[ExI] Human Experimenting

painlord2k at libero.it painlord2k at libero.it
Tue May 26 20:13:42 UTC 2009

Il 22/05/2009 23.37, Lee Corbin ha scritto:
> Mirco writes

>> The signer would need to put himself in a position where he [has]
>> no more free will (say he lobotomizes himself). But [so long as he
>> retains his] free will, he will not be able to sign away his
>> freedom.

> It sounds to me like your problem with this is the *scope* of the
> signing, i.e., the range of conduct of the subject (the signer). For
> small ranges, e.g., "I will promise to return the goods Tuesday", a
> contract is okay for you, but "I will do everything you say for N
> years" is not.

> Have I understood correctly?

I think not.
The problems are many and many facet.

When someone sell himself in slavery, what is selling?
Is he selling his fealty and his labour? Is he selling his body?
Is he selling an object or a service?

My opinion is that he is selling his body, an object. Not a service.
This because the slave owner have the right to kill, maim and order the
slave to do anything he like. The slave is an object, like a car or a
cow. The slave owner own the body of the slave and can do with it
whatever is able and willing to do.

Say the A agree with B to sell himself in slavery to B. B, in exchange
will pay C a sum of money. B pay C and A give up the property of his
body to B.
Now, B is the owner of A's body, so it is responsible for whatever A
body do. B could force A to do whatever B like or B could do to A
whatever B like. A is a slave, so he must be treated like an object not
a person. A has no more rights or duties versus B or others individuals
of the society. He is no more bound to any obligation versus other
people, in the same way a car or a cow have no obligations versus
humans. The contracts A accepted when free end when A become a slave,
because only free people can have contracts. But a slave is not people
and is not free.

Your example is interesting, because it is the "slavery as a service" 
> For small ranges, e.g., "I will promise to return the goods Tuesday",
> a contract is okay for you, but "I will do everything you say for N
> years" is not

The problem arises when both broke the contract.
When A break the contract B have the right to be paid back for the 
damage received, but this right is not unlimited. If I don't pay a car, 
the seller have surely the right to repossess the car, take from my bank 
account a payment for the damages, he could take from me my cloths; he 
could seize anything I produce until I have paid back the debts. He can 
not force me to clean the sewers until I pay back my debts.

In the cases of "I will do everything you say for N years" the thing is 
the same. When I broke the contract, he could collect back the money 
paid, he could take back other money for the damage suffered. But he can 
not force me to work. The slave owner, in this case, don't own the slave 
body, so he has not the right to do whatever he like to the body or with 
the body of the slave.

This problem is similar to the case a prostitute and her client have 
when the client pay the prostitute before the service and then the 
prostitute refuse to perform the service she agreed upon. He could have 
the right to repossess the money, he has not the right to force the 
prostitute to perform. The main point is that the client can not claim 
any damage if the prostitute don't perform, as the slave owner can not 
claim any damage if the slave don't perform.

-------------- next part --------------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.40/2135 - Release Date: 05/26/09 08:53:00

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list