anonymous question

I dislike lapsing into academicism, which is why I try to attract experts who aren’t prone to it. Regarding contract slavery, I recommend reading LJ-user Artyom Zheleznov under the tags slavery, slave ownership, and slave trade.

The guy positions himself not only as a theorist but also as a practitioner in this industry, which gives his delivery an additional freshness.

I’ll provide a mix of his points and my own thoughts.

Let’s define a slave as a subject coerced into a particular activity, and a slave owner as the person or organization that is the ultimate beneficiary of the slave’s forced activity. I should note that coercion to labor specifically is not the defining characteristic of slavery—it is enough, for example, that a slave is forced to live where specified, eat what is given, and follow a routine imposed by the slave owner. Similarly, whether the slave owner derives profit from the slave is not fundamental. A slave can be loss-making and yet still be in slavery.

In the modern world, private slave ownership seems to be permitted only in Morocco, while state slavery, conversely, is legalized everywhere. A person becomes a slave by entering prison, a conscript army, or an orphanage. Whether an Australian citizen, obliged to come and vote in elections, is considered a slave is a debatable question. I would rather define this as a labor obligation that can be bought off.

What is the difference between slavery and wage labor? A slave, by default, has no right to negotiate the amount of their remuneration with the slave owner, nor do they have the right to unilaterally terminate the relationship.

Now, let’s move on to contract slavery. This is a type of slavery that arises as a result of concluding a contract, that is, voluntarily. Thus, at the moment the deal is struck, each party believes they are gaining more than they are losing.

For example, Irish people fleeing famine to the United States in the 19th century could not afford the trip, so they sold themselves into slavery. In the States, they were bought by some private individual, and under the contract, the slaves were obliged to work for them for an agreed term. You will agree that such a model was beneficial for all participants of the deal. The emigrant bought their life and a ticket at the cost of a temporary limitation of freedom. The captain received money only if he delivered the indentured slave to the other shore. The slave owner received cheap labor, which would pay off only if the slave remained capable of working for the entire term specified in the contract.

I will note that voluntary slavery does not mean the sale of the body, mind, and will, even if the contract is lifelong rather than term-limited; this is precisely why it does not contradict libertarian principles. Contract slavery simply means coercion to perform activities at the request of the slave owner, in accordance with the contract. Retaining freedom of will, a slave can always deem further existence in slavery unacceptable and begin to sabotage the master’s instructions and take actions toward their own liberation. If they can convince the master to enter into a new deal—where, on one hand, the condition is liberation, and on the other, some benefit unattainable under the current slave contract—then obtaining freedom is entirely realistic.

The most innocent variety of slavery is erotic games between a dominant and a submissive. By contract, the submissive may be coerced by the dominant into anything, but the contract can be terminated or suspended at the will of either party.

The most disgusting variety of slavery is, of course, state slavery. Slaves come to the state for free; the state does not care about profit and is not interested in the preservation of the slaves—and therefore there is no cruelty that it could not easily exhibit toward them while remaining completely unpunished.