Anarcho-capitalist Walter Block proposed legalizing voluntary slavery. Let's go deeper into this idea. First off how would it work? A woman may sell herself and the money would go to her family. She would do this because she wants her family who's poor to benefit. That or she might do it for free. Perhaps she's an altruistic spirit whose family is well enough off and just wants a man to enjoy the benefits of slaveownership. Perhaps also slaves can have the right to life, which should at least include daily food. Perhaps in some countries there is starvation and they would allow themselves to be used however the slaveowner wants as long as she is fed and clothed for the rest of her life. I do believe all slaves should have a right to life.
Now let's go into who this would be for. This could be for people in the poorest countries. Some persons in foreign countries only earn about two dollars a day. Perhaps the slave-to-be wants her family to be better off. Of course it can also be for better off Whites and Asians who want their families even more better off. They'd want to be paid much more than a Black. The slaveowners would typically be those who have the money to purchase such slaves.
Now let's go into why this should happen. It should happen because it's anti-poverty. It's a trolley problem. One one side of the trolley problem you have the slave, and on the other side you have her family. By sacrificing the slave's freedom, the whole family will benefit from the riches the slaveowner gives them. A group's happiness and livelihood outweighs for sure outweighs one person's unhappiness. Not that the slave will be unhappy. We know from Southern slavery that the slaves will be happy and their wants and needs will be met as George Fitzhugh noted. No, it's not a trolley problem because the slave benefits just as much as the family. Also, the whole family can be enslaved and they'd all benefit.
Let's return to how this would work. There needs to be poverty, so to maintain slavery we should maintain poverty abroad. We need to ban charities and international wealth redistribution. This doesn't contradict the previous paragraph. The ideal life for a non-White is slavery. Their poverty should be encouraged, so that they become slaves. Slavery means the slaveowner will control their lives for the slave's own good. The slave will be healthy because he will be fed just the right amount. The slave will be happy because he won't worry about money. Yes, a slaveowner may become poor and then he should have to resell the slave to another White if he can't provide for it anymore.
Now let's talk about slave's rights. Say, a slave has type 1 diabetes and requires insulin daily. Does she have a right to it? I think so. If the slaveowner doesn't want to incur that cost, he can import a different one. There's more fish in the sea. Of course, such a slave-to-be may be really pretty and the man may therefore be willing to pay the price.
Slavery is a better alternative to welfarism for caring for non-Whites because it's a reciprocal gain. The slave benefits, but also the White, who would otherwise be taxed without receiving anything in return.
Now, here's why involuntary slavery is wrong. It's because the woman didn't consent to it. Feminists yap about consent so much, yet you never hear them advocate voluntary slavery, which some foids would want to consent to. As the saying goes, "my body my choice." A woman should have the choice of selling her body for life. Involuntary slavery in the South was barbaric not because it hurt Blacks, but because it deprived Whites of the ability to be slaves as well. Many Whites suffered due to being excluded from slavery. By juxtaposing involuntary slavery with voluntary slavery, we can gain more supporters for voluntary slavery.
Now, let's go in deeper into the case where the family is paid. Perhaps the slavery contract is just temporary. Perhaps the slavery contract involves requiring pay every month or year. If he can't pay one month, he should lose the rights to the slave and she becomes free again. And of course, it can be a one-time payment for a permanent slave. For some who are poor, it would be cheaper in the short run to rent a slave temporarily. For those who have more money, it's cheaper to use a one-time payment. And perhaps slaveowners should be able to purchase insurance in case their foid gets destroyed somehow. That way the slaveowner can replace her.
Now let's go into who this would be for. This could be for people in the poorest countries. Some persons in foreign countries only earn about two dollars a day. Perhaps the slave-to-be wants her family to be better off. Of course it can also be for better off Whites and Asians who want their families even more better off. They'd want to be paid much more than a Black. The slaveowners would typically be those who have the money to purchase such slaves.
Now let's go into why this should happen. It should happen because it's anti-poverty. It's a trolley problem. One one side of the trolley problem you have the slave, and on the other side you have her family. By sacrificing the slave's freedom, the whole family will benefit from the riches the slaveowner gives them. A group's happiness and livelihood outweighs for sure outweighs one person's unhappiness. Not that the slave will be unhappy. We know from Southern slavery that the slaves will be happy and their wants and needs will be met as George Fitzhugh noted. No, it's not a trolley problem because the slave benefits just as much as the family. Also, the whole family can be enslaved and they'd all benefit.
Let's return to how this would work. There needs to be poverty, so to maintain slavery we should maintain poverty abroad. We need to ban charities and international wealth redistribution. This doesn't contradict the previous paragraph. The ideal life for a non-White is slavery. Their poverty should be encouraged, so that they become slaves. Slavery means the slaveowner will control their lives for the slave's own good. The slave will be healthy because he will be fed just the right amount. The slave will be happy because he won't worry about money. Yes, a slaveowner may become poor and then he should have to resell the slave to another White if he can't provide for it anymore.
Now let's talk about slave's rights. Say, a slave has type 1 diabetes and requires insulin daily. Does she have a right to it? I think so. If the slaveowner doesn't want to incur that cost, he can import a different one. There's more fish in the sea. Of course, such a slave-to-be may be really pretty and the man may therefore be willing to pay the price.
Slavery is a better alternative to welfarism for caring for non-Whites because it's a reciprocal gain. The slave benefits, but also the White, who would otherwise be taxed without receiving anything in return.
Now, here's why involuntary slavery is wrong. It's because the woman didn't consent to it. Feminists yap about consent so much, yet you never hear them advocate voluntary slavery, which some foids would want to consent to. As the saying goes, "my body my choice." A woman should have the choice of selling her body for life. Involuntary slavery in the South was barbaric not because it hurt Blacks, but because it deprived Whites of the ability to be slaves as well. Many Whites suffered due to being excluded from slavery. By juxtaposing involuntary slavery with voluntary slavery, we can gain more supporters for voluntary slavery.
Now, let's go in deeper into the case where the family is paid. Perhaps the slavery contract is just temporary. Perhaps the slavery contract involves requiring pay every month or year. If he can't pay one month, he should lose the rights to the slave and she becomes free again. And of course, it can be a one-time payment for a permanent slave. For some who are poor, it would be cheaper in the short run to rent a slave temporarily. For those who have more money, it's cheaper to use a one-time payment. And perhaps slaveowners should be able to purchase insurance in case their foid gets destroyed somehow. That way the slaveowner can replace her.
