That's a very interesting question, and one I've given some thought before now, but don't have a strong opinion on because I can see both sides of the argument. If I understand your question, you are asking if someone can sell themselves into slavery and still be consistent with libertarian morality. Or maybe put another way, can the person who bought that slavery contract morally enforce it. Rothbard's position is that this is not moral and you cannot sell your life-force or will or sovereignty whatever you want to call it because it is inseparable from you. If you later change your mind, then you should be able to abandon whatever contract you made. I can see the other side though. If you truly own yourself, then you should be able to sell yourself. What if your child needs a $100k medical procedure to survive and your only asset is your labor. Let's say 5 years of your labor is worth $100k. Shouldn't you be able to sell the next 5 years of your labor to help your child? Would it not be violent interference to prevent you from pursuing that path? How about someone that borrows $100k? Does the lender not have a right to be repaid and would be justified in confiscating that persons wages, effectively owning their labor, to regain their property and enforce the contract? If I had to choose a side to this question, I think it would be the latter, which might be the first point I've disagreed with Rothbard on You mention consenting adults though. If someone is actively consenting to slavery, then it's not really slavery is it? I think the difficult situation is when the jameslink of today promises his future labor and effectively sells into slavery his future self. What are your thoughts on the matter?