KOL442 | Together Strong Debate vs. Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery (Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity)

Kinsella On Liberty

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 442. This is a debate between me and Walter Block about voluntary slavery contracts, hosted by Matthew Sands of the Nations of Sanity project as part of his "Together Strong" debate series. (See previous episode KOL426) Unedited transcript (from Youtube) below. https://youtu.be/x6ecMmBpGs8?si=veUW9EnXhwujEAo1 Notes: For further discussion of this topic, see: chapters 9–11, from Legal Foundations of a Free Society (2024; LFFS), namely "A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability," "Inalienability and Punishment: A Reply to George Smith," and "Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection" Re the "Zombicide" and psychosurgery comments, see ch. 10, text at n.37, citing Randy E. Barnett The Structure of Liberty: Justice and the Rule of Law, 2d ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 78 & n. 39 See also, on this, Randy E. Barnett, “Rights and Remedies in a Consent Theory of Contract,” in R.G. Frey & C. Morris, eds., Liability and Responsibility: Essays in Law and Morals (Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 157; idem, “Contract Remedies and Inalienable Rights” in “Symposium on Philosophy and Law,” Social Policy and Philosophy 4, no. 1 (1986): 179–202, p. 188; In addition to Walter Block and Robert Nozick, libertarian philosopher Gerard Casey apparently agrees with Block that voluntary slavery contracts are legitimate and enforceable. See Gerard Casey, Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State (Continuum International Publishing Group, 2012), ch. 6, n.6: “… after a conversation with Walter Block on the topic of voluntary slavery, I am persuaded that there can be no legitimate objection to that principle’s encompassing specific performance also.” My paper, The Title-Transfer Theory of Contract (Papian Press Working Paper #1) KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery and Inalienability Other than Block and Nozick, Gerard Casey also seems to favor voluntary slavery: “Can You Own Yourself?“, Research Depository UCD Dublin (Dec. 2011) A few comments. African Slavery Walter favors voluntary slavery but not involuntary slavery; this was one reason he sued the New York Times for defamation, since they claimed he supported slavery (if I recall correctly; 1, 2, 3). But how do we know that all the African slaves in antebellum America were involuntary slaves? Is it established that every African shipped to the US from Africa went against their will? What if they heard life was better in America, and they volunteered to go even knowing they would be enslaved. Wouldn't such a slavery contract be enforceable in Walter's view of slavery? Or take another example. Suppose Jones, owner of a plantation in Louisiana, owns a slave Toby, but he starts to feel bad about slavery and he manumits Toby, and tells him to leave. Toby says he has no money, no food, and he doesn't want to wander around in Louisiana where he might be attacked or enslaved again, and says he would prefer to just stay on Jones's plantation and work for him. Jones says well okay but only if you sell yourself to me and be my slave. So Toby sells himself to Jones. Wouldn't this be legitimate and enforceable, according to Walter's theory? Forced Sex with a Prostitute Walter says that if you sell yourself into slavery, then if you try to run away you are stealing the property of your owner. He is entitled to use force against you since you are disobeying him. Now around 52:13, Mathew asks Walter about my hypothetical about kissing a girl. I had explained that it's not assault/battery or aggression if you kiss a girl if she consents. If during dinner she promises to let you kiss her when you drop her off, and you do, it's also not consent, since her last communication set up a sort of standing presumption. As I write in ch. 9 of LFFS, Part III.C.1: If a girl promises a kiss at the end of the date and the boy...