Libertarianism And 'voluntary' Slavery

One last thing balbus, you mentioned that the OP concerned taxes and other issues, and yet the OP said:

This is what I was answering. Nothing in there about taxes, welfare systems or the like. This person had a specific question concerning a real libertarian issue, and I provided one answer which is in keeping with libertarian ideals, the idea of "self ownership". It is a very common theme in libertarian circles.

You said:

The emphasis is mine in the above quote.

 

The first problem with the OP is this part:

How could such an agreement be legally binding in a modern day court of law---Libertarian or otherwise?

It's not like a legally binding agreement between a prostitute and a pimp, where the pimp receives a specific majority percent of all the money made by the prostitute in the course of her selling her body. ...wait a minute, my attorney is informing me that this pimp-prostitute agreement is also not legally bonding... DARN IT!!!!!!!

There is this pesky little matter about an agreement that is contrary to law not being enforceable by law. But wait a minute---if a libertarian government would get rid of much of that trouble-making government and its pain-in-the-ass judicial system------then maybe I finally could force prostitutes and indentured servants into legally binding contracts! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Seriously though, I think we can see the problem on the surface with the OP--------but on a deeper level, what if the OP is a metaphor for a more realistic but less apparent condition that affects Modern Man?

Herbert Marcuse, in his book, One Dimensional Man, writes, "The slaves of developed industrial civilization are sublimated slaves, but they are slaves, for slavery is determined, 'neither by obedience nor by hardness of labor but by the status of being a mere instrument, and the reduction of man to the state of a thing.' This is the pure form of servitude: to exist as an instrument, as a thing." (The part in apostrophes is actually a quote of Francois Perroux).

In other words, the more objectified a worker is into a thing, a number, a unit of labor cost, the more that worker is existing as a slave. You could argue that he is always free to quit-----but then he’ll have to work somewhere, and depending on his social class----if he is largely objectified into a thing, chances are it will be the same in any other job. His situation becomes not much different than what the OP described:

The factory worker, working on an assembly line was certainly a slave in this sense. However, the French Philosopher, Baudrillard, stated that at least he maintained his humanity in the sense that the machine he worked at was his ‘other’----a cold, dead, mechanical apparatus

On the other hand, consider a call center employee of today----he is also nothing more than a thing from the company’s perspective as he sits fully integrated into a computer/telephone system. But Baudrillard points out that this system is not a cold, dead, other---but rather an extension of this employee. The technology at his fingertips provides his whole connection to the outside world---it is as a series of prosthesis attached to him—becoming a part of who he is. In other words, not only is he objectified into a tool, but has been literally alienated from his own humanity. Consider that most call centers have scripts that the employees are required to speak from.

The factory worker of the past may have been enslaved by the corporation, but the modern day worker is enslaved by the corporation that is the evil Borg.

SO how would Libertarianism approach this-----we all know the rhetoric----it would be something to the effect that, people would be more free to do what they want---start their own business, etc., etc. Somehow in this unfettered business utopia the corporation, despite its size, strength, and competitive advantage, would be weakened such as to create a level playing field with small businesses as well. Therefore the individual has the freedom to do that which he is most fulfilled in doing----a status that mirrors the individual in a Marxian utopia.

That sounds wonderful, can we validate it further by seeing where the power and the money guiding this party lies? Whoops---one of the prime power centers is the Koch brothers. Would they really get fully behind an ideology that would ultimately take away or diminish their totalitarian-like control over others? Is there any reason for them to show such altruism?

Well, altruism must be a great virtue in Libertarianism that has softened the hearts of these brothers, making them see the evil of their ways… There must be a Patron Saint---a spiritual advisor----to Libertarians that would preach a philosophy on which it would gain such wisdom. After all, it was pointed out that in a libertarian society, the community should step up to help those in trouble, not the government.

Oh wait, there is a Patron Saint----Ayn Rand. And she certainly preaches about altruism----that it is a sin, and leads to social decay. What’s worse is that her philosophy is so objectivistic, that she titled the philosophy itself, Objectivism.

Which brings us back to the problem of the over-emphasis of objectivism in Modern Society----it treats all things, including living things as objects. This is what leads, in the corporate world, to man being objectified into a thing---meeting the definition of slavery as he tries to provide for his family in the Modern World.

 

Still

You keep saying you cannot examine how a ‘libertarian’ system might work because there isn’t one and so any criticism of the possible outcomes don’t need to be addressed, sorry but this seems like very flawed thinking.

Say someone called X wants to build a bridge across a river, and other people that have some knowledge of bridges say they think the materials are substandard, there are not enough suspension cables, the towers are too weak and the proposed position seems likely to cause flooding of the river. X replies that all these concerns can be ignored because the bridge isn’t built yet and only once it is built will it be found out.

To me X’s position doesn’t seem rational.

Can’t you see the problem here? It’s like saying that someone arguing for liberal democratic government MUST support brutal tyrannical government because that is also a form of government.

It’s not rational.

No tax system is perfect, because no system is perfect, because the world isn’t perfect, but to me the system in place in the US isn’t working for the benefit of the system as a whole.

No person can choose to whom or where they are going to be born, so the child cannot be blamed for been born into riches or poverty.
But by the same token it can’t be commended.

A child born into poverty did nothing to deserve the disadvantages associated with it but also the child born into wealth did nothing to deserve the advantages it receives.

The question then arises is it justified for the person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages it didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged.

Again look at that comment – you claim to having not posted any ideas on tax BUT you have posted that you do not agree with taxation in the manner – meaning you have posted your ideas on tax so to claim you haven’t seems illogical.

So could you please address the criticisms leveled at your ideas on tax?

Yes I think we all understand this is what you think – the problem is that you do not seem able or willing to address the criticisms of it.

And people still do help others but history has shown that that is not always enough that is why many people had to fight to get better wages and working conditions that got them out of need.

The criticism of right wing libertarianism is that it would most likely bring back exploitation, as I’ve outlined before.

Again I ask how are you going to get hold of this land to distribute to those in need.

Not everyone wants to be a subsistence farmer what about them?

You talk of taking over factories and other businesses – but how?

Again you reply doesn’t answer the criticism already leveled at it.

I agree and this seems very Marxist, but how would this be accomplished in a system where inequality would be vast and wealth would be so much more powerful?

The wealthy get the ability to own income producing operations because of their wealth and RWL ideas would vastly increase that wealth giving the wealthy to dominate the system even further, a criticism that you seem unable or unwilling to address.

[SIZE=11pt]But as pointed out localism is fine up to a point but only up to a point, for example a communities are often made up of differing areas so its possible to have a prosperous area of a community, with high employment at well paid jobs, and so its likely the people there would ‘evaluate’ the needs of their area and find little reason to give money or assistance since there are few disadvantaged. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But only a few miles away there could be another part of the community with high unemployment or employment in low paid jobs with all the problems socially that that can entail, but the people there have little ability to give money or assistance. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]In such a situation it is often government or similar organizations with the duty, time, and knowledge to ‘evaluate’ things over the whole community that can move resources to those places where it is most needed.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The easiest way of doing that is through tax.

It is then that you can get self serving arguments or ones based in prejudice and bias. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]- are they really part of ‘my’ community in ‘my’ community people don’t need so much help probably because they work harder than those feckless scroungers in that ‘other’ community. In other words why should I support people who have done nothing to earn that support[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Basically the ‘community’ argument can be used to advantage wealth to the detriment of the disadvantaged. [/SIZE]

It should be remembered that private assistance was never capable on its own, it was always backed up or ran alongside public assistance. In the US this was based originally on the English Elizabethan poor laws, which the colonists had brought with them when they came to Americas.

Now even in upturns such private assistance as was given however genuine and heartfelt as it could be, could be inadequate, but during downturns that system was often overwhelmed (and giving could even drop in times of greatest need as people looked to their own needs).

“While the genuine warmth emanating from these volunteer institutions produced a true sense of community with revitalising effects in depressed urban neighbourhoods, participants quickly realised that private charity was not enough. Charity Organisation Societies modelled on those of London and Berlin had emerged in the early 1880’s to be succeeded by Associated Charities designed to prevent duplication of effort among the score of secular and church philanthropies, but relief measures possible under a system of private endeavour, no matter how earnest or how efficiently organised, could not handle the problems arising in periods of economic distress.
Public institutions to care for indigents, the ill, the widows and orphans, the aged and the insane never had money enough during boom times, and when hard times set in and the burden increased, city welfare budgets lagged still further behind the amounts needed.”
The Rise of Urban America by Constance Mclaughlin Green

Also on the forum such things as sewage works and housing amongst other things have been discussed where public money and government legislation did a lot to help to improve the lives of poor and middle class people.
http://www.hipforums...d.php?p=7470925


Still, as can be seen from the above you still seem unwilling or unable to defend the ideas you are presenting from the criticisms levelled at them.

 

Fraggle


[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

The scenario seems to be based on their being a right wing libertarian type system in place where there is little or no public assistance (based on a tax system) and the whole or main assistance comes through voluntary charity.

The person is unemployed, has no assets to fall back on, family and friends are unable to help (presumably because they are in a similar condition) charitable help is not forthcoming or too little and so the person fears that they may actually starve to death.

Some may argue that that could never happen.

But in a time before modern welfare one that some right wing libertarians have cited as a economically ‘freer’ age, and it did happen -

Welfare was virtually non-existent for those fallen on hard times in the 1700s. As a last resort, some many ended up in locally administered poor houses, dependent on tiny sums raised through local taxes or charity. Many resented even this, believing it encouraged laziness and dependence.

On 23 January 1769, James Eaves, his wife and two of their children were found starved to death, their naked bodies lying on straw, in a poor house in Datchworth, Hertfordshire. Their third child, a boy of about 11, was still alive but unable to stand. It transpired they had been taken ill three weeks before and had only been given 2s 6d – which even for a farm labourer was only two days’s wages – from the overseers during that time.

The incident only come to light due to a pamphlet written by Captain Philip Thicknesse called An Account of four persons starved to death in a workhouse.
But it must be remembered that even the workhouse system was based on taxation but its coverage was sporadic at best, and while some areas could cope other poorer areas could not and in many places there was overcrowding, disease, corruption and abuse.

In such a situation the idea of becoming someone’s voluntary slave might seem attractive to someone so disadvantaged BUT would it be attractive to the advantaged?

A permanent slave could be a burden, work can be seasonal so the slave owner could end up having to house and feed someone when they didn’t have the work for them and if the work is not needed anymore they could end up owning slaves that are not gaining them any profit.

So for me it is not voluntary slavery that would be the problem in a right wing libertarian system but exploitation of the weaker by the stronger.

In a work or die situation people will work for a pittance and you can sack them when you don’t need them (if they become sick or the work finishes) and even if they then die the system is such that there will be others to employ for the same pittance.

 

And even if this does not play out blatantly, as in an indentured servant, or a slave, it would still play out in a subverted hidden way----such as the slavery I discussed in post # 22. One cannot expect much better from an overly objectivistic ideology...

 

Localism has worked tremendously in the vast ghettos white and black here. No government attention needed there.

 

I really wonder why some people come here pushing certain ideas then disappear once those ideas are questioned or criticised – for me that is the beginning of the debate not the end – it is then the ideas get tested.

I mean why would anyone hold onto views that they know are so weak that their only recourse when the ideas are challenged is to run away.

 

The law need not recognize all agreements as legally binding. For one thing, there must be an exchange of value. I think if I agree to cut off my right arm if you do, then you go ahead and to, and I back out, well that’s not an agreement that I could be legally bound to because there is no real exchange of value.

Accordingly, the law might recognize indentured servitude, but not lifelong enslavement. For example, western law does recognize divorces!

 

How did we get talking about our current society's values in a thread about a hypothetical Libertarian society?
So the privately owned courts are going to protect the rights of every citizen?

I thought that Libertarians wanted to legalize drugs, prostitution, etc.? Is 'voluntary' slavery really so objectionable in a Libertarian (ie: NOT present day) society?

I don't think so.

 

I don't know if you're talking about me, but on the Internet, people often come and go for reasons unrelated to any specific thread. There is no legal obligation to keep talking to someone, there are no rules to any of these 'debates', and they aren't really important enough to not let the other things in one's life take priority.

 

Frag

LOL hell man I last posted here nearly 2 years and 8 months ago and you want to reply now?

Ok , I’m game what are your counter arguments?

 

Haha... I don't know, I was just saying that I didn't leave the forum (I guess for a few years) because of this thread.

In fact, I don't even remember why I left.

 

Because you're a leftist!