Message from @Gservator
Discord ID: 614285779123961868
I know some ancaps are larpy edgibois and like to play into the strawman meme for chuckles, and it can be difficult to know what people actually believe without context or tone
Even though
Like
Inherent self-ownership is a fundamental concept in ancap theory that I know of
TBH I disregard the idea of any silly poitical view being seriously held by anyone unless it's directly associated with someone using their actual identity. Otherwise it's probably a troll.
Voluntary servitude
There seem to be two general camps on this. One is that self-ownershop is non-transferable under any condition, and one that you can still *lease* out your services under contractual obligation, which could be argued to be equivalent to slavery in function, but would require that the contract is entered voluntarily at some point.
This is trade, not slavery
Historians would disagree
essentially, it's "slavery" after the same fashion as employment is "slavery"
Perhaps define servitude as you mean it here
but the circumstance and conditions of it can be expanded to be pretty bad, depending on what's acceptable for terms of contract
To be certain we are referring to the same exact thing
Voluntarily becoming a slave for someone to fulfil a task for X amount of time to pay something off
@Gservator I'm speaking specifically of ancap philosophy on self-ownership, not broad historical opinions
@Miniature Menace I'm not talking to you
@Gservator "Historians would disagree"
This is not you talking to me then? Okay.
Yeah, I am certain there is a point of promised service where it crosses the line of trade to what amounts to slavery
Way too tired to really consider the nuance of where that is right now, though
So, historians would disagree with voluntary servitude being excluded from slavery?
Yes
I was mostly remarking upon that the accusation that the libertarian-right is okay with slavery or some shit is apparently not such a baseless accusation as I thought
Even if inaccurate, there is reasonable basis to think that if those are the ones that they have seen
Granted, I consider myself neutral/indifferent to the liberal/conservative axis
Well, first, I get the impression that there would likely already be a factor of duress, for someone to take this deal. And second, that's just an employment contract with your body as collateral.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Beans were the currency in the Aztec empire
So in mexico you are worth a number of beans
Human beangs
*Real* human beans
Boo
*human **beans***
I think the thing I liked about Aztecs is the fact that sacrifices weren't killed immediately, they spent a month in a chamber to partake in drugs and sex being treated as a celebrity and then got sacrificed
Which ones chiefly sacrificed war prisoners?
What you mean
Like, of the south/central american tribes
All of them depending on era
Mayas, Incans, Aztecs
Idk which one
Okay
Probably what he said
iirc the pyramids wheren't actually built by slaves...