Slavery and child porn are debated by libertarians because the only way to address both is centralized government. However, since most (though not all) libertarians are opposed to any central government, they end up justifying with "well if you want to sell yourself as a slave, why should anyone stop you?".

But yeah, obviously it's us that are aware of this who are the fucked up ones.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Pretty sure the libertarian stance on slavery is that it is wrong, given the lack of liberty that slaves have. And the fact you can use a government to ensure nobody gets enslaved demonstrates the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist.

The maximum amount of personal liberty does not come from zero government. It comes from having enough government to prevent people from enslaving other people.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Pretty sure the libertarian stance on slavery is that it is wrong

Libertarians are VERY individualistic (shocker) which means no 2 libertarians define libertarianism the same way.

HOWEVER, you literally just have to search for "slavery libertarian" in the google box to find all sorts of fairly high profile libertarians arguing about how slavery can actually be a good thing that we should allow.

For example, from Walter Block: http://www.kspjournals.org/index.php/JEST/article/view/346

[–] huge_clock@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You didn’t read the article you linked. In it Walter Block states that slavery violates the non-aggression-principle and is not permissible under libertarianism.

[–] cogman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Let us now double down. Previously (Block 2005; 2013) wrote that slavery, in the absence of violence, compulsion, NAP violation was ―not so bad.‖ That was a poor choice of words. It was an inaccurate understatement. The truth of the matter is that under these conditions ―slavery‖ would be a positive good. There, I said it. I will say it again: ―Slavery‖ would be a positive good, under these conditions. Make of that what you will, New York Times and other enemies of freedom and logic. But note that when I assert that ―slavery‖ would be a benefit, two things occurred. First, I placed quote marks (―‖) around the word ―slavery‖ and second I mentioned that under these conditions it would be beneficial. I did not say, and I entirely reject the notion that slavery as actually practiced was anything other than a disgrace, a stark horrid evil. It is my view that the movies ―Django Unchained,‖ ―Twelve Years a Slave,‖ and the television series ―Roots‖ are roughly accurate depictions of this monstrous practice

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The only slavery I can think of without compulsion would be some kind of BDSM relationship, so he’s technically correct it’s no problem in that scenario.

Aside from any kind of roleplay, slavery involves compulsion. Slavery without compulsion is like an apple without fruit.

[–] huge_clock@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

What do you think he’s saying here?

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (28 replies)