[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / arepa / d / leftpol / nofap / tacos / vichan ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: 4e7db0bb5890cae⋯.jpg (9.57 KB, 224x225, 224:225, images.jpg)

 No.93781

Is owning another person the highest form of Freedom?

I don't see anything wrong with owning personal slaves, when the Union freed Blacks a lot of them starved to death. I remember some tumblr user's family owned some slaves justifying it by saying that the country they were in had no possible hope for.

 No.93788

>>93781

>Is owning another person the highest form of Freedom?

Not under any meaning that doesn't define freedom as a prettier word for power.


 No.93800

It is not possible. Ownership of someone entails taking away his personhood.


 No.93829

poor bait.


 No.93870

>>93781

>I remember some tumblr user's family owned some slaves justifying it by saying that the country they were in had no possible hope for.

wut? tell more


 No.93930

>>93781

Yes; it's no different than owning any other animal.

Those saying this isn't the case are either saving face or minarchist cucks.


 No.93931

File: 19b04415394397f⋯.jpg (6.77 KB, 253x255, 253:255, b8 xm8.jpg)


 No.93936

>>93931

Nice non-argument.

Explain to me how this isn't the case.


 No.93937

>>93936

1. Humans are capable of acting in the praxeological sense, animals are not. Humans have self-ownership, while animals do not. Because of these distinctions humans are actors rather than property, and the reason coercion is bad should be self-evident to anyone who wears that flag.

2. A man's future will may not be alienated. Per Rothbardian contract theory contracts whose violation do not result in theft are not criminally enforceable, including a contract stipulating indefinite servitude.


 No.93947

>>93937

This. Sage only because it's a shit thread.


 No.93987

>>93781

if you cannot sell yourself as a slave it means you dont possess yourself (dont have selfpossessoin)


 No.94171

>>93987

Guess what? Your will/actor isn't your property, because it's something required for you to gain property. You cannot have homesteaded your actor, partly because you'd have no actor to homestead it with. You cannot have recieved your actor as property before using it, as you'd have no actor to recieve it with.


 No.94204

>>94171

Could you try speaking English? I’ve read through your post a couple times and I can’t decipher what you mean by actor and homestead.


 No.94207

>>93987

See >>93937. You cannot alienate your future will, and as a result any contract which involves your selling off indefinite servitude is not an enforcement one.


 No.94209

>>94204

Actor means will, the (you), or soul, if you will. Homestead means appropriating, being the first to change from the state of nature.


 No.94216

>>94207

learn english




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / agatha2 / animu / arepa / d / leftpol / nofap / tacos / vichan ]