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

up hello this is Matthew here from the nations of Sanity project I’m here hosting a debate on behalf of a project

called together strong which is about bringing people together for common cause more specifically this channel is

about bringing libertarian thinkers together to discuss and debate various aspects of libertarianism so we can get

closer to the truth and refine our understanding of these principles I’m very much looking forward to this

debate between Walter block and Stephan Kella two absolute heavy weights of

libertarian thinking and um the topic of the um debate today is voluntary slavery

is it a legitimate thing that people can enter into and be held to um Stefan says

no Walter says yes I’ll let them elaborate on their positions um before

we kick off I just want to say thank you again to Walter and Stefan for taking the time to do this debate I very much

appreciate it um and um I’m going to hand over to

Stefan to kick things off um just before we do kick off I just want to um say um

that I do think this is a excellent way for Libertarians to move forward I think we need to discuss de and debate ideas

where we agree we should discuss and explore and where we disagree we should discuss and explore because I think

that’s how we get a better understanding of the principles so umk thank you again Walter and Stefan for doing this um and

Stefan I’ll uh leave it to you to introduce your side of the argument sure hi um hi Walter it’s

Stefan canella nice to meet you we’ve never met before have we it’s a

joke Walter and I know each other for a long time um in fact we we’ve discussed

this topic before in my living room um and I guess in print a little bit

um to let me try to and I’ll try to spend no more than maybe

10 minutes on this um the issue is I guess the the issue is whether um

whether contracts to sell yourself into slavery are legitimately or legally

enforceable or ought to be legally enforceable uh under a Libertarian uh society that respects libertarian

property rights and libertarian rights and their for libertarian contract contracts okay I say no and I think most

Libertarians would say no um I don’t know if they can all articulate why uh I

would say say rothbart has a reason and my reason is similar to his and I think it’s compatible with say the the the

view of Rights of of of of haa now I do think there’s a contradiction in some of rothbart’s own writings um uh where he

part of his reasoning goes against uh or or is for in alienability which is the

The View that you cannot sell your body into slavery and but but other comments he says in his contract theory indicate

otherwise and I think that’s what Walter seizes on that part and goes down that direction so and Walter can clarify but

I believe Walter’s view is that um to be fully consistent rothbart ought to

abandon his view that rights can be cannot be alienated by contract and take

his view that all rights can be alienated and I’m aware of Walter’s argument which is basically if you don’t

let people sell themselves into slavery you could imagine situations where uh a bad result would happen where you know a

guy um can only save his son’s life by selling his by agreeing to be someone slave a rich guy’s slave and the rich

guy is only going to pay pay to save his son if the guy agrees to be a slave but he’s not going to pay him to do that if

the legal system would not enforce the the the promise to be a slave uh and so

therefore if the legal system doesn’t enforce that then the guy won’t be able to make the contract and he won’t be able to um to save his son’s life uh I

don’t see how that’s really an argument though it’s just it’s just pointing out what would happen um if people are not

entitled to sell themselves in the slavery it doesn’t say that whe that they are entitled to sell themselves of slavery um another You could argue for

example and I’m going to get some my main argue in a second but you could argue that someone who is a hostage of a

bad guy um and he the bad guy wants to release him but the bad guy’s afraid

that that that that the kidnapped victim will reveal who who the kidnapper was

and so the guy wants to say listen if you let me go I promise you I will never reveal to anyone who who you were but

the kidnapper knows that that’s not going to happen so he has to shoot the guy it’s just the way the situation is

there’s nothing the law could do about that in any case my argument is this we have to first understand what contracts

are what it means for there to be a binding contract and what rights are and I and I’m not going to go into the

details of uh libertarian rights because I assume Walter and I agree on the foundations and I think the foundation

is this All rights as rothbard points out are property rights that’s what rights are they’re property rights and a property

right just is the right to control a scarce resource it’s actually not the

right to control it it’s the right to exclude other people from controlling it but that’s a subtle distinction that we

don’t need to get into here I do discuss this in chapter um I think 11 of my book

um which is my book is legal foundations of a free Society it came out last year and it discusses a lot of the issues I’m

going to mention here um um and so what are rights the rights

basically are those summarized or or codified in the non-aggression principle the non-aggression principle is not a f

foundational principle it’s more of a summary or a shorthand it it simply says

uh people don’t have the right to initiate Force okay now that’s too compressed what it means is in the case

of your body no one can hit your body or use it without your permission but

because you’re the self- owner because you’re the owner of your body so in other words when you say I’m opposed to

aggression or when you recite the non-aggression principle that’s just another way of saying that everyone is

the owner of their body or the presumptive or the initial owner of their body right so non-aggression in

the case of people’s bodies means that um they own their bodies and that other

people are not entitled to Ade the borders of those bodies or use or or use them without the permission of the of

the or the owner okay so that’s the first rule of libertarianism of property rights which is every person is the

initial or presumptive owner of property rights in their own body I don’t think

so far Walter would disagree with me because I did say initial or presumptive

um now I do believe that you can lose your rights you can you can forfeit or lose your rights by committing an act of

aggression and that is precisely because when someone responds to you if you commit aggression against their body and

they respond the force that they’re using is not initiatory force it’s responsive Force it’s force in response

to the act of aggression by the by the other actor um that’s why it’s

permissible and another way of looking at that is that the person who’s committing the act of aggression has to

an extent alienated or given up some of his rights by his action by the consequences of his actions okay so

rights can be lost or forfeited by committing an act of aggression okay

that’s important to keep in mind now there are other rights other than our self- ownership rights or rights in our

bodies and that is rights and external things that we come to own things that were inanimate things or even animate in

the case of animals but but external resources that are scarce resources again everything’s about scarce

resources all property rights are rights and scarce resources that is that is things that could be the means of action

and things over which there could be conflict right that’s the whole purpose of property rights is to allocate an owner of a resource so that conflict can

be avoided okay so in the case of the body it’s the first it’s the first occupant or or owner of the body and the

reason that you’re the owner of your body is because you have a special connection to your body and that is your direct control of your body or as

rothbart calls it your will your will is inalienable you even if you make a contract you still are the one

controlling your body directly or as HOA points out the only way to own someone else’s body is always necessarily

indirectly you can’t directly control their body you can only coers them into doing what you want like a slave would

be threatened with whips or punishment or something like that okay in the case of unowned external resources that are

first unowned we come to use them because someone first starts using them before they were owned so that means the

very first type of ownership right in a nonbody thing is based upon homesteading

or original appropriation that’s the first user of this resource is the owner and then then the second rule would be

or if you acquire it from a previous owner by contract right so these are the three the three basic manifestations and

there’s a there’s a third which is about uh torch if you if you if you commit aggression or a tort against someone um

then you owe them some rest restitution which means you would have to give them some of your property to pay them so

that’s another way that your rights could your property rights could be lost but you can think of that as a subset of contract it’s basically something you do

where you transfer ownership of your owned property to someone else that’s what contracts are contracts are just

the manifestation of an owner over his resource and it’s manifestation of his

permission or his lack or his withholding permission so for example in the case of your body uh a girl on a

date can say um she can grant permission to her date to kiss her and that’s not

molestation or assault and battery or or rape or anything she’s consenting to it

because she consents that’s the whole thing if she doesn’t consent then it’s it’s an assault um likewise if I hand

you my watch and I let you use it that’s a temporary loan of my property because

I’m consenting to you using it if you take it from me without my permission then that’s an act of theft or trespass

because I didn’t consent so being an owner of a resource means you have the right to consent or to not consent to

other people using those things in the case of a resource that you acquire that

was previously unowned You Came To Own It by acquiring it from the state of nature and just asserting your dominion

over it you occupied it or you transformed it you mixed your labor with it according to lock something like that

you did something to be the first user and you show the world I’m the owner of this thing okay that’s why you’re the

owner but by the same token you can cease to be the owner of these things that is you can abandon them um so if I

pick up a stick and I use it for a couple of days and then I just abandon it back in the woods I’ve I’ve given up ownership and then someone else can come

and they can re Homestead it right or I could do it directly I could hand it to

Walter and I could loan him my stick in which case I still own it and he has to return it to me when when the when the

loan period is up um in which case and that’s because possession and ownership are distinct I can I could have

ownership of a stick and the possession of it I can let Walter use it for a while he can borrow my car for a while

but I still own it or I could loan him the car uh in effect forever by

abandoning the car in favor of Walter that is I relinquish my title but instead of leaving the car in

the woods or in the middle of nowhere unowned where someone else could aband uh could re Homestead it I actually give

it to Walter first and then I say okay Walter you have my car you’re using it with my permission I now hereby abandon

the car then I am no longer the owner and Walter is now magically the owner because he’s in possession of the car

and he claims ownership of it and he’s the best he’s the new Homesteader of the car this is why the owner of a resource

has the ability to use his his his his his capacity and his right to say yes or

no to give consent or not consent to transfer title of a resource to someone else in the case of a resource that was

previously unowned something that I acquire I can

unacquired understanding or by contract can be abandoned by me and thus given

into someone else that’s the mechanism of such transfers this doesn’t work in the case

of the body because in the case of the body um you never homesteaded your body so it’s not like you own your body

because you homesteaded it and then you can abandon it you simply don’t have the ability to abandon your body because the

fact is that you’re still the direct controller of your body even after you make a promise um as rothbart says you

still have the will that that allows you to control your body and if I give

Walter my car and I relinquish a title to it now he’s the owner of that car if I try to take that car back I’m

committing theft against him because he owns the car now however if I promise to

be Walter’s slave and he starts treating me like a slave

and I I’m I’m I’m picking cotton for him he’s paying me but after a couple days I get tired of it and I decide to change

my mind and I run off um uh then the question is can he use four forced to

stop me and according to Walter he can because I have I have I have conveyed

tile to my body to him and now he owns my body and so if I try to run off I’m stealing the body that he owns um in my

view he can’t use Force against me precisely because of the initial rule that started all this which is the

non-aggression principle which is that you can only use Force against someone if they’ve committed aggression and I

did not commit aggression against Walter um now Walter is going to use a circular argument I think or sneak something he’s

going to say yes you committed aggression because you’re stealing my property but that’s question begging because the question is why am I why is

my body your property you can’t just say because you promised in fact in the in the title transfer theory of contract

promises are not binding and I think Walter is supposed to agree with that um and if we go back to the girlfriend

example and then I’ll stop um you know uh if a girl goes on a date or she’s

let’s say she’s a longtime girl of a guy and he he’s used to kissing her at the end of the evening after dinner he

doesn’t have to get her permission to kiss her on the cheek every time because she she sort of has set up a standing order or a standing expectation that

yeah unless I unless I tell you no you know that I don’t mind if you give me a kiss on the cheek every now and then

right so when he kisses her on the cheek as is their custom he’s doing it with her presumed or implied consent it

doesn’t mean she can’t change her mind though in fact there’s nothing in libertarianism that says you can’t change your mind and even if the girl says Hey at at the

end of dinner tonight when you walk me to the front porch I’m going to let you give me a nice long kiss and so the guy

goes to dinner with her he buys her a nice dinner at the end of the dinner you know she really has a change of heart

she goes no I I changed my mind I I don’t want to kiss now if the guy grabs her and kisses her anyway and says well

you consent it an hour ago that would still be a salt and battery because the consent has been overridden by the most

recent communication the most recent communication is the one that matters likewise in the case of the slavery if I

say no I I decide I’m not going to be your slave anymore I can change my mind and the only question is did it violate

the slave owner’s rights for me to do that and I say no because of I didn’t

commit an act of aggression against him and that’s the only way that he’s justified in using Force against my

body um okay it’s great excellent argument Stefan um lots of food before

um Walter your turn thank you it’s an honor and

privilege to debate uh Stefan canella I regard him as one of the leading

theoreticians of libertarianism uh in particular I’m a big fan of his and follower uh he is my

mentor on all matters IP intellectual property and uh it’s wonderful to be

debating uh with Stefan on this in in case there are non-

Libertarians let me tell you a little story I was interviewed by the New York Times on libertarianism and they just

weren’t getting it so I resorted to the abomb voluntary slavery and you know

what these Rascals did they quoted me as favoring actual slavery so for the non- Libertarians

listening to this and I’m sure Stefan will agree with me here we are not talking about actual slavery actual

slavery is an abomination actual slavery perhaps second to mass murder is the worst possible thing the

violation of libertarianism uh the president of my University uh wrote an blistering essay

saying well we’re we’re not against we’re against slavery block isn’t I tell

you if I were the president of the university and and one of my professors was ported in the New York Times as

favoring actual slavery I’d call in my office and say please tell me you and quoted but that didn’t happen so for

Libertarians who are in in the know everyone knows and certainly

Stephan or agree that we’re not talking about actual slavery we’re talking about voluntary slavery which is very

different uh Stefan is also correct in saying that his view is the majority uh

among Libertarians the only Libertarians that I know and there might be one or two others are me and Robert nosek who

favor the voluntary slavery contract we don’t favor voluntary slavery we just think that a voluntary slavery contract

is a legitimate contract uh but pretty much every other libertarian would disagree and you know

I just think they’re all wrong uh an interesting part is if you can’t sell yourself can you sell body parts and

here I think um Stefan would agree he’ll have to um say whether he does or not

that I can sell my liver my kidney my uh blood the one of my lungs whatever uh I can alien

alienate that but somehow I can’t sell myself and I don’t see the difference um he says he did run over

what I regard as the most um dramatic U case in favor of voluntary slavery

contracts and that is by the way Stephan and I both have sons that we love and

let’s take me as a case my son God forbid has a dread disease and it’ll

cost $50 million to save him and I don’t have anything like 50 million but I love

him very much and um I value his life more than

my freedom so I go to Bill Gates who’s a very rich guy and he wants me to be his

slave and I pick cotton for him and I I don’t know teach him economics or whatever and he gives my son’s doctors

the 50 million and now I go to his Plantation and stepan is quite right

that unless the um the uh contract is um valid uh Bill Gates isn’t going to cough

up 50 million because he wouldn’t get me as a slave because as soon as I get to the plantation and he starts whipping me

and I say well I changed my mind I mean if I sold them my car for 20,000 I

couldn’t change my mind what what’s this changing mind nonsense I mean a contract is a contract it’s not a promise I’m I’m

alienating I’m um uh I’m uh uh what is the word um um I’m giving up my

car and I can’t change my mind and now I’m giving up myself and all of a sudden I can change my mind what kind of

contract is that it’s not a a promise it it’s a um

it’s a release and he uh mentions kidnapping and I didn’t get the relevance of that H how do we uh analyze

what just happened when I made this contract with Bill Gates why did I gain I gain because I value my son’s life

more than um U my freedom he gained because he values my servitude more than

the 50 million as with all good austrians we know that every voluntary

trade is mutually beneficial at least in the Exon sense maybe not expost but

usually but necessarily exante so we both gain now look liberis is supposed

to be a thing that brings about prosperity and human happiness my son is going to die if uh Stefan

um view is is upheld because it’s seen as an involuntary

contract uh it seems to me that the burden of proof is on Stefan uh he talks

about my circular arguments I don’t see any circular arguments I think the burden of proof

is every contract is a valid contract unless it’s fraud and there’s no fraud here um why can’t I sell myself I own

myself if I don’t own myself I can’t sell myself uh there was this wonderful case Norman

Malcolm a famous philosopher and his teacher ludvig binstein another famous

philosopher and the two of them are walking down the street and viken Stein tells nor malcol that he’s going to give

him all these trees provided that he doesn’t tell the previous owner what to do and he doesn’t interfere and he

doesn’t do anything uh that the previous owners uh don’t want well the point is

if you can’t do that you don’t really own the trees if I can’t sell myself I don’t own

myself part of owning myself is the ability to sell myself and Stefan is

saying that I can’t sell myself and if I can’t sell myself I’m not really the owner of myself and yet he contradicts

himself because he readily admits uh that we all do own ourselves and that’s how we get to own property and and

Homestead of the property because we own ourselves uh it seems that uh a criminal

can alienate himself but I can’t alienate myself I’m better than a

criminal a criminal can alienate his ownership over over himself if he’s properly executed or put in jail which

is kidnapping for an honest person uh so uh somehow Stefan’s view is that

criminals can alienate themselves and and I can’t why can’t I I didn’t do anything wrong why am I being treated

worse than a criminal

now he talks about the will I say will schmill I don’t care about the will yeah of course he’s right about the will only

each person can um directly influence his body I’m I’m not interested in the will uh will schill the question is when

Bill Gates starts whipping me is he create is he creating violence uh is he

U uh committing a criminal act and I say no and Stephan says well I’m engaging in

a circular argument I’m assuming the very thing in question well of course I’m assuming the very thing in question

because it shouldn’t be in question because he’s already agreed that I own myself well if I own myself I should be

able to sell myself now he says you can abandon or sell or gamble away a

stick I can’t gamble myself away I lose myself in a v i can’t sell myself I I

just don’t understand uh and and and I’m not promising anything now Stephan keeps

prevaricating between promise and conveying title I am conveying title to

myself when I saw myself when I got that $50

million here’s another case that Stefan and I disagree on I’m a typ rope Walker

I walk on a type rope and I have a a stick to sort of balance myself and I

hire Stefan to hold the net under me and in the middle of my performance when I’m

100 feet up in the air Stephan decides to quit and uh I say whoa you can’t quit um

namely I want specific performance contracts and and and voluntary slavery

is one instance of a specific performance contract so here Ste Stefan and I again disagree uh I think that I

have every right to shoot Stefan uh if he walks off the thing because he is

endangering my life he’s no longer holding the net uh he might kill me he is engaging in um

violent a threat against my life and and and the libertarian non-aggression principle uh precludes not only uh

invasions but threats of invasions and he’s threatening me here’s another case my wife and I are

having difficulty having a baby and I get my sperm and I put it in a test tube

or something and I give it to the host mother and and now the host mother has got um our baby uh it’s my wife and I um

our sperm in our egg and and we place it in the host mother now ordinarily I favor evictionism where a pregnant woman

can evict but not kill so I’m neither pro-life nor pro-choice but uh I made a

contract with her and and she can’t change her mind because she’s conveyed

the rights to her body in in a limited sense of being pregnant so

um uh the yes Stefan is uh the when I try to

escape uh from um Bill Gates um Plantation I committed aggression if I

stole his horse that would be horse the the the thevery if I if I stole a cow uh

that would be cattle wrestling I’m stealing me so I’m rustling me uh I I

don’t like to brag but I’m a very important possession of his I’m valuable more than a horse or a cow I’m worth 50

million and I’m running away with myself who the hell am I and and when he stops

and he starts whipping me or shooting me or whatever he does uh Stefan’s GNA put him in jail Stefan is putting the wrong

person in jail I should be the person put in jail or I I’m the person who’s violating property rights because I no

longer own myself I sold myself to him

uh is that the finish of your introduction Walter okay well those were both excellent arguments I’m very much

I’m going to basically let you to um kind of freef full from from now on so

um I think you’ve both given really good arguments and a lot of food thought for anyone listening um so I’ll hand over to

Steph and then from here on I’ll just let you two back and forth as as you will um I might interject with some

questions later but otherwise I’m going to basically let you to kind of go through it so step and over to you okay

so let me maybe um respond to some of Walter’s points and then Walter you can respond to them as you as you see

fit um okay just to be precise I think we don’t we Libertarians even even

people like me who oppose voluntary slavery we don’t oppose all involuntary slavery we just oppose all unjustified

involuntary slavery so if you imprison someone for committing an act of aggression they’re your slave to an

extent but they they deserve it um now you you you’re a little bit mystified

and say the same thing with with with with the word coercion coercion is used as an a synonym by Libertarians

sometimes as for aggression but coercion just means using the threat of force to compel someone to do something and that

could be justified or unjustified it just depends upon the circumstances um same reason that Libertarians don’t

oppose violence or Force we oppose the initiation of those things um you’re a

little bit mystified that a criminal has the right to sell himself into slavery by committing an act of aggression but

we don’t but that’s simply another way of stating the non-aggression principle

which is that you can only use Force against people if they’ve committed Force against you that’s that’s why you

can use Force against the criminal that’s why he he effectively sold himself to you or he alienated his

rights is because he gave up his rights to self-defense by committing an act of aggression it doesn’t mean he’s better

than you it means he’s worse than you but you know if I say if I mouth the words to you I promise to be your

slave um that’s not committing aggression against you and if I change my mind that is not committing

aggression against you now you say it is because now I’m your property but that’s where the question beging comes in because you’re you’re presupposing your

your your conclusion and that’s because you think you think and you said this explicitly you said you think that if

you don’t if you’re not able to sell something you don’t fully own it but that means you’re conceiving of ownership as having the ability to sell

as part of it but that’s not what ownership per se means ownership simply means the the one person who has the the

right to exclude others from using a resource that’s all ownership simpliciter means it means the right to

exclude it doesn’t actually mean the right to use even and now this and here’s the reason um if I own a gun you

can say that I have the right to use it but really what it means is no one else has the right to use it without my permission the reason I don’t have the

right to use the gun is because it depends on how I use the gun if I if I point the gun at your property and shoot it into your house I’ve committed an act

of aggression I don’t have the right to use the gun that way so the the the ability to use a resource is not

open-ended it’s the ability to it’s the right it’s the it’s the uh it’s the right to stop people from using without

your permission you and I both agree that I can sell my car to you we so that’s a

that’s a case where we both agree the reason and that’s why I tried to explain to you the difference between

The Source or the basis of Rights in our bodies and the source and basis of our rights in other things and this is what

I’d like you to respond to when I when I stop my monologue here I want you to explain to me if you agree or not with

say haa and and me on this issue and implicitly Ro Bo I believe that is there’s a different basis for ownership

of one’s body and compared to the ownership the basis of ownership of of

external things the difference is this we don’t come to own our body

because we homesteaded them we have to understand that that’s an important point and I want to find

out if you agree with me because it’s not like our bodies were unowned and floating out there and we’re like some

Spirit from the spirit realm and we we jumped into our bodies and started owning it and

controlling it at the time that we become rights bearers whenever that is late term in the in the middle of

pregnancy when you’re born whenever we when whatever we say that point is this human being with rights is the owner of

this body because of its identity with the body and its unique connection to that body it’s Direct Control of the

body that is a source of rights to your body and that’s why you someone else

doesn’t have the right to use your body because you have a better claim to your body than they do that’s what self ownership means by contrast when we walk

around the world and we find unowned resources that have no owner and we start using these things we take them

into our own possession and and then we become the owners of these things and because of that way that we become

the owner we acquire these things we can also abandon them and when you abandon

it you lose ownership that’s why you can alienate this you can you can acquire it you can unacquired and yes I can acquire

I can give it to you as an act of will as a contractual title transfer and you and I both agree that that contractual

title transfer works it’s sufficient to transfer title from me to

you right because I’m effectively abandoning my claim to it and now as far as the rest of the world is concerned as

far as the rest of the world’s concerned they have no connection to this thing and if they fight you or me for this thing they’re going to have a worse

claim than you or me I originally had the better claim but then I gave it to you so now as far as the rest of the

world concerned between you and I we have a better claim but between me and you we had a contract and I gave you

title so now you have the better claim this is how this works the reason it doesn’t work in the case of your body is

I I I can’t abandon my body by mouthing words because I don’t own it because I I

because of an acquisition there’s no acquisition that I can undo I just am

the person that is my body and I’m the controller of it so I want I want I’d like you to maybe go wherever you want

with this but I’d like you to uh um and one thing I will say before I finish

though your tight RPP example is a good example and I have a complicated explanation for that one but I it’s

think it’s it’s it’s a difficult one I would concede that but it doesn’t give it doesn’t establish a general case

um you can have other examples like the airline pilot can can he parachute out out of the plane in the middle of the flight that one’s easier to solve with

property rights the tight RPP Walker is is a different issue um I I think it would take us way too far a field to go

into that one unless you want to but uh other than that I think that the question begging is because you’re assuming that ownership implies the

right to sell but I think that’s the debate that’s what’s that that’s what you have to establish you can’t just assert it you can’t just say well I

don’t really own it if I can’t sell it that’s what I’m trying to say ownership doesn’t necessarily imply the right to

sell you have to show why it implies the right to sell it’s easy to see in the case of an own of of an acquired thing

you can sell it because you can unacquired why is it the case in the why is it the case in the case of your body

and do you agree that the the basis for ownership rights in your body is different than ownership rights in

acquired things uh thanks for your uh

contributions Stefan let me try to respond on uh first I’ll respond directly to what you ask about how do

you get to own yourself in the first place and I’ve written maybe five articles on this and I know you’ve

written one or two because I cited you on that and the the puzzle is that we

all of us consist of nothing more than the sperm and the Egg of our parents and

a little resources that our mother gave us milk and whatever so how the hell do we own

ourselves and I admit I don’t know the answer and just because I have a half dozen

articles published on this doesn’t mean I know the answer lack of knowledge never stops me from publishing and the

reason I publish on this is because I’m hoping that this will trigger something in somebody else when they read this

because I think that publishing is sort of like a a building um building situation so even if we don’t have the

answer we can still publish and and give our thoughts and give the pros and the cons and hope that somebody

else will pick it up and run with it that’s why I publish it even though I sometimes don’t have the answer most of

the time I think I have the answer now so I I try to answer your question by

saying I don’t know I don’t know how we get to own ourselves given that would you mind if I interrupt for a second

would you mind if I interrupt and just ask you to clarify sure shoot uh I’m not asking you to give an argument for the

theory of Rights I I’m I’m saying do do you agree if you if you and I both agree as Libertarians that you and I are self-

owners that is we own our bodies I’m not saying when it happens or exactly how but do you simply agree that there’s a

distinction between um between the the

the reason you own your body and the reason you own things that you acquire uh do do you agree that a a human being

that homesteads an unknown thing in the in the world he is already a self- owner right he never homesteaded his own body

his claim to ownership of his body has to be different than his claim to own a a homested thing I’m simply asking if

you agree with that distinction between the the nature of ownership of our bodies and the nature of ownership of

things that we come to acquire that’s that’s all I was asking you there oh yeah sure there’s some some difference

in there I mean we wouldn’t be having this dispute if there were no difference I mean you know we’re not arguing

whether you can own cars or sticks we’re arguing whether we can own ourselves and

and the way I interpret you is saying uh we don’t really own ourselves because we can’t sell ourselves and I regard uh

selling ourselves as a a necessary not a sufficient but a necessary condition of

owning ourselves and if you can’t um sell yourself you don’t fully own yourself um now

uh you talk about um force uh have I

committed Force against Bill Gates by running away and my view is yes because I stole his property namely me and you

say well I’m I’m engaging in a circular argument and I return the favor I think

you’re engaging in a circular argument uh assuming the very thing in question the opposite way namely that I that he’s

not the rightful owner so I would sort of give us a tie on this I I I don’t see how either of us can Prevail on that one

uh I I have uh also suicide suicide is an abandonment of myself I I have a a

knife here I I knife my neck and I I bleed out and I’ve committed suicide

I’ve abandoned myself now according to you I think this is another reductive ad absurdum uh along with selling my son

and and um and that I mean a reductive ad obser is a very powerful argument and

I think it’s absurd to say that it should be illegal to commit suicide you know at one time and my understanding is

in medieval days uh if you committed suicide this was a crime and you know what the um penalty for an attempt to

commit suicide the death penalty which is a little weird but I think a logical

implication of your stance is that I have no right to commit suicide because I can’t abandon myself I can’t sell

myself I can’t gamble Myself Away um uh so I I I think that um

yes there’s a difference between how I own myself and how I I own a stick or a car but um a stick or a car I can

abandon and now I can’t abandon myself and I again I return to the prisoner he

is able to abandon himself and um and somehow I’m not I regard that as another

another reductive ad absurdum so I I see a lot of reducts AD absurdum here you

don’t and I don’t know how to how to really settle it because we’ve had this debate before

yeah we have um yeah we have um and and I I I remember when we had that debate

in in in your house I I put it to you and let me do it to you again because

you have also a son who you love and God forbid your son uh has a dread disease

and it’ll cost 50 million to save him and you value his life more than your freedom and Bill Gates is willing to

give you 50 million to have you be his slave um how do you feel about your view

that you’re son dies that’s like that question that Duke

cauas was asked in the debate about how would you feel if your wife Kitty was raped and he says well I’d be kind of

upset about that remember he lost the he lost the election because he was not emotional enough about it um I don’t

think that’s how we decide what the legal system should be um of course in

that situation I would I would be upset that the legal system didn’t recognize

uh wouldn’t wouldn’t enforce my promise to be a slave I would be upset about that but I would be it’s it’s not a

promise you keep using the word promise it’s a conveyance you’re conveying you’re not promising either way either

way when you sell your car to me you’re not promising to give me the car you’re giving me the car but in that case in that case you

and I already we both agree that I can transfer the title of the car to you and the reason why I can’t change my mind is

I don’t own it anymore well in my in the case of my body I’m still the controller of my body

I haven’t changed anything but um uh on the let me go back to the organ thing

really quickly um and this and the suicide issue first of all i’ I’ve admitted in writing I think in response

to you or maybe talking about your example I think is it you that talks about zombie side like you could uh or

someone else maybe the idea that um you have to distinguish between law and and

fact fact and law um I have the factual ability to kill myself that’s not the

question the question is do I have the right to transfer that power to someone

else do I have the right to alienate that that’s a whole different issue I’m if if the law criminalizes suicide which

I think it does in some countries um um that’s not a valid law because I’m not

violating anyone’s rights when I commit suicide likewise if I underwent surgery and I had a chip put in my brain that

gave you direct control over me or it made it impossible for me to run away that would be legitimate but it’s not

because it’s a contract it’s because it’s a it’s a it’s just it’s a psychological fact I have actually

rendered my will unable I’ve made made it impossible for me to run away from you right if I make it impossible for me

to run away then I you’re no one’s violating my rights if basically I I

make it to where my mind cannot not consent anymore to what you’re doing that would be fine so zombie side or

some kind of uh some kind of technological slavery would be fine but it wouldn’t be because you transferred

your rights it would just be you gave actual physical control to someone um but wait a second if I put something in

your head I’m trespassing the only way I can legitimately put something in your head is if you give me permission to do

so no I’m saying if I if I let me finish my point go ahead goe go ahead well go

ahead I I don’t want to interrupt you no I’m sorry I thought you were I thought you were done go ahead

if I put a chip in your head I’m uh engaging assault and battery if you allow me to put a chip in

your head that now takes away control of you so you can’t run away from Bill

Gates well you’ve just given up the argument you said that that was legitimate but that’s all I need uh so I

I think the debate is over you just conceded that my side is

correct well in my view if I consent to having something put in my brain that

makes it impossible for me to change my mind then that means I never I never say no to you it’s the saying no that’s the

problem so if you try to use Force against me and I say no I’m objecting to that I’m not consenting to it it’s just

like the girl on the date if she consents ahead of time then the guy can kiss her but if she changes her mind now

it’s a salt and Battery but if I if I somehow render myself where it’s impossible for me who say no that I’m

actually complying with your orders all the time you’re not violating my rights and but there’s no but there’s no law

that is saying I have to do that it’s just it’s what I’ve done to myself I think it would be stupid to do that it’d

be like even worse than you know sex change or something it’s it’s some kind of horrible mutilation of my psyche but

it’s maybe it’s no worse than committing suicide which I also have the right to do I don’t think that proves that you

have that if I don’t go undergo this procedure and I changed my mind that you have the right to use Force against

me could I just ask sorry just I don’t mean to interrupt just to interject I

just ask a question for clarity sake would it be a case of saying um Stefan

just to clarify your point is it a case of saying um like you know if you if you agree to this change in your psyche so

you can’t change your mind um then you basically established some terms for

implicit consent going forward and the the only way to break that implicit consent is with explicit consent in the

opposite or explicitly revoking the consent like with the girl on the day if she never turns around and says to the

guy I don’t want you kissing me anymore then she hasn’t overridden the implicit consent is that is that kind of where

your argument coming from I mean I’m I’m imagining in my head some kind of hypothetical that would that Walter

would would would would glom on to um some kind of zombie side argument uh but yeah it basically you’re somehow

psychologically or physically making it impossible for yourself to actually change your mind and so so there’s never

a point in time where you so once you say yes I’m going to be your slave and I’ll do what you say and then you can’t

object anymore because you’ve made it imposs it’s like cutting your tongue out but in a deeper way you you’ve made it impossible to say no

now but it’s physical it’s not it’s not by law I regard that as a

concession uh that Stefan has given up his view because he’s just said that for

million to save his son he would allow Bill Gates to put something in his head

such that uh Bill Gates could order him around and he could never change well he’s given up the argument uh and and he

never explicitly uh answered my question about his son he said yes he’d be sad

that uh the libertarian law as he understands it means that his son dies well I I regard that as a

reputation what’s the question I’ll answer it what’s what exactly the question we don’t want our sons to let

me just finish my point uh Stefan uh we don’t want libertarianism to mean the

end of our sons who we love more than we love our our freedom uh and I I think

it’s a a utter and total reputation of Stefan’s point that he concedes that his

son will die and that my son will die uh under these um God B God forbid

situations I regard that as a total reputation and Stephan just sort of sloughs it off and says well okay my son

dies you know I’m a Libertarian first no um we don’t want any sons to die uh and

certainly we don’t want any sons to die when we value their lives more than our freedom and and libertarianism shouldn’t

be a straight jacket libertinism shouldn’t be a a suicide pack for our sons and yet the way Stefan is making it

out to be his son dies I mean that’s just I had a full head of hair before I

started this debate Look at me now I pulled out all my hair over this uh I’m kidding of course but but I I regard

this as a total reputation and and Stephan sort of Blas well okay his son’s gonna die and and that’s not

libertarianism for me I I guess I don’t I don’t see what the argument is are you saying that that

that in addition to rights and Justice now our value is coming up with a system where our sons can live in a in a in a

far-fetched scenario I I say if our Sons can’t live in this Farfesh scenario libertarianism

is in trouble and and and therefore libertarianism is wrong and uh look we

we as Austrian economists know that all voluntary trades are mutually beneficial here’s a mutually beneficial trade I

give um my my person to Ste Stefan cons to Stephan consel to Bill Gates and um

because I value my son’s um life more than my freedom and he valued use the my

servitude more than the 50 million and all of a sudden uh you know this is sort of like um Camala Harris wants to um um

what do you call it forbid certain trades well U this is preposterous this

is not libertarianism libertarianism allows all trades and I don’t care about the will it doesn’t have to be zombicide

you don’t have to put something in there uh when you run away from when I run away from Bill Gates’s um U Plantation I

am um um I’m I’m stealing his property and and you say well it’s a circular

argument and I say it’s a circular argument the other way and and and I I didn’t promise to be a slave what I did

is I conveyed myself for 50 million and and I don’t want the 50 million back uh

Bill Gates might say Okay Walter you you don’t want to be my slave give me the 50 million well the 50 million’s already

sunk into into my son’s uh life but even if I had it I don’t want the 50 million

I want I I want my son’s life and without that 50 million he can’t live uh

look I think we’re repeating ourselves a bit and we’re running out almost of an hour I promised an hour for this um

maybe Matthew you could say a few words yeah um well if you don’t mind um I’ve

got two questions for both of you which might at least help clarify each each

positions and then perhaps we can kind of wrap things up with I don’t expect either of you to change each other’s

minds but I just one of the things I really thought would be beneficial about this is exploring the reasons behind

both of you arguments and getting into the kind of you know contract theory and the principle itself um I’ve got two

questions I don’t know where to start I I’ll start with you Walter I’ve got two questions for you um one is with

Employment contract because an employment contract is kind of similar to what we’re talking about with regards

to making a promise and all the rest of it but we don’t hold you know like if I quit my job where I you know say I

promise to work for someone for a year but I decide to quit after two months you know I might give up my right

whatever their side of the contract is with regards to compensation and and stuff like that they might not pay me my

weak ode or whatever but the fact of the matter is is they wouldn’t in you know I assume you wouldn’t say they’d have the

right to enslave me on the employment contract so what would be the difference for you in those two scenarios of a

standard employment contract versus a voluntary slavery one well uh whether it’s specified or

not remember we had that specific performance contract I now am hiring ing you as a host mother look there are 57

Sexes so you could be a host mother look Arnold schwarzer got pregnant so men can get in one of his movies so you can get

pregnant uh you’re the host mother and and you know you can’t quit in the middle because you’ve got a baby in

inside of you uh with a specific performance contract yes uh if we

specify in advance that if you just can’t leave in the middle of my performance you got to keep holding that

net until I get back down otherwise you know it’s employment at will I hire you

as a plumber in the in the middle of the job you quit okay what the heck so uh it

just depends upon what you specify in the employment contract if you specify no quitting well then you shouldn’t be

able to quit otherwise what’s the point of a contract if you don’t um adhere to the um uh specifications of the

contract one other question I’ve got to for Stephan as well one more question for you alter is um regarding the

consequential side of it like one of the consequences you listed of obviously taking Stefan’s approach is that means

you won’t be able to save your son in the hypothetical scenario because he knows that he can’t hold you to the

voluntary slavery contract and therefore you won’t be able to initiate it Etc um but is there not also a consequence on

the flip side from your point of view where for example let’s take the date example that Stefan gave um and let’s

say the the lady’s actually written out a contract I’m going to have a six with you at the end of this day but then she

wants to bail out of that would we potentially be sanctioning rape if we say well no no no you you you know you

agreed in advance to this contract and you can’t back out of it because I think and I don’t want to speak for Stefan but

I think his point about the the zombification thing is you know your

implicit consent that’s attached to the contract or just because that’s how your relationship works or whatever is null

and void as soon as they licitly revoke it which obviously you know if they were doing that with the whether it’s the

slavery contract or the agreement to have sex with you at the end of the night is is again I’d like to know where

you see that difference in the distinction look I I go to a prostitute

and I pay her um 100 bucks to have sex and uh right before the ACT is

consumated she says you know I don’t want to do it I I think if I if I insisted I’d be

raping her I think I can only insist well you know give me the hundred bucks back on the other hand on the other hand

and there is another hand suppose I pay her a th bucks not a 100 and and let’s

say that the ordinary price is 100 I pay her a th and I say look I’m paying the

ex uh one of the hundred is for the sex and the other 900 is that you can’t change your mind and she agrees well

then it’s not rape Jesus okay Stefan and before you respond

to that I’ve got two questions for you and then I’ll let you guys sort of just kind of do your final um arguments to

wrap it up um one argument I’ve got for you Stefan is um

is um in the in let me just let me just add one thing yeah yeah the reason I’m

paying her 900 bucks extra is because I’m gonna die unless I have sex okay okay we’ll throw that into

there um before you respond to that Stefan I just want to ask do you see um with a contract breaking do you see any

aggression there so like for example I’m not saying that you obviously take Walter a position that for example

you’ve screwed Bill Gates out of you that he rightfully owns but would you say that you have screw like you’ve

you’ve aggressed in the sense of robbing him of the money that you took say under false pretenses or under terms that

you’re no longer fulfilling would that be aggression in your mind in that sense I don’t see why you assume it’s under

false pretenses why would you because that would be a different assumption what if if but no the answer is no I

think if you fail to let’s make a simple case if I transfer future title to

something future money like you loan me money now and I agree to repay you a

similar amount of money plus the same amount of money plus interest in the future um there’s no false

pretenses this is an exchange between two people it’s a legal and an economic

Exchange change legally because it’s a transfer of ownership and economically because of the E economic reason that

we’re engaging in this in this transaction but what what there is is there’s in the present time when when

the agreement is made there’s a one-way transfer of title of a present good that

is the current money that’s transferred to the borrower 100% completely it’s

unconditional it’s not conditional as rothbart and Walter believe the reason it’s unconditional is because I have to

own it in order to spend it I can’t spend it if I’m not the owner so I’m the owner of this present money 100% the

owner and if I spend it I’m doing something that’s within my rights because I now own the money in exchange

for getting that present title I transferred to the lender a future sum

of money that future sum of money doesn’t exist yet it’s a future thing it’s an uncertain thing because the

future is uncertain and the the lender is well aware of this so what’s

happening here is that there’s economically there’s an exchange of a present good for a for for an uncertain

future good this is always done in the law it’s called the sale of a hope you can do this and when the future moment

arrives and the borrower fails to repay the the the lender the Creditor uh

if he doesn’t have any money then he’s not stealing anything because there’s nothing to steal it’s impossible to

steal a non-existent thing um if he does have money and he refus if he does have money now that money becomes the

ownership it’s is the OWN is the it’s the it’s the property of the of the of the lender but it’s in the possession of

the borrower and he has to turn it over and if he doesn’t turn it over he’s detaining or stealing someone else’s property but if he’s peness and bankrupt

he’s not stealing anything because there’s nothing to steal so and and contracts can deal with this by having a

a set of conditional title transfers that say something like well and if you don’t have the money on the

due date then in the future when you obtain other property or resources you have to pay me out of that

property with interest I mean you could have a conditional set of conditional title transfers and by the way this is

how the law works right now under the law the law does not enforce specific performance almost ever because it’s

considered to be a type of slavery and it probably would violate the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in the United States so courts never award

specific performance they don’t order someone to do something what they do is they say you’re in breach of contract

and now there’s damages for that breach of that promise that’s that’s the theory is wrong but that’s what the courts say

they say that you have a contract which is based upon a binding promise and you breached it by not fulfilling your

promise and therefore we’re going to make you pay money damages to the other guy to make him whole so in the end it

works out to be a transfer of title to money but if the de if if the guy that’s in breach of contract has no money the

court can’t make him pay damages to the to the other guy cuz he do doesn’t have anything and they’re not going to put

him in debtor’s prison so there’s nothing you can do sometimes sometimes you make a bet and you lose this is this

is a known risk ahead of time is it a case of um basically saying that you you

you’re simply making an unfulfillable promise with regards to kind of selling yourself because and just again I just

want to sort of clarify so like for example in the Bill Gates selling myself to Bill Gates thing to save my son

example and he gives me 50 million like obviously I know that Walter is saying well you owe him yourself and

you’ve stolen you know your you know that property from him but what about the AR I know obviously

you reject that argument but what about the argument of saying okay well you haven’t stole yourself but you have stole the 50 million would would that be

fair to say that you owe him the 50 million back at least well okay so let’s let’s let’s take that example so so

first let’s understand something that most people don’t in in Employment contract that you mentioned earlier

that’s really not in economic terms it’s an exchange but in legal terms it’s it’s only a one-way title transfer it’s a

transfer of money owned by the employer to the employee conditioned

upon the the employee doing certain actions that satisfies so he so there’s

only one title transfer right um and so the contract as you call it is

just the the employer says if you do certain actions I will pay you money

that’s all that that that that is in in the Bill Gates ex so let me take another example um let’s suppose I have a a box

it’s an empty it’s a box and I say Walter if you give me your Apple I will give you this box and whatever’s Inside

the Box you own it but I’m not going to tell you what’s inside of it it may be nothing it may be an orange it may be a

diamond ring now Walter is entitled to give me his Apple in exchange for me giving him this box right and then when

he opens the Box whatever’s in it he owns it it might be nothing right on the other and that’s a legit contract that’s

called the sale of a hope something like that Walter funds my fishing Expedition and in return I say I’ll give you half

of whatever I catch I go out I catch nothing Walter gets nothing no fraud say again what

that I get half get half of nothing now um now if I tell Walter Walter I want

you to give me $1,000 and exchange I’m going to sell you the

Moon now assuming Walter’s not an idiot we both are aware that I don’t own the

moon so how would the law how should the law treat that contract is it null and

void is Walter just doing something stupid as a way to give me money for free I don’t know it depends on the the

party’s intent but that would be an impossible Poss impossibility now in

this case if I sell if if if Bill Gates pays me money in exchange for me saying

in exchange for you give me money I’m going to mouth certain words and thereby make myself your slave under a legal

system that doesn’t recognize slavery then he’s aware that him giving me the

money is in exchange for basically nothing because there is no legal right for me to sell myself into slavery under

this legal system I don’t know why he would do that and I don’t know whether I have to return the money I guess it

depends upon our implicit understanding about um about uh I mean maybe if I maybe if

he’s in a maybe he’s a visitor from another land and in his land there’s voluntary slavery and he’s in my home Home Country he’s not aware that there’s

voluntary slavery is not permitted in my country and I I I I tell him pay me the

money and then I’ll be your slave and don’t worry it’s enforcable I guess I could be a type of misre misrepresentation or fraud I’d be taking

his money uh why by by Trick in a sense so that’s a type of fraud I would be

taking his money without his uh informed consent so in the in the hypothetical

your it depends upon the circumstances I I’m assuming Bill Gates as a billionaire can hire his own lawyers and figure out

whether or not my promise would be enforceable and presumably he would know that it’s not so if he gives me the

money I would probably characterize it as a gift like I don’t know why else

what he would do it if he knows that it’s not enforceable but it wouldn’t be theft I

mean if he hands it to me voluntarily knowing that this agreement is UN enforceable it’s not theft on my

part now Walter by the way Walter’s example of the prostitute I don’t know why you made the extra $900 part of the

deal because you’ve already admitted someone could be a slave if they just alienate their body so I don’t see why a

prostitute can’t be a slave for for an hour uh for $100 I mean what’s the difference so you could you could rape

her just like the guy can beat his slave I see no difference whatsoever in those

examples um sorry I Walter I’ll let you respond to that and then also if you want to do your kind of wrap up as well

I know we’re kind of getting towards we’ve gone over 60 minutes we’re getting towards the 90 minutes as well that that

Stephan didn’t want to go over so um yeah if you want to respond to that and then kind of give you kind of final argument and then obviously Stefan can

respond to you after that well Stefan went first so shouldn’t I be going last yeah well you can go again afterwards

but I’ll let you just sort of okay yeah so you respond to that give you a little thing then step I’ll let you have the

last word I I’ll be done you can finish up Walter you can finish up now okay um

I think an ordinary case of $100 for um uh for the prostitute U if I insisted I

would be raping her uh because it’s not uh specified uh that she has to do it

it’s more of a tentative thing H whereas if I pay the extra 900 and I specified

that there’s no baxes and that you got to go through with this H because if you don’t give me sex I’m going to die and

that’s why I’m willing to pay this well then I think it wouldn’t be rape if I insisted I’d like to in with two more

reductio first of all um what happened to dea’s prison D’s prison is a

Libertarian thing I think even muray I’m not sure I’m I’m not sure whether Murray

agrees with de as prison but I certainly agree with de as prison uh if uh if um

if Stefan lends me um a th000 bucks and I uh contractually I’m obligated to pay

him 1100 in a year from now with a 10% interest and I’m

penales uh I go to jail and I work at hard labor uh until I pay that 1100 not

the a th000 the 1100 so I I’m uh I think debt as prison is compatible with

libertarianism my last reductio is uh Stefan is now in favor of rent control

why is Stephan in favor rent control because I think that if I own a an

apartment I should be able to charge whatever damn rent I want and when the government says that I can’t charge

whatever rent that that I want to that extent I’m not the full owner look I now

am offering uh this pen for a million dollars and um should it be illegal well

uh if I can’t do it then I don’t really own the pen and then I would say that if I can’t sell myself along with vien

Stein and Norman Malcolm well then to that extent I am a lesser owner of myself than if I can sell myself and uh

I I insist on on this uh business of the Beloved son dying uh as uh it’s not a salable part of of

libertarianism and I don’t think it’s a proper part of libertarianism because if you if you really fully own yourself you

ought to be able to sell yourself and if you really own a gun you ought to be able to shoot it obviously not at

someone else but but if you can’t shoot it then to that extent you don’t own it and and this to me seems like a a very

basic um U libertarian philosophy 101 and Stefan and I disagree on that um all

I can say say is that I Revere Stefan as a legal theorist as a Libertarian theorist and I’m delighted to have had

this discussion and I’m hoping that this discussion a part uh other people will

take it from here and and work work on this and maybe surprise the both of

us um I want you to have the last word but would you mind if I mention something for people to read following

up um sure uh for people interested in this um read my chapters uh uh 9 10 and

11 in my book discuss this say say the title of your book Stefan legal

foundations of a free Society chapters 9 10 and 11 deal with this and I have a a new article coming out in a it’s on it

will be on my website shortly it’s an it’s sort of an expanded version of this title title transfer of contract stuff

which goes into this too so those four things and just to your point Walter W

rothbart did admit in his contract theory article that debtor’s prison in

princip Le was legitimate but that it would be dis disproportionate so so no so he sort of

said yes it’s implicit theft but it would be disproportionate punishment so he sort of waffled on it I

believe well thanks for inviting us uh speaking in behalf of both Stefan and myself I’m sure Stefan and I can agree

that Matthew did a magnificent job yeah I enjoyed it thank you very much guys thank you very much I really appreciate

both of you taking the time to have this debate um I really enjoyed it that time went by so quickly um there’s so much

food for thought there um I’ll put links for well both of your work for Walter’s work and Stefan’s work and for anyone

listening regardless of who you agree on this particular subject I highly recommend you check out both these people’s work you are not a well- read

libertarian if you haven’t read both of these people so um I would highly recommend you do that um in particular

obviously Stefan’s work which literally does um obviously deal with this particular subject um but both Walter

and Stefan have written on this so I’ll put links to their work and thank you very much both of you for taking the

time to have this debate it was very ver