KOL442 | Together Strong Debate vs. Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery (Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity)
Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 442.
This is a debate between me and Walter Block about voluntary slavery contracts, hosted by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his "Together Strong" debate series. (See previous episode KOL426)
Unedited transcript (from Youtube) below.
https://youtu.be/x6ecMmBpGs8?si=veUW9EnXhwujEAo1
Notes:
For further discussion of this topic, see:
chapters 9–11, from Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2024; LFFS), namely "A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability," "Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith," and "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection"
Re the "Zombicide" comments, see ch. 10, text at n.37
My paper, The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract (Papian Press Working Paper #1)
KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery and Inalienability
Other than Block and Nozick, Gerard Casey also seems to favor voluntary slavery: “Can You Own Yourself?“, Research Depository UCD Dublin (Dec. 2011)
A few comments.
African Slavery
Walter favors voluntary slavery but not involuntary slavery; this was one reason he sued the New York Times for defamation, since they claimed he supported slavery (if I recall correctly; 1, 2, 3). But how do we know that all the African slaves in antebellum America were involuntary slaves? Is it established that every African shipped to the US from Africa went against their will? What if they heard life was better in America, and they volunteered to go even knowing they would be enslaved. Wouldn't such a slavery contract be enforceable in Walter's view of slavery?
Or take another example. Suppose Jones, owner of a plantation in Louisiana, owns a slave Toby, but he starts to feel bad about slavery and he manumits Toby, and tells him to leave. Toby says he has no money, no food, and he doesn't want to wander around in Louisiana where he might be attacked or enslaved again, and says he would prefer to just stay on Jones's plantation and work for him. Jones says well okay but only if you sell yourself to me and be my slave. So Toby sells himself to Jones. Wouldn't this be legitimate and enforceable, according to Walter's theory?
Forced Sex with a Prostitute
Walter says that if you sell yourself into slavery, then if you try to run away you are stealing the property of your owner. He is entitled to use force against you since you are disobeying him. Now around 52:13, Mathew asks Walter about my hypothetical about kissing a girl. I had explained that it's not assault/battery or aggression if you kiss a girl if she consents. If during dinner she promises to let you kiss her when you drop her off, and you do, it's also not consent, since her last communication set up a sort of standing presumption. As I write in ch. 9 of LFFS, Part III.C.1:
If a girl promises a kiss at the end of the date and the boyfriend an hour later kisses her, she cannot claim it was nonconsensual. In effect, she communicated her consent, she set up a standing presumption that is reasonable to rely on—until and unless she changes her mind. If at the end of the date she announces she no longer wants a kiss, it is that consent that matters. It is always the most recent consent that matters since this is the best evidence for what was consented to. There is nothing in libertarianism that says people cannot change their minds.
Walter then responds by saying that if you pay a prostitute $100 for sex and she backs out, you can't force her to have sex, as it would be rape, you can only get your money back. But suppose you pay her an extra $900 to induce her to agree that she cannot change her mind, then if you force her it's not rape (to which I respond, "Jesus!"). Of course it's easy to see this logic could also apply to a girl you are dating. If she agrees to have sex with her date and the end of the date and agrees that she "cannot change her...
