[Phoenix]

Historically, selling yourself into slavery has been quite common. Under a contractual scenario, the individual hands himself over as property to the master, and thus surrenders his free will, in exchange for some value from the master, such as food/shelter/stipend.

However I bring this up in the context of self-improvement no-hopers. People who have such poor virtue, self-restraint, discipline and commitment, that they have no hope of ever denting their natural tendencies and their sloppy and contemptible "default form" so to speak.

This refers to the obese who drink diet coke, the lazy who buy into get rich quick schemes, the druggies who go in and out of 'rehab' or take methodone etc.

The idea I'm thinking of is a "limited slavery". The contractee would sign an agreement laying out the freedoms he gives up to the master and the length of the contract. The contract would the contain the associated goals of the master in respect to the contractee. The contract would also mention the safeguards against abuse. E.g. the rights of the contractee to maintain records of all interactions, and to appeal to an arbiter under certain conditions if he felt the master has gone beyond the terms of the contract.

As a crude example: the contractee is a smoker who can't quit. He just keeps excusing himself out of ceasing smoking. His desire to quit and his character is weaker than his addiction. One day when his friend dies due to a smoking disease, he takes the nuclear option and signs this contract with a master who specializes in stopping smoking and has a good results record.

The master then locks the smoker in a room. No matter how hateful or agressive the smoker gets in his demand for a cigarette, including saying he wants to cancel the contract, or whatever he does, the master tells him to STFU and doesn't give him any tobacco. Eventually, the smokers addiction clears as his brain receptors return to normal, and he stops demanding tobacco. The master then releases him. The contractee has no legal recourse beyond the contract himself -- i.e. he cannot claim false imprisonment to the police because he has agreed to it.

The same would apply to fatties. "I simply can't lose weight" is easily disproven by a simple "getting lost in the woods with no food". The master would replicate this by only allowing the contractee to eat salad, and would have hired "male nurses" in case the fattie contractee got violent.

Thoughts?

[realologist]

A lot of people already do this. It's called jail and prison.

[Liberty Sea]

Officialized BDSM.

[Leonard D Neubache]

In the context given it sounds like a means of going to great pains and expending a lot of resources to deny Darwin his due.

In essence what you're suggesting is legally the means to become their guardian and have them declared physically/psychologically unfit to manage their own life. This is not unheard of. Dementia patients for example are essentially slaves, or more accurately beasts of burden.

[Kalkin]

No, it shouldn't be legal, because the contract would have to be enforced if and when the slave changed his mind, and governments should not be in the business of enforcing contracts like that.

But it works better the way it's already implemented anyway. At least 80% of the population WANTS to be taken care of--to the extent that they will gladly forfeit their freedom--and the freedom of wiser people too--in exchange for being taken care of. They don't want to take initiative, or responsibility. You've already seen it. And they'll gleefully sell YOU into slavery too.

They just don't want to be called slaves (or livestock) and don't want to acknowledge that they are. Tell them that they're free, and let them pointlessly vote, and they're good.

[QuietDog]

This is a very interesting question. Aristotle believed that some people were by nature slaves.

To me there certainly seem to be some people who are incapable of thinking independently and making beneficial decisions for themselves. Drug addicts for example. For people like this voluntary slavery might be better for them, someone smarter with these ignorant people's best interest in mind might be able to direct these people towards a more positive and happier existence than they themselves are capable of.

Its a very uncomfortable question honestly. I used to think anyone with enough effort could save themselves but as I get older and see more people fall through the cracks of civilization, I'm not so sure.

[BelyyTigr]

Well we already have "voluntary enforcement" eg gastric bands for fat people. Implants that cause alcoholics to vomit after consuming alcohol. And people voluntarily checking into rehab/mental health sectioning etc.

I also suspect the current homosexual/tranny/feminism movements are part of something. We're seeing the promotion of (cough) "assertive females". In other words, butch skanks dominating effeminate males. BDSM in games AND real life. Infact, in years gone by, female school teachers would mercilessly bully little boys (leaving girls alone) and hit them. The males grew up into BDSM perverts.

Now I'm shocked at the number of males who seem to be into this shit. OPEN about it even.
In one job I had, the female boss seemed to employ wacko BDSM style manners to get her "little gimps" ie submissive males running errands for her. Sadly these chumps seemed to enjoy it.

The elite knows that by controlling people's sexuality AND sexual identity (eg alpha male vs gimpboy) eg reprogramming it, it can control the person. Hence its obsession with homo-ism, tranny-ism and (cough) "gender equality".

The elite is rewriting the rules of what can be criticised and what is normal. Self mutiliaters are called "transgender". ANd we have paedophiles, incest pervs, polygamists all starting to lobby. Likewise animal perverts, BDSMers. Effeminant homosexuals or butch ones are portrayed as "mainstream normal", even tho sane people know how ridiculous and unnatural that is.

Imagine a society of feminised males (ok we alread have that one!) all under one dominatrix style boss or even one "household Mistress". In Roman times the word "Domina" was even used to describe the female of the house who would order slaves around for chores and sexually. Slaves would be told they were "lucky" to be a slave. And endocrine disruptors ie environmental contamination and constant media brainwashing, or even childhood brainwashing would by a way of getting compliance.

I think more males would succumb to a female slave master than a male one. Because they can sell it as "choosing to be a slave" All this bullshit "a courageous man chooses it".

Those surrounding that pig Margaret Thatcher seemed to get a sexualised thrill out of being bullied by her. It was always "Lady Thatcher this, Mrs Thatcher that, wow she is so sexy". I mean WTF. My guess is that public (ie private)schoolboys of that era were conditioned to enjoy being slaves of a hag like that - given they were used to being yelled at or beaten by one at an early age.

You see this shit already where females with huge abs and muscley legs even big shoulders are promoted as "sexy" when most of us consider them gross. I meanRonda fucking Rousey - what a skank!

So yes, I think legalised slavery is on the agenda. And NO I don't think it should ever be legal. Slavery and legality are two completely opposing concepts. Gastric bands etc are a different story.

[Hades]

This is already legal.
It is called a standard 9 to 5 with a wife who buys stuff to status signal with stuff she does not need for people who do not care about her. They don't call it a ball and chain for nothing.

[thoughtgypsy]

Yes, with certain protections for both parties involved, and possibly paths for career development for the servant should they desire.

We already have an elaborate system of de-facto slavery through government wealth transfer. There are many people that do not work, have no hope of working in the future, and subsist on whatever the government provides them. This relies on stealing the fruits of labor of the rest of the population, and is a drain on the productive capacity of society.

There will always people who will desire a guaranteed sense of security over a scenario where they are completely free, but their fate is uncertain. We see for many homeless people suffering on the streets, that some would be better off in an environment where they had a warm bed and 3 square meals a day in exchanged for their labor. Some people would perhaps be more comfortable in this arrangement rather than undergoing the pressure and uncertainty of finding a job, finding a house, hoping their jobs remain secure for a lifetime, and hoping it all works out without any hiccups along the way.

A lot will depend on the people involved. If you look back on past societies, servants and their assigned families often had congenial relationships, and saw each other as members of an extended family but with separate rungs on the hierarchy. However, there is great room for abuse in such a system, so perhaps there could be a third party institution which monitors host families (similar to exchange student and adoption agencies).

There could be other ways to make the arrangement a better deal for the servants. For one, you could impose time limits for their service. Every 2 years, they could be given the opportunity to declare whether they wanted to continue the arrangement, and it could be legally binding. There could also be provisions in place where host families would be forced to provide 1 hour per day of career development, or something similar.

[JacksonRev]

I volunteered for slavery once. It wasn't bad; I was released after six years.

[SamuelBRoberts]

"The same would apply to fatties. "I simply can't lose weight" is easily disproven by a simple "getting lost in the woods with no food". The master would replicate this by only allowing the contractee to eat salad, and would have hired "male nurses" in case the fattie contractee got violent."

We have this stuff already. They're big old expensive camps you can go to.

No real need to bring back slavery to accomplish this.

[The Beast1]

(07-27-2016 05:41 PM)JacksonRev Wrote:  

I volunteered for slavery once. It wasn't bad; I was released after six years.

It's funny but after reading the first post this was what immediately came to mind.

I can support this. In fact, it would be a good solution for those who want socialism. You get a job, shelter, and food. In turn, you don't have to pay taxes, but you can't vote. You also are at the whim of your master as to what you can do.

Though I know it will be abused. How would you implement a system where volunteer slaces would not be beaten to a pulp?