welfare sell their vote to politicians - in turn they get free money and are allowed to live for free.

Union employees sell their vote to politicians - in turn they get jobs.

In short many people (especially those on the left) are dependent on government - hence are slaves to the government.

The only way not to be a slave is to be self sufficient and hold no debt.
Click to expand...

I read somewhere (but can't quote it) that chattel slavery (actually owning people) was more expensive than wage slavery- paying 'employees' barely enough to support life.
 
RGacky3 said:
THe subject is the nature of self-ownership.

I probably missunderstood your use of the constitution, it seamed to me you were saying "it's my right because the constitution says so," so I apologise for that.
Click to expand...

Yea I figured that you were misunderstanding me. And thank you.


The concept of self-ownership is one of those things that sounds awesome but really is a misconception. Or at least imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom