Frylock, I’m afraid I don’t understand the point of the thought experiment. (And a thought experiment is all it can be, since no is actually suggesting such a thing.) Are you asking whether involuntariness is the only reason slavery has such a bad reputation in modern society? The answer is yes-and-no. Yes, in the sense that this is how it actually played out and was a major objection. No, in the sense that this wasn’t the only problem. Are you asking whether there should be legal constraints on what people may agree to? The answer is yes-and-no. Generally, we like freedom of contract, but consider some things not waivable. Modern labor law has many of these (wage and hour laws, worker’s compensation, etc.). Are those what this is really about?
If there’s no nuance to the question, the answer is simple. We tried slavery and decided it was bad. Give us a good reason to reconsider. Meanwhile, please advise whether, in this thought experiment, there are restrictions on what masters may and must do. Also, whether there’s an unwind procedure as for divorce of marriage and on what terms. Thanks.
Frylock, unless I’ve missed it, you have not directly responded to several posters who’ve suggested that you are free to become a slave so long as you are also free to change your mind and your status and not be a slave any longer.
Are you in fact asking if you should be to irrevocably make yourself a slave to another?
In that case, I would say no, and you have given the answer yourself in post #42:
By becoming an irrevocable slave, you are not only attempting to give up your rights to the other party, you are attempting to disempower to government from protecting your rights, which is it’s most basic function by your own definition. I would say that is the equivalent of attempting to remove yourself, and perhaps the slave owner as well, from the jusridiction of the government.
You seem to have not been paying attention during K9-12 Civics/History,
so here, again, is the 13th Amendment:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Colonial, what he means is that if you agree to be someone’s slave, and you obey them and work for them without complaint, the government has no reason to step in.
This is why BDSM contracts are not illegal, although they are unenforceable. I can agree to be someone’s slave, no one can force me to continue to be someone’s slave if I change my mind.
This is the key component of real slavery rather than pretend slavery. You can pretend to be a slave all day every day. But real slavery requires the inability to choose to stop being a slave, and it requires the larger society to enforce your slave status.
So Bob is free to call himself Steve’s slave, and Bob is free to obey Steve’s orders without question, and Bob is free to work for Steve without compensation, and Bob is free to let Steve put him in handcuffs and chains. But if tomorrow Bob gets bored with the arrangement and decides to leave, the cops aren’t going to arrest him and drag him back to Steve’s house, and if Steve keeps Bob in chains when Bob asks to be unlockd, Steve becomes a criminal kidnapper in the eyes of the state.
I do not agree the government must necessarily lack ground for intervention
in all such cases.
Performing occasional gratis charity work may be fine and dandy, but the
government should have some recource against evil manipulators such as
Jones and Koresh who brainwash people into devoting their whole lives
in free service.
Hopefully any lawyer would agree that if a contract is unenforceable then
it is also illegal.
OP and Mr. Mace did not draw a distinction between “real” and “pretend”.
IANALawyer, but I would bet you are incorrect about this. Two people can agree to many things that cannot be enforced in a court, but that doesn’t mean they agreements in themselves are illegal.
Example: “You’re such a nice guy that tomorrow if you’re smiling when I see you I’m gonna give you a million dollars.”
Next morning, the other guy smiles, but the first guy changes his mind and doesn’t hand over the money.
Or more realistically, there are contracts made that have some legal flaw that means a court will not enforce them. That doesn’t mean they were entered into illegally.
I did not say the agreements themselves were illegal.
As I understand it, one essence of a legal contract is that it is binding.
I can agree to take your one million dollars, but you are not legally bound to give it to me even if I fulfill my side of the agreement.
I am using the phrase “not legally bound” as a category or subset of the
more general term “illegal”. Maybe that is improper usage.
I don’t think you are really enslaved if you are doing something voluntarily. You are a slave when you are forced to do something against your will, which would be impossible to consent to. You are free to pretend to be a slave all you want though.
However, in the ancient world it really happened that people voluntarily sold themselves into slavery. Roman law treated those people exactly like other slaves, which included the right of a Roman patriarch to excercise the power of life and death over his children and slaves.
So if we had legal slavery, it would be perfectly consistent to allow people to sell themselves into slavery. Since we don’t, it isn’t.
As for whether an unenforceable contract is illegal, well, what law does it break? What punishment do you face if you sign an uneforceable contract?
That depends on the terms of the contract. In the context of this thread
a contract of voluntary enslavement would break the 13th Amendment,
and associated anti-slavery legislation.
Not necessarily any. It may be sufficient in the eyes of the law to do no more
than void the contract. However, I would not be suprised if the “slave owner”
in a contract of the kind we are discussing might be liable for fine and prison.
As long as the slave owner did not detain the slave against their will, or assault them, the slave owner has committed no crime.
Even if they lock a “slave” in a cage, the slave owner is legally clear unless they refuse to open the cage if the slave requests it. The key element of kidnapping is that the victim is held against their will. If I stay at my friend’s summer cottage that isn’t kidnapping unless he locks the door and won’t let me out when I ask him to let me out.
The 13th Amendment does not distinguish between voluntary slavery
and involuntary slavery, it forbids all.
I do not know if the scenario you describe fits the legal definition of slavery.
IMO it passes the limit of what should be legally tolerated, whether or not
it is slavery. A person who “voluntarily” submits to being caged should be
considered unsound of mind, and incapable of exercising personaly responsibility.
And anyone who takes advantage of such a person should be severely punished.