Also, the question of beating the slave is given, but not slow torture or murder – the rich master might be a sadist and take pleasure in the infliction of pain and use the slave for that purpose and not labor. Maybe the rich man would like both of the slave’s kidneys. Why stop at freedom?

But the basic problem is if my examples aren’t “voluntary”, neither is the case Block uses to establish his idea. To choose between multiple evils might admit of will but would not be “voluntary” in the sense of the word the way it is normally used.

The choice betweed different goods (high risk high pay, or steadier low pay), or things of moral indifference (red or blue) can be voluntary. Given a choice, we would normally assume people would never choose any evil (or the very choice for evil is illicit – which then begs the question), so constructs with a greater and lesser evil are inapplicable – like Bush and Kerry if you need a contemporary example.

I’ve before admitted health care as it pertains to life is where things get difficult with my model (since I consider Life, Liberty, and Property to be a list in decreasing order of priority). A lot of property sphere choices can affect lifespan.

If Block or anyone else cannot construct a choice between goods which would involve life or liberty, I don’t see how the example applies or would be different. If nature puts someone into a coercive situation I can exploit, the exploitation is evil.

If such exploitation is not intrinsically evil, I can legitimately coerce someone into agreeing to be my slave, then simply pay for my coercion without violating the transaction. I threaten you – you become my slave, I pay you whatever the going rate for credible threats are, but order you to give me back the fine immediately.

Or to go back to Block’s example, say the man paid for the treatment, but it was unsuccessful, or that there was some unrelated accident where the child died anyway (before, during, or after the treatment).

I think of the Roman who would take a bag of the then inflated coins and go around striking people and pull out a coin – something like a nickel today – and pointed out that the 12 tables specified this as the fine for striking someone.

This surely stretches the idea of “voluntary”! After all, if you think that voluntary slavery would permit people to take control of other people’s person by threatening them with torture, etc. then you must also think that allowing voluntrary sales of other forms of property, like houses or cars, is likewise so permissive. Most people do not, and are correct in not doing so, regard giving money to a highway man because he is pointing a gun at you as a voluntary transfer of wealth. Nor would they do so if the highway man poisoned their child and refused to cure it unless the money was handed over.

Or to use one of his kind of examples, I kidnap you and torture you, and say I will only stop if you voluntarily agree to be my slave and hold me harmless for the kidnap or torture. You might die before you are found, and anyway find the torture unpleasant (Or you might just be stuck in the middle of the desert, and I have a vehicle with enough gas and/or water without which you will die, but it is a perfectly “voluntary” choice). Or I give your child a poison of which there is no discomfort until death, so instead of needing a million dollars for a cure (as in his example), you need the antidote only I can provide. The only difference is that I put you into that position, but the decision is not less “voluntary”.

Also my guardianship model avoids some of the forefeiture problems. If you are in a coma, you can’t actualize your rights. If there is enough clear evidence you are abusing your position or otherwise can’t handle guardianship of your rights, a different guardian might be appointed until you can handle them.

If I own something, I can sell it or lease it, in whole or in part.

Therefore you can make faustian bargains. If you “own” your self, “the taxation and regulation” are merely the words for selling your freedom for whatever the state mess o pottage happens to be. The minute you use a public road, attend a subsidized school or otherwise accept any handout from the state, it can demand in exchange a piece of your self that you own.

Rush Limbaugh has an expression “Talent on loan from God”. This describes how I think rights work. Because God has given them to me (or use a pagan or secular substitute), but in a lease that runs from conception until natural death, I do not “own” my self or my rights – God is still the owner. I am the user and the guardian. Like a lease car, I can drive it wherever I want, but I can’t sell it, and I may get a rebate or penalty depending on if I take good care or abuse it.

The term inalienable rights works for me, because inalienable also means I can’t alienate the rights from myself.

(Nor is this a trivial point even without a state – in a thread on commercial contracts, many maintained I could limit any right of another as a condition of sale, where I noted ownership isn’t transferred if even one right of ownership, much less one liberty of the owner is limited).

Is “inalienable rights” what is normally meant by “self-ownership”, or is it closer to being able to sell yourself into slavery if you so desire?