Quote from: jameslink2 on October 02, 2012, 11:21 amPine, you have changed the type of slavery to a slavery that is immoral and would be illegal.We are not talking about generational bonded servitude, That would be wrong. We are talking about contractual servitude or indentured servitude. You ask about a child born to the slave, the child is born free and not the property of anyone. S/He is endowed by there creator with rights of a free person and until they are an adult and can consent to the contract they can not be a slave. That is unless the contract was to produce a child, however that would be a surrogate mother or sperm donor contract. lolI think we should probably veer the topic back to the book in case we get even more off tangent, but suffice to say I think my idea of slavery is not only the one defined in the dictionary, but that more importantly it is the one operated in practice. Temporary bonding such as indentured servants shouldn't be described as slavery. It is an extreme form of a salaried person, where the contract is longer than normal, but it is not slavery.I agree that kmfkewm's idea of voluntary exchange being universal would imply a person could sell themselves in a free market. This is logically consistent. But I am saying that despite that consistency that it leads to dramatically worse logical contradiction, a dystopian world where the free market is completely corrupted because of the implications of that non reversible yet still voluntary action. That is why I am saying that the sale of oneself is and should be an illegal operation in a free market, even though this could be a voluntary exchange. Slavery means the ownership of people. There are no caveats in theory or practice such as the ones kmfkewm and yourself describe. There are no institutional protections against evil pine. If you are not conceptualizing human beings as cattle, to be worked, slaughtered, bred and otherwise used, then they are not slaves and the word has been redefined into something more appealing to a 21st century perspective, but very much detached from how the institution of slavery operated in it's heyday. FWIW the UN's definition of slavery is overly broad, I think that confuses discussions like these. But I'll say no more. I already made a long post to kmfkewm but I deleted it since I felt we were getting away from the core material. I think we understand each other's point of view, it is just that we disagree with it, it can't be reconciled by further debate.Back later with more, different free market/state caveats! :)