| Part of a series on |
| Slavery |
|---|
| Contemporary slavery |
| Types |
| History |
| Religion |
| By country or region |
| Opposition and resistance |
Voluntary slavery (or self-sale) is the condition of slavery freely entered into. In ancient times this was a common way for impoverished people to provide subsistence for themselves or their family and provision was made for this in law.[1] For example, the code of Hammurabi stated that, "besides being able to borrow on personal security, an individual might sell himself or a family member into slavery."[2]
In ancient times one of the most direct ways to become a Roman or Greek citizen was by means of a self-sale contract. For the laws surrounding Roman and Greek manumission made it quite possible for such erstwhile slaves to then become citizens or near-citizens themselves.[3]
In medieval Russia, self-sale was the main source of slaves.[4]
Slave contracts are also sometimes used in BDSM as part of a total power exchange agreement.
In modern times, the topic has been discussed in the context of politics and human rights. John Stuart Mill wrote a critique of voluntary slavery as a criticism of paternalism.[5] Certain feminists have asserted willing motherhood to be a form of voluntary slavery.[6] And some political economists have asserted that the capitalist wage system is contrary to human dignity and inalienable human rights.[7] Murray Rothbard argued, "The concept of 'voluntary slavery' is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master's will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary.[8]
Jean-Jacques Rousseau contends that in a contract of self-enslavement, there is no mutuality. The slave loses all. The contract negates his interests and his rights. It is entirely to his disadvantage. Since the slave loses his status as a moral agent once the slave contract is enforced, the slave cannot act to enforce anything owed to him by his master. Rousseau contrasted this to the social contract, in that the subjects of the government have control over their masters.[9]
Anarcho-capitalist Walter Block raises the following scenario as illustrating a problem with disallowing enforcement of slave contracts:[10]
| “ | You are a rich man who has long desired to have me as a slave, to order about as you will, even to kill me for disobedience or on the basis of any other whim which may occur to you. My child has now fallen ill with a dread disease. Fortunately, there is a cure. Unfortunately, it will cost one million dollars, and I, a poor man, do not have such funds at my disposal. Fortunately, you are willing to pay me this amount if I sign myself over to you as a slave, which I am very willing to do since my child’s life is vastly more important to me than my own liberty, or even my own life. Unfortunately, this would be illegal, at least if the doctrine of inalienability (non-transferability) is valid. If so, then you, the rich man, will not buy me into slavery, for I can run away at any time, and the forces of law and order will come to my rescue, not yours, if you try to stop me by force. | ” |
Stephan Kinsella argues that "viewing rights as alienable is perfectly consistent with—indeed, implied by—the libertarian non-aggression principle. Under this principle, only the initiation of force is prohibited; defensive, restitutive, or retaliatory force is not."[11]