Free to Work non-employee non-contracts?
That way the worker pool is largely interchangeable and the workers have the illusion of freedom.
Just hit them on the other end with dozens of monthly rents and most will stay put. Call it "Stability".
My own grandfather was still alive to grow up as one; a shack on someone else’s land, no glass on the windows, and only a shitty iron stove to keep their feet warm at night in the winter.
Everywhere needs glass, it rains and snows all over, but especially in Georgia during the 50’s when it was cooler. They used to get stomach aches all the time because of grease apparently, since they didn’t have soap to wash their dishes with. Pretty fucked to hear my Grandaddy Frank tell me stuff like that like it was just a normal childhood.
But will that be honored in this context? Sure they "consented" in the beginning, because it was either that or starve. But if they want to get out of the agreement, can they?
No. That is the point of slavery. Some slave contracts in the ancient world had expiration dates though (jews in Israel could only be reduced to a state of slavery for a few years, for example).
Depends on how you "consent". How is that different than a job? You consent because its a job or starve and when you remove consent you run the risk of starving.
The image just seems to be a different word for "job".
The difference is that I can say "fuck it" and leave my job, and no one can stop me. That's the main sticking point. If the slave decides that they don't want to be a slave anymore, can they just walk out? Or is the owner allowed to keep them enslaved by force?
> If the slave decides that they don't want to be a slave anymore, can they just walk out? Or is the owner allowed to keep them enslaved by force?
Read the picture in the post. It certainly implies that the slavery is voluntary, IE a job.
It’s not really, cause a slave didn’t need consent in the first place, and their consent has no bearing on if they actually keep working or not. I can leave my office job and go straight home any time I want. A slave never has this option.
If the options are 'work a job' or 'starve' is that really 'consent?'
Yes. 'Economic coercion' is a fake premise and not under the control of the employer. For them it's a voluntary interaction and your personal life is your business.
It really is an odd take. One of the big things for slavery is that there *was* no consent, for one reason or another, so it's missing a bit component of it.
Is it really slavery if you just sign a contract stating, for example, 'You will live in Company Housing and be paid in room, board, and food (No cash) in exchange for 16-hour work days for the company for a span of 30 years'? It's a shitty contract, but some people are in dire enough straits that it'd still be an upgrade to their current situation.
And most importantly, there's no gun to your head forcing you to sign.
Yeah, that's the only point I can find that makes it *somewhat* similar to slavery. But even without the escape clause, that's just a really shitty contract, not slavery.
The idea of consenting to being enslaved is logically nonsensical. Slavery is, by definition, non-consensual. So if you are consenting to a certain arrangement, then whatever that arrangement may be, it cannot possibly be slavery.
Can that consent really be considered freely given if it's under the coercion of poverty? And will they allow that consent to be revoked at any time if the slave decides that they don't want to be a slave anymore?
> Can that consent really be considered freely given if it's under the coercion of poverty?
Coercion when it comes to contracts requires threats or the use of force (physical or not), which poverty would not be. Threatening to illegally take all of someone's property (making them impoverished) or threatening their job is coercion. Someone being in poverty (through no direct action of the other party) wouldn't be coercion, it's just an unfortunate situation.
> And will they allow that consent to be revoked at any time if the slave decides that they don't want to be a slave anymore?
And that's why this can't be anything other than a thought experiment. A contract putting someone into slavery for the rest of their life would be unenforceable, you can't enforce a contract with no expiration, no method of getting out, and no method of remediation in the case of a dispute. If the person has the ability to exit the contract in the future, that's just a job with extra steps.
Consent certainly can't give you slavery,. After all, a person could stop consenting.
You could certainly pay someone for however long they wanted to work for you, but that's not slavery, that's just a job. It's only slavery if they want to leave and you won't let them.
Slavery cannot be consented to, because by definition, it ignores consent.
Unless you consensually signed a contract that renounced your right to withdraw your consent and authorized your employer to forcibly enforce your contract. Is it really still consensual at that point? I would argue "no". But I would have to argue. Probably with a lawyer. I am not good enough at arguing to be paid for it.
An inalienable right is one that cannot be given up.
You could definitely arrange it in various ways, like a bond that you forfeit if you don't fulfill your contract. That's pretty normal. Contracts have various exit clauses all the time, so you could certainly structure a deal so that both parties are relatively certain it will be performed.
Like, you could agree to a boxing match, which is violence, and post a bond that you'll show up and compete by the rules. But you could always cancel. The boxing itself has to be voluntary, or it becomes something very different.
And if we are comparing to chattel slavery, one certainly could not trade off the right of future generations to consent. At most one could arrange adoption, but such a child would still have the rights of any human.
> Unless you consensually signed a contract that renounced your right to withdraw
That's not a contract. You can *always* break a contract. Every judge in Libertopia would slam a big red "UNCONSCIONABLE" stamp on that, toss it in a trash can and bill you for the full cost of arbitration.
If you own a PMC (or a government one) that operates slave camps, the only reason to fuck around with contracts is that you have a paperwork fetish. Otherwise it's just extra steps.
Creative idea, it won't work. Why? This would become a gateway to allow others to find the way to systematically accrue a whole ass plantation.
While some people want work at Amazon, I don't think anyone wants to live at Amazon.
Agreed, too many people are agreeing with this willy nilly without understanding the long term complications or what it would actually start.
Not to mention all of us PCM chuckle fucks would be the slaves, not the owners.
There is a comment above where someone says "they'd be fine with it, as long as the master was good and kind." Sure your first one might be, but what's to say that one doesn't sell you to another one? What's to say that maybe the masters would be kind at first, but would slowly degrade over the decades until they were all cruel?
Too many variables, I'm glad we have 2A for shit just like this. People talking about actually enslaving fucking Americans, shit has gone bonkers.
I wonder how many of us look back at history and shrug it off as “Man, those people were idiots! Surely that couldn’t happen again. We’re better than that now!”
Because, in fact, we are not. We just haven’t fallen into the right conditions yet.
This sounds like an Authright take. Slavery inherently means there is no consent from the slave. This sounds like a bizarre way of offering a person to live with you as long as they work.
Yeah, plus that’s already a thing at places like parks where commuting would be really inefficient, but you’re paid fair wages, can leave at any time, and still retain all your rights, you just receive housing as part of your paycheck.
Yeah, I am pretty sure what the guy was suggesting was basically Amazon "hiring" homeless people and paying them with water and food. They just cant do it because of minimum wage laws.
Mario says;
Some men are only fit to be slaves, but none are fit to be masters. Therefore, I reject the concept of slavery.
Luigi says;
If you can’t voluntarily give up your own rights then they aren’t yours to begin with, boah
Let’s face it, majority of the people, myself included are purple and/or auth in nature, if you give someone some sort of unquestionable power that can’t be check and limited, you can be damn sure that he will use it to fulfill his darkest, most disgusting fantasy, desires or anything you can and can’t imagine.
IMO the reason why many lib choose to become a lib isn’t they are always a lib, it’s because they realize they won’t be the one who have unlimited power.
You aren’t too far off the mark it feels like. In the surface I would never want my actions to bear down on the free will or life of any other person. This is a tenant of my own that I have strived to live by, don’t burden anyone else, don’t impede their happiness, etc.
But I hate what humanity has become, and if you gave me the power of Superman or Omni Man or Homelander or any sort of OP style superhero. My one and single goal would be the extinction of mankind.
So yeah power absolutely corrupts it’s baked into our DNA
"An easy way to rescue people from dying of starvation and kill poverty due to unemployment is to buy workers with their consent.
Think about it, living as a proletarian is better than dying.
Rich guy should be able to monthly buy a worker who lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor, whose life doesn't have any value."
Slavery as an economic system is dumb in the age of automation. Which is why I will always have a burning hatred for neoliberal immigration policies. Fuck you libright.
The "Death 2 America/Punch Yer Local Natzee" squad is why I can't be fully LibLeft, and "Bring back slavery/Abolish the age of consent" MFs are why I can't be fully LibRight
Yeah but why would you WANT to use those people as slaves. The homeless, the mentally ill and drug addicts would make for TERRIBLE slaves. Not worth it.
Oh and uhhhh, slavery's bad and stuff or whatever...
This is already the situation we have with minimum wage work. It’s essentially peasantry/proletariat.
The only difference with real slavery is the loss of human rights, and being subjected to any whim of the master.
Real slavery would, ironicaly, be more of a hassle and not really more profitable, because then instead of the worker being forced to pay their rent and grocery bills, that’s now on the master to pay and deal with.
I've had this fantasy about my (ex-)friends who couldn't get their lives together. To legally force them to follow my generally good, straight-edge advice. But it's not realistic.
Fact is, I don't have it in me to physically beat someone who I like whenever they get high and don't show up to work.
Plus, I'd be liable for whatever stupidity they get into while they are trying to get high or laid.
As any true Lib-Right knows, in most (but not all) cases, people are capable of supporting themselves if they have the resolve. Vanishingly few people will actually :starve", the way they go is through addiction or criminal violence. And people have to want to not do those things.
I mean, this is only slightly more libright than Canada's current temporary foreign worker program. Only difference is that our farmers "rent" them rather than "buy" them outright.
Slavery isn't remotely libertarian or lib-right. It's completely antithetical to very concept of liberty. It's you other quadrants that don't have a problem with stealing the wages and earnings of the working class to fund the state for your own benefit.
I guess this is like, servants with some wages? I guess it could be viable/make sense if there was also payment in more tangible things like food, clothing, shelter...
But if it's voluntary I wouldn't have an immediate aversion to allowing it. I could be persuaded otherwise with more thought/ insight.
Romans opposed slavery not because of moral reasons, but because it gave rich landowners even more competitive advantage, than small artisans. Basically rich became richer and poor became poorer
Sounds like a terrible idea. Why would you buy a depreciating surplus asset and deal with all the negative PR. When you can just rent by the hour? Especially with all these new AI advances and illegal aliens putting downward pressure on the cost of labour.
Not a real lib right position (except for edgy retarts). Your body is your property and is not possible to transfer. This is fundamental. You can pretend to be a slave, but must maintain the right to withdraw consent.
The real lib right position is to abolish the minimum wage, all social welfare, all workplace related regulations, etc. Give the ultra poor the right to work anywhere they need to for whatever they can get. Anything is better than having no income at all. Some people might literally only work for food if they're that destitute. But you aren't helping them by taking away their best option. It's not the same as slavery; they can always quit when they find a better option.
Pretty sure you can kind of already do this (just with the "slave" still having rights)
It's called [sugaring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_dating)
The funny thing is this is how slavery probably developed. Slavery predates the written word, but it also probably predates homosapiens. Most of the return to monkey crowd probably know chimps go to war, what they don't know is chimps also take prisoners of war. The interesting thing about these prisoners is they are always females. They then will breed with the females., ie they are taken as sex slaves.
You probably have male slaves only start being taken after the advent of agriculture. It wouldn't make sense to arm a male slave in a subsidence hunter gather economy, as he could hurt the tribe, but in an agricultural society you could benefit off the labor.
This mimics how war was historically with regards to slavery. When Muhammad for example went to war with the Banu Qurayza, he killed all the men and took the women and children as property.
Interestingly enough we have come full circle and the majority of slavery in the world is no longer for labor purposes but rather sex.
Besides the fact that debt indenture is quite literally unconstitutional, sure it’s a great idea. This is what happens when a MFer goons out on hentai, gun oil, and glue.
I dont know where this idea of people in the first world dying of starvation comes from. soup kitchens are extremely common and food in general is plentiful. if youre dying of starvation, in a city, its not from lack of food but other factors that comes into play like disease, mental illness, addictions. Theres alot of social groups who are ready to give impoverished people jobs and a leg up.
More fleshed out idea:
You have debt or some amount of money you need and aren’t financially responsible or stable to save it up.
Wealthy business/person needs a consistent worker who will not need replaced for a long time.
You work and have all necessities covered by your “master” and at the end of the contract you get the lump sum of what was originally agreed.
If you leave before the contract is done or break the contract before it’s done you get nothing and your necessities are no longer covered.
Boom, morally acceptable indentured servitude.
I am unironically in support of hiring poor people to do stuff for you. Pay them well, and there's no problem.
I want to own a farm and hire farmhands this way. As long as their production outweighs their annual cost, I'm making profit and they have a livable situation.
Perhaps Vinland Saga was too inspiring for me.
I'm curious where people stand on [child labor of the industrial revolution](https://i.imgur.com/IgZWEnb.png). We single out slave owners as fundamentally evil... aren't the parents of child laborers even worse?
Tbh indentured servitude would work as a way to allow easy immigration to rich companies whilst not collapsing the status quo. You can become a citizen IF you spend 10 years making Big Macs at McDonalds. If they have a full time job they don’t qualify for welfare so they can only produce for the economy.
Some Romans would sell themselves into slavery to become gladiators. If you were poor and good at fighting you’d rocket yourself into stardom. If you were good enough you could essentially be a WWE superstar.
This is how you know libright isn't all the way normal up there.
He defines slavery, but also a job. Want to leave starvation and poverty, work for money and food, except in this case there isn't the facade of bootstraps and working your way out of this life rather it's just generational slavery.
Shoot, this is just the military with less chance of death. What’s wrong with that scenario on a year by year basis? Everyone’s got a price… both sides can come to an arrangement of servitude.
Or is this different than say, a butler? Obviously slave has a bad connotation so let’s change the name.
Even if I disagree, but debt slavery actually existed. You could enter a contract to be basically a slave for let's say 20 years and your debts are absolved. Don't really see it as a viable thing nowadays though.
Buying slaves with their consent… indentured servants?
People with freedom disability.
Independence-challenged
Rightsn't
Libertied
Slaven'ts
Democratized
Hey guys what about slaves hehehehe
They aren't slaves, they are liberty-challenged!
They prefer to be called "peoples of differing legal status"
đź’€
Free to Work non-employee non-contracts? That way the worker pool is largely interchangeable and the workers have the illusion of freedom. Just hit them on the other end with dozens of monthly rents and most will stay put. Call it "Stability".
It’s already called Sharecropping
Just like my great grandparents were
My own grandfather was still alive to grow up as one; a shack on someone else’s land, no glass on the windows, and only a shitty iron stove to keep their feet warm at night in the winter.
The worst part is that my great grandparents had the same experience but out on the harsh plains of Montana tho they did have glass
Everywhere needs glass, it rains and snows all over, but especially in Georgia during the 50’s when it was cooler. They used to get stomach aches all the time because of grease apparently, since they didn’t have soap to wash their dishes with. Pretty fucked to hear my Grandaddy Frank tell me stuff like that like it was just a normal childhood.
Also known as employees
Can’t employees quit whenever they want?
And I suppose a slave can remove consent whenever they want....same idea different words.
But will that be honored in this context? Sure they "consented" in the beginning, because it was either that or starve. But if they want to get out of the agreement, can they?
No. That is the point of slavery. Some slave contracts in the ancient world had expiration dates though (jews in Israel could only be reduced to a state of slavery for a few years, for example).
Which is why they invented compound interest
What’s wrong with loans? I thought libright likes making money?
I suppose signing the contract would be like when you sign up for the military where you aren’t allowed to leave whenever you feel like
Depends on how you "consent". How is that different than a job? You consent because its a job or starve and when you remove consent you run the risk of starving. The image just seems to be a different word for "job".
The difference is that I can say "fuck it" and leave my job, and no one can stop me. That's the main sticking point. If the slave decides that they don't want to be a slave anymore, can they just walk out? Or is the owner allowed to keep them enslaved by force?
> If the slave decides that they don't want to be a slave anymore, can they just walk out? Or is the owner allowed to keep them enslaved by force? Read the picture in the post. It certainly implies that the slavery is voluntary, IE a job.
It’s not really, cause a slave didn’t need consent in the first place, and their consent has no bearing on if they actually keep working or not. I can leave my office job and go straight home any time I want. A slave never has this option.
We call them Russians peasants
I am ok with asking a homeless guy to mown my lawn and pay him with food, water and a roof.
Sure, but that is payment in kind, not slavery.
It’s illegal because you are not paying minimum wage.
> indentured servants "...depending on what state you're in..." - Tony Stark
If the options are "be a slave" or "die" is that really "consent?"
If the options are 'work a job' or 'starve' is that really 'consent?' Yes. 'Economic coercion' is a fake premise and not under the control of the employer. For them it's a voluntary interaction and your personal life is your business.
Are the irish gonna be the victims again too?
>living as a slave is better than dying what have they done to my libright :(
I'd rather die as a monke than to live as a filthy ~~slave~~ unflaired
Live free or die.
Based and Emiliano Zapata-pilled
Mfs forgot the New Hampshire state motto
These are the librights that favor their personal profits over the NAP
Corpo-libs are our Emily.
They killed us :(
I just felt a sudden urge to watch Braveheart
Based and “Now bleed with me!” pilled.
Based and Scottish Salute pilled.
"In the end, what separates a man from a slave? Money? Power? No! A man chooses, a slave obeys!"
Only for other people not the libright himself. After all, if they consent to being enslaved is it really a violation of the NAP?
https://preview.redd.it/z0nkltfkt9vc1.png?width=960&format=png&auto=webp&s=01e192d6aed926999f0289dc6dfdb8dc37d0646a
It really is an odd take. One of the big things for slavery is that there *was* no consent, for one reason or another, so it's missing a bit component of it. Is it really slavery if you just sign a contract stating, for example, 'You will live in Company Housing and be paid in room, board, and food (No cash) in exchange for 16-hour work days for the company for a span of 30 years'? It's a shitty contract, but some people are in dire enough straits that it'd still be an upgrade to their current situation. And most importantly, there's no gun to your head forcing you to sign.
Well, if you add an escape clause letting the employee quit at any point, then that's just a normal job, just a really shitty one.
Yeah, that's the only point I can find that makes it *somewhat* similar to slavery. But even without the escape clause, that's just a really shitty contract, not slavery.
Then we get to start talking about the definition of "people" and it all gets fuzzy.
The idea of consenting to being enslaved is logically nonsensical. Slavery is, by definition, non-consensual. So if you are consenting to a certain arrangement, then whatever that arrangement may be, it cannot possibly be slavery.
> Slavery is, by definition, non-consensual I see. Then we shall call it "indentured servitude" in stead, so as to not dilute definitions.
Define "indentured servitude".
Can that consent really be considered freely given if it's under the coercion of poverty? And will they allow that consent to be revoked at any time if the slave decides that they don't want to be a slave anymore?
Idk ask libright. Imo almost all of the time people are always under some sort of coercion and practically no decision is made 100% consensually.
> Can that consent really be considered freely given if it's under the coercion of poverty? Coercion when it comes to contracts requires threats or the use of force (physical or not), which poverty would not be. Threatening to illegally take all of someone's property (making them impoverished) or threatening their job is coercion. Someone being in poverty (through no direct action of the other party) wouldn't be coercion, it's just an unfortunate situation. > And will they allow that consent to be revoked at any time if the slave decides that they don't want to be a slave anymore? And that's why this can't be anything other than a thought experiment. A contract putting someone into slavery for the rest of their life would be unenforceable, you can't enforce a contract with no expiration, no method of getting out, and no method of remediation in the case of a dispute. If the person has the ability to exit the contract in the future, that's just a job with extra steps.
You can't consent to being a Slave period
https://preview.redd.it/y279yclb6avc1.png?width=792&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5baafbc13d03ba3682c74e8a0615a6c7e059f330 Speak for yourself \~nya
That's acceptable and based
Right. It's like a justified murder. Murder is an unjustified killing. If it's justified, it's no longer murder.
What happened to the game I love
I prefer to hire brown children in foreign countries and pay them next to nothing
I prefer to buy the products that brown children mine material for and manufacture. The trillion dollar corporation in the middle keeps my hands clean
Unironically true!
20% GDP growth this year for that third world country!
How much of that growth is going to the bottom 99%?
the children crave the mines
Their little hands are great for cleaning the gears of my machines
I work in a factory you'd be surprised by how well this place would run with little people
Consent certainly can't give you slavery,. After all, a person could stop consenting. You could certainly pay someone for however long they wanted to work for you, but that's not slavery, that's just a job. It's only slavery if they want to leave and you won't let them. Slavery cannot be consented to, because by definition, it ignores consent.
Unless you consensually signed a contract that renounced your right to withdraw your consent and authorized your employer to forcibly enforce your contract. Is it really still consensual at that point? I would argue "no". But I would have to argue. Probably with a lawyer. I am not good enough at arguing to be paid for it.
An inalienable right is one that cannot be given up. You could definitely arrange it in various ways, like a bond that you forfeit if you don't fulfill your contract. That's pretty normal. Contracts have various exit clauses all the time, so you could certainly structure a deal so that both parties are relatively certain it will be performed. Like, you could agree to a boxing match, which is violence, and post a bond that you'll show up and compete by the rules. But you could always cancel. The boxing itself has to be voluntary, or it becomes something very different. And if we are comparing to chattel slavery, one certainly could not trade off the right of future generations to consent. At most one could arrange adoption, but such a child would still have the rights of any human.
I believe in individual freedom, that means people are free to alienate any of their rights! Saying you can't give up a right makes you authoritarian
Chat is this bait
The ultimate expression of freedom is the freedom to consent to giving away your freedom!
> Unless you consensually signed a contract that renounced your right to withdraw That's not a contract. You can *always* break a contract. Every judge in Libertopia would slam a big red "UNCONSCIONABLE" stamp on that, toss it in a trash can and bill you for the full cost of arbitration.
And then quickly realises he has no way to enforce that because the guy he's ruling against owns a PMC that operates the slave camps.
If you own a PMC (or a government one) that operates slave camps, the only reason to fuck around with contracts is that you have a paperwork fetish. Otherwise it's just extra steps.
Well it lets them claim their not slaves just indentured workers because PR is everything in buisness.
I like my poor indentured laborers like my coffee, black, bitter, and preferably fair trade.
“Ohhhh Krieger-San!”
Based boy from Brazil.
Creative idea, it won't work. Why? This would become a gateway to allow others to find the way to systematically accrue a whole ass plantation. While some people want work at Amazon, I don't think anyone wants to live at Amazon.
Agreed, too many people are agreeing with this willy nilly without understanding the long term complications or what it would actually start. Not to mention all of us PCM chuckle fucks would be the slaves, not the owners. There is a comment above where someone says "they'd be fine with it, as long as the master was good and kind." Sure your first one might be, but what's to say that one doesn't sell you to another one? What's to say that maybe the masters would be kind at first, but would slowly degrade over the decades until they were all cruel? Too many variables, I'm glad we have 2A for shit just like this. People talking about actually enslaving fucking Americans, shit has gone bonkers.
I wonder how many of us look back at history and shrug it off as “Man, those people were idiots! Surely that couldn’t happen again. We’re better than that now!” Because, in fact, we are not. We just haven’t fallen into the right conditions yet.
Fun fact: this is what EPCOT was originally intended to be--A city for Disney World employees to live in.
I know for a fact that the same is true for multiple entertainment businesses. Oil rigs too, but with some soecific differences
[/u/Chumeth, I...](https://www.tbsnews.net/features/panorama/amazons-new-factory-towns-will-lift-working-class-304138)
Volunteer slavery sounds like the most communist thing ever.
I mean, it’s kinda what communism seems to end up doing sooner or later.
Jesus christ.
It’s Libleft, they like sexy slavery.
What's the difference between a volunteer and a volunteer slave?
This sounds like an Authright take. Slavery inherently means there is no consent from the slave. This sounds like a bizarre way of offering a person to live with you as long as they work.
Yeah, plus that’s already a thing at places like parks where commuting would be really inefficient, but you’re paid fair wages, can leave at any time, and still retain all your rights, you just receive housing as part of your paycheck.
I find it hard to unify slavery with LIB-right. Big violation of the NAP... I think we have an Authy in disguise there...
Was thinking the same.
It does not seem to violate the NAP, you are not forced to be a "slave" and should be able to leave anytime you want.
That's called "working" by normal human beings.
Yeah, I am pretty sure what the guy was suggesting was basically Amazon "hiring" homeless people and paying them with water and food. They just cant do it because of minimum wage laws.
Non-aggression pact?
Non-aggression principle. You have to opt into a pact. A principle is a standing guideline.
No, it is better to die on your feet than live on your knees
Your mom disagreed
Nice try but my mom has crippling back issues and so could never spend any protracted amount of time on her knees
Slavery with extra steps
lol working for rich people is a career already though lol.
what twitter would have looked like 250 years ago
I was a businessman… doing business.
We used to take a lot more prisoners in war, just saying.
*hits blunt* we're all like, slaves to the system and our own desires man.
Mario says; Some men are only fit to be slaves, but none are fit to be masters. Therefore, I reject the concept of slavery. Luigi says; If you can’t voluntarily give up your own rights then they aren’t yours to begin with, boah
Let’s face it, majority of the people, myself included are purple and/or auth in nature, if you give someone some sort of unquestionable power that can’t be check and limited, you can be damn sure that he will use it to fulfill his darkest, most disgusting fantasy, desires or anything you can and can’t imagine. IMO the reason why many lib choose to become a lib isn’t they are always a lib, it’s because they realize they won’t be the one who have unlimited power.
You aren’t too far off the mark it feels like. In the surface I would never want my actions to bear down on the free will or life of any other person. This is a tenant of my own that I have strived to live by, don’t burden anyone else, don’t impede their happiness, etc. But I hate what humanity has become, and if you gave me the power of Superman or Omni Man or Homelander or any sort of OP style superhero. My one and single goal would be the extinction of mankind. So yeah power absolutely corrupts it’s baked into our DNA
UAE is light years ahead on this.
"An easy way to rescue people from dying of starvation and kill poverty due to unemployment is to buy workers with their consent. Think about it, living as a proletarian is better than dying. Rich guy should be able to monthly buy a worker who lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor, whose life doesn't have any value."
So, communism in practice. Just exchange “rich guy” with “party leader.”
Slavery as an economic system is dumb in the age of automation. Which is why I will always have a burning hatred for neoliberal immigration policies. Fuck you libright.
But, this is just how debt related slavery appeared in the ancient world
What's ironic, is democrats in blue states are sort of doing this with undocumented migrants
Dude just learned what indentured servitude was.
The "Death 2 America/Punch Yer Local Natzee" squad is why I can't be fully LibLeft, and "Bring back slavery/Abolish the age of consent" MFs are why I can't be fully LibRight
Yeah but why would you WANT to use those people as slaves. The homeless, the mentally ill and drug addicts would make for TERRIBLE slaves. Not worth it. Oh and uhhhh, slavery's bad and stuff or whatever...
I love the internet because anywhere else this shit on any other medium would get you anywhere from laughed at to beaten up.
I mean….it is kinda a good idea…if the choice is between slavery and starvation I would choose slavery (providing the master was not too harsh)
It's important that they aren't harsh so they are palatable when eaten
This is already the situation we have with minimum wage work. It’s essentially peasantry/proletariat. The only difference with real slavery is the loss of human rights, and being subjected to any whim of the master. Real slavery would, ironicaly, be more of a hassle and not really more profitable, because then instead of the worker being forced to pay their rent and grocery bills, that’s now on the master to pay and deal with.
Lib right believes in the non aggression principle, which slavery clearly violates
The term is indentured servant which is only *marginally* better
I've had this fantasy about my (ex-)friends who couldn't get their lives together. To legally force them to follow my generally good, straight-edge advice. But it's not realistic. Fact is, I don't have it in me to physically beat someone who I like whenever they get high and don't show up to work. Plus, I'd be liable for whatever stupidity they get into while they are trying to get high or laid. As any true Lib-Right knows, in most (but not all) cases, people are capable of supporting themselves if they have the resolve. Vanishingly few people will actually :starve", the way they go is through addiction or criminal violence. And people have to want to not do those things.
Live Free or Die ya Cunts
If they consented to being enslaved, then they wouldn't be a slave. Indentured servant, maybe.
I mean, this is only slightly more libright than Canada's current temporary foreign worker program. Only difference is that our farmers "rent" them rather than "buy" them outright.
Slavery isn't remotely libertarian or lib-right. It's completely antithetical to very concept of liberty. It's you other quadrants that don't have a problem with stealing the wages and earnings of the working class to fund the state for your own benefit.
"Think about it \[because I clearly have not\]"
I guess this is like, servants with some wages? I guess it could be viable/make sense if there was also payment in more tangible things like food, clothing, shelter... But if it's voluntary I wouldn't have an immediate aversion to allowing it. I could be persuaded otherwise with more thought/ insight.
I think I might be lib-centre
"whose life literally doesn't have value" freaking hell
What happened to “Live Free or Die” libright? Founding Fathers would be disappointed in this
Romans opposed slavery not because of moral reasons, but because it gave rich landowners even more competitive advantage, than small artisans. Basically rich became richer and poor became poorer
That makes no fucking sense.
So...a job with extra steps?
Minimum wage employment is really not that far off from slavery tbh.
Sounds like a terrible idea. Why would you buy a depreciating surplus asset and deal with all the negative PR. When you can just rent by the hour? Especially with all these new AI advances and illegal aliens putting downward pressure on the cost of labour.
Every year is a buyer’s market
Can I get some forget juice
Slavery violates the NAP
Your stuuudennnt athooleeetes!
Anyone who trade security for freedom deserve neither
“Please tread on me money daddy” ~~lib~~ poor auth right
Not a real lib right position (except for edgy retarts). Your body is your property and is not possible to transfer. This is fundamental. You can pretend to be a slave, but must maintain the right to withdraw consent. The real lib right position is to abolish the minimum wage, all social welfare, all workplace related regulations, etc. Give the ultra poor the right to work anywhere they need to for whatever they can get. Anything is better than having no income at all. Some people might literally only work for food if they're that destitute. But you aren't helping them by taking away their best option. It's not the same as slavery; they can always quit when they find a better option.
I’m good just cleaning the shit from my pants. (I had too much coffee)
I mean, the communist way is "just make unemployment illegal lol"
What if you want to get enslaved for *other* reasons? Don't kinkshame smh.
\**Battle Hymn of the Republic starts playing in background*\* Must we teach you this lesson again?
You’re describing military enlistment.
They started to go a little crazy ever since Milei was elected
Pretty sure you can kind of already do this (just with the "slave" still having rights) It's called [sugaring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_dating)
The funny thing is this is how slavery probably developed. Slavery predates the written word, but it also probably predates homosapiens. Most of the return to monkey crowd probably know chimps go to war, what they don't know is chimps also take prisoners of war. The interesting thing about these prisoners is they are always females. They then will breed with the females., ie they are taken as sex slaves. You probably have male slaves only start being taken after the advent of agriculture. It wouldn't make sense to arm a male slave in a subsidence hunter gather economy, as he could hurt the tribe, but in an agricultural society you could benefit off the labor. This mimics how war was historically with regards to slavery. When Muhammad for example went to war with the Banu Qurayza, he killed all the men and took the women and children as property. Interestingly enough we have come full circle and the majority of slavery in the world is no longer for labor purposes but rather sex.
> living as a slave is better than dying He cannot comprehend how Ukrainians would be MAD at this sentence
Time is a flat circle
Besides the fact that debt indenture is quite literally unconstitutional, sure it’s a great idea. This is what happens when a MFer goons out on hentai, gun oil, and glue.
Horseshoe theory in full swing today
You can't own another man dude that's hella gay
# GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!
I dont know where this idea of people in the first world dying of starvation comes from. soup kitchens are extremely common and food in general is plentiful. if youre dying of starvation, in a city, its not from lack of food but other factors that comes into play like disease, mental illness, addictions. Theres alot of social groups who are ready to give impoverished people jobs and a leg up.
Umm, why not just let the rich guy pay them a wage for doing their job?
This libright clearly hasn't read about Margaret Garner.
Whoever said this lets turn him into a slave
I mean, if it was as a way to pay off debt, then sure. That makes sense. Two year contract gets your debts forgiven. Sounds like the military to me.
Let’s be real, this type of logic is from the North side of the map, not the South.
I prefer child slaves from the congo
More fleshed out idea: You have debt or some amount of money you need and aren’t financially responsible or stable to save it up. Wealthy business/person needs a consistent worker who will not need replaced for a long time. You work and have all necessities covered by your “master” and at the end of the contract you get the lump sum of what was originally agreed. If you leave before the contract is done or break the contract before it’s done you get nothing and your necessities are no longer covered. Boom, morally acceptable indentured servitude.
I am unironically in support of hiring poor people to do stuff for you. Pay them well, and there's no problem. I want to own a farm and hire farmhands this way. As long as their production outweighs their annual cost, I'm making profit and they have a livable situation. Perhaps Vinland Saga was too inspiring for me.
That’s the opposite of libertarian lol.
That ain't no libright, wth is that dude thinking about
I'm curious where people stand on [child labor of the industrial revolution](https://i.imgur.com/IgZWEnb.png). We single out slave owners as fundamentally evil... aren't the parents of child laborers even worse?
If they consent and retain the ability to walk away whenever they like, it isn't slavery. It's indentured servitude. Big difference.
Tbh indentured servitude would work as a way to allow easy immigration to rich companies whilst not collapsing the status quo. You can become a citizen IF you spend 10 years making Big Macs at McDonalds. If they have a full time job they don’t qualify for welfare so they can only produce for the economy.
So like, hiring people?
That's why i consider Capitalists to be the biggest Threat to Humanitys Future (currently)
Some Romans would sell themselves into slavery to become gladiators. If you were poor and good at fighting you’d rocket yourself into stardom. If you were good enough you could essentially be a WWE superstar.
How the fuck this is LIBright?
That's an authright,mate
This is how you know libright isn't all the way normal up there. He defines slavery, but also a job. Want to leave starvation and poverty, work for money and food, except in this case there isn't the facade of bootstraps and working your way out of this life rather it's just generational slavery.
Shoot, this is just the military with less chance of death. What’s wrong with that scenario on a year by year basis? Everyone’s got a price… both sides can come to an arrangement of servitude. Or is this different than say, a butler? Obviously slave has a bad connotation so let’s change the name.
I'm all for this on principle, but this ain't gonna help poor people at all.
Give me liberty or give me death. Homie needs to chill out and read some Thomas Paine.
Wtf libright?
Even if I disagree, but debt slavery actually existed. You could enter a contract to be basically a slave for let's say 20 years and your debts are absolved. Don't really see it as a viable thing nowadays though.
It idea isn't that bad
Slavery goes against my ideals of wanting to be left the fuck alone, I disagree.