Quote from: kmfkewm on October 02, 2012, 05:25 amYou would only 'own' the child of a slave until the child is old enough to say they want to be free. Why? A child would be a drain on resources until it's old enough to be put to productive use, so unless it is also a slave I'd just kill it. We are treating people like commodities now, like a chicken or a cow. That's what slavery is, or it is not slavery of any kind that is recognizable to me. If I do not own the product of my slave's labors, including the offspring dividend they produce, then the whole thing stops making sense. In fact historically speaking what I'm describing, how children were either born into chains or disposed of, did occur.Yes, enslaving the children is cruel almost beyond imagining, but the point I'm making is sound. When you have ownership of any domestic animal, you own it's products, like meat, eggs, butter, and so forth. The same principal must apply to people too. Your caveat of "the child must be old enough to make a choice" doesn't make sense practically, because I'd put it down for wasting my resources and in theory because ownership means you get dividends. You own a cow for its milk. You own a chicken for its eggs. You own a stock for its dividends. There is no point in ownership if you don't get to own the production. Indentured labor is different because there is a time limit after which you are a freeman/freewoman. Thus the 'owner' and 'servant' will have a symbiotic relationship that is productive for them both. With indentured labor, your idea of freedom for the child makes more sense to me.Quote from: kmfkewm on October 02, 2012, 05:25 amAlso what makes you so certain that so many people would desire to sell themselves into slavery? Perhaps a person in a third world extremely poor country would be willing to sign a contract saying that in return for food and shelter they will do whatever is asked of them by the master they sign themselves over to. But I would have no reason to sign such a contract. I am not certain. But I only require a small number of 'stock' in order to accumulate more via sexual reproduction. The humans are treated like cattle, made to constantly produce children which are then forced to work for myself at the first possibility. So I don't need very many people to accomplish my evil plan. Like you say, I could import some desperately poor souls from the Third World.You yourself may never sign yourself over to my ownership. Most people wouldn't. And that's the kicker. Eventually you guys are completely outnumbered by myself and my hordes of slaves. Eventually I can use geometric progression to kick your ass. If I had 1000 female slaves imported and set them to work, I would have something like half a million slaves working for me within 50 years. With just 1 generation in my evil dynasty we'd control the world and the number of people with free market freedoms would be inconsequential, they could be brushed off very easily with those kinds of numbers on my side.Quote from: kmfkewm on October 02, 2012, 05:25 amAdditionally, in return for their slavery the example person would receive a higher quality of life. Why would someone voluntarily sell themselves into slavery unless they get a large benefit out of it? So really it is hardly even slavery. Slavery means that you force a person against their will to be your servant. There is no such thing as voluntary slavery, so it is a bit of a misnomer.That is not what slavery means kmfkewm! Slavery is defined as the ownership of people. It can involve coercion and most often does. But in principal people could sign themselves over permanently due to stupidity, an ideological framework similar to religion, and so on. Once they are in, there is no escape, there is no way out. You cannot recover from a mistake. Direct coercion would not be necessary kmfkewm, look at Scientology, look at how the Russian communist elite manipulated the common people. In fact until the markets came, a small number of people dominating the rest was the norm for thousands of years. Property ownership of this widespread kind is a new paradigm (an overused word, but appropriate here).tldr; in order for free markets to exist, the right to sell oneself must be prohibited without exception. You may only rent or contract yourself out, but never to sell proper.Voluntary transaction is a near universal rule in my view, but it cannot be completely universal or it shall eat itself up in the way I described or some other fashion.some wiki quotes:QuoteIn pre-industrial societies, slaves and their labour were economically extremely important. Slaves and serfs made up around three-quarters of the world's population at the beginning of the 19th century (i.e. pine's evil plan, albeit by > 1 entity. I think today it would be logistically possible for 1 person to do this though, with databases and biometrics and whatnot).QuoteSlavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation.