View source for Block and Rothbard talk about freedom aka slavery

<!-- you can have any number of categories here -->
[[Category:Unindexed]]
<!-- 1 URL must be followed by >= 0 Other URL and Old URL and 1 End URL.-->
{{URL | url = http://www.demos.org/blog/1/19/16/why-single-payer-would-control-costs}}
<!-- {{Other URL | url = }} -->
<!-- {{Old URL | url = }} -->
{{End URL}}
{{DES | des = Two libertarian theorists argue over how enforceable slavery contracts would be. | show=}}
<!-- insert wiki page text here -->
<!-- DPL has problems with categories that have a single quote in them.  Use these explicit workarounds. -->
<!-- otherwise, we would use {{Links}} and {{Quotes}}  -->
{{List|title=Block and Rothbard talk about freedom aka slavery|links=true}}
{{Quotations|title=Block and Rothbard talk about freedom aka slavery|quotes=true}}

{{Text |
Dr. Murray Rothbard writes in Ethics of Liberty:
“Suppose that Smith makes the following agreement with the Jones Corporation: that Smith, for the rest of his life, will obey all orders, under whatever conditions, that the Jones Corporation wishes to lay down. Now, in libertarian theory there is nothing to prevent Smith from making this agreement, and from serving the Jones Corporation and from obeying the latter’s orders indefinitely. the problem comes when, at some later date, Smith changes his mind and decides to leave. Shall he be held to his former voluntary promise? Our contention -- and one which is fortunately upheld under present law -- is that Smith’s promise was not a valid (i.e., not an enforceable) contract. there is no transfer of title in Smith’s agreement because Smith’s control over his own body and will are inalienable. Since that control cannot be alienated, the agreement was not a valid contract, and therefore should not be enforceable. Smith’s agreement was a mere promise, which it might be held he is morally obligated to keep, but which should not be legally obligatory.”
Dr. Walter Block replies that he loves freedom even more than Rothbard:
The difficulty here is that while it may be readily conceded that a man necessarily has control over his will, this certainly does not apply to his body, as slavery, imprisonment, kidnapping, rape, murder, etc., eloquently attest. The point is, libertarian advocates of contract obligations such as myself do not maintain that the will must be turned over to the (voluntary) slaveowner, only that this should apply to the body. Hence, the courts should determine that when Smith run’s away from the justifiable control of the Jones Corporation, he is in effect stealing a valuable piece of property belonging to the latter. Smith can keep his will, and bad cess to him for being a robber (of Jones). What he cannot keep, under libertarian law in my view, is his body. That being the case, it is the obligation of the court to turn over the run away slave Smith back to the proper physical control of Jones.
Doesn't this sound like a great society to live in?
I think Block has a point. Rothbard arbitrarily assumes that one type of contract can be broken in a libertarian society. Or that anything can't be sold or alienated according to libertarianism. Suppose a company could turn a man into a zombie by removing a chunk of his brain or inserting an implant, why shouldn't that be allowed? The employee could undergo this procedure before beginning his slavery time. That would be him alienating his will along with the body.
Also if libertarians believe that assisted suicide is justified on some self-ownership principle, I don't see what is then wrong with permanent slavery under the same principle. In fact, you could go one step further, and Block has, with having 'murder parks' wherein people can murder each other voluntarily. If this is possible, and it seems correct, I don't see why a libertarian slaveowner could not just kill you. Or set conditions in which he can terminate your life such as not meeting productivity demands or being too old. The possibilities are endless. Because freedom.
Also, I don't see why you should be able to change your mind anymore than you should be entitled to a refund for any exchange. In the absolutist free market this definitely would not be the case that you could go back any exchange you want. The exchange was about the condition or desire when the contract was made. It's possible that Anarcho-mart can take your stupid video games or whatever. But they aren't going to let their slaves go.
}}